Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TfD)
"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 Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 1 27 28
TfD 0 0 0 26 26
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 1 5 9 15
RfD 0 0 1 31 32
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
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_October_21#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]

October 21

[edit]

Template:Infobox settlement/pref

[edit]

Unused sub templates of {{Infobox settlement}}. Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- code now ported over to Lua. Only useful for historical comparisons. — hike395 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Silver Streak (bus)

[edit]

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

Template:Infobox Lions tour

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Lions tour with Template:Infobox rugby union tour.
This is basically a duplicate of {{Infobox rugby union tour}} customized to work for ONE team. That's absurd... You don't create a custom infobox for one team. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

[edit]

Template:LDS Temple

[edit]

Propose merging Template:LDS Temple subpages with Template:Infobox LDS Temple.
Ok this is a REALLY weird one, so please read carefully... Every single transclusion of this template, has its own (single use) subpage. This means that if I want to update the information for the infobox on Asunción Paraguay Temple (for example) I have to go to Template:LDS Temple/Asunción Paraguay Temple.

It appears that this was done so that the data could be copied from the infobox to List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and similar lists) with ease. This is just a terrible practice. I think with Wikidata being a thing, THAT should be the way to do this.

To be clear this will NOT be an easy transition, but I think it needs to be done. Maintaining Infoboxes this way is just terrible practice. These should all be replaced with actual calls to {{Infobox LDS Temple}} with the data passed to parameters on the article page, just like how literally every other Infobox is done. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless you can show that the entire family of templates will continue to work. The system is quite intricate. Please look for previous TFD nominations of LDS Temple–related templates for links showing the complexity of this family. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Moran

[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; deleted as G5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One related blue link in the body. There's not enough to justify a navbox for the subject. DB1729talk 20:29, 20 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:Akiva Schaffer albums

[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; deleted as G5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The alleged albums are not even mentioned at Akiva Schaffer, let alone notable enough to have articles. Not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:11, 21 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:NZ election

[edit]

We shouldn't be creating a template for each country. Template:Current election is enough here. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The main point of this template is to explain to both editors and readers when those elected will take office, i. e. the day after the final results are declared. That stops overly eager editors showing the mayors-elect as having succeeded the incumbents, for example. I created the template based on this discussion. Schwede66 16:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While I agree with Gonnym that we do not want a template for each country, I don't think {{Current election}} works here. What we need is a template that says This page is affect by the results of a recent election or similar. {{Current election}} (in its current form) is really for articles specifically about a certain election. I'd argue find a way to either merge the two, OR abstract this one out into a new tempalte that works globally, not just in New Zealand. How about a {{Recent election}} that would essentially combine aspects of {{Recent death}} and {{current election}}? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hockey season stats note/sandbox/styles.css

[edit]

Consensus to not use new format for this template. Stylesheet not necessary. MikeVitale 14:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite peakbagger

[edit]

I do not think that peakbagger.com meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source since it allows user generated content (for example see here where the website states that the information was provided by a registered user). While the content is labeled as "provisional" before it's approved by peakbagger.com admin, the site is run by one guy called Greg Slayden so it shouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway. Wilderness trespasser (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There was a very extensive discussion about the reliability of peakbagger at the Reliable Source Noticeboard in 2021, resulting in "no consensus". My argument at the time was that peakbagger was used by other reliable sources. But I don't think we should relitigate this here. This template should be kept because it is used on 5,300 pages and if we delete this template, it will leave thousands of pages with unreferenced data.
Instead, I think the original proposer should bring this up at WP:RSN and see if we can get consensus, and if the consensus is that it is not reliable, come up with a plan for how to remove the data. Simply deleting this template is not the way to do it. — hike395 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asesino

[edit]

Both albums are non-notable redirects to the band's article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of value here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 19

[edit]

Template:Palestinian leaders

[edit]

Similar to Hamas history and Hamas Group. Unncessary template. Created by a banned user for sockpupptery but this is really article content on template space and violates Wikipedia:TG. If you want history of Hamas, you can view the articles. A template is not meant to carry this sort of information. It states Hamas biographies on the top of the sidebar and that already implies this is not a template for navigation but for details that go on an article. This template's scope is still unclear and not really suitable for what templates are for. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the template is way too overarching to be usable to begin with. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 12:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox schilderij

[edit]

Single use template, not an appropriate use of an infobox template. Not sure what the intention was here, possible a test? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LAT e

[edit]

Unused. A red link along with a link to the Latvian Wikipedia. No usage here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:29, 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) 21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General algebra

[edit]

We already have an Algebra navbox. No need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Algebra page has no navbox at the top unlike the geometry or mathematics page so I though I should add one since the algebra page looked unfinished without one. If you could help me find a preexisting navbox for this purpose that would be excellent. I named my navbox General algebra by analogy to the navbox General geometry. I don't mind if there is a better option but the Algebra page deserves a navbox near the top just as much as the geometry page. Redfoxtaily (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Navboxes go on the bottom. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is some terminology I haven't learned yet, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry there are nice boxes for Geometry and Mathematics series topics near the top of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra does not have these boxes so that is what I was trying to add. Its seems like the algebra page deserves to have boxes like that near the top of its page just like the geometry page. I looked but could not find a algebra template equivalent to the General geometry template for algebra. Also, I don't get why you removed the Part of a series on Mathematics template link since that is standard practice to include it in major math articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why these additions I made to the algebra page were wrong. Redfoxtaily (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to sidebars. You should learn what these are before creating them. I did not remove anything. This is unused and not needed. The edit summary states why. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know they are called sidebars. But is there a good reason for the Algebra page not to have sidebars? I could accept if you just think I must have a sidebar perfect before publishing one. But at any rate I'm not aware of any good algebra sidebar template. Redfoxtaily (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: It's a valid question as to why the Algebra article doesn't have sidebars comparable to the Geometry article (and other mathematics articles). Perhaps you could give suggestions rather than just criticize/antagonize? BetsyRogers (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary is linked above. Maybe read the discussion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deputy Speakers of the Philippine House of Representatives timeline

[edit]

Unused and unnecessary timelines. We already have an article for this and has a complete list for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:41, 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]

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]

Template:Votes of no confidence in France

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions and links to only two distinct articles in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of albums containing a hidden track Nav Box

[edit]

No transclusions after all of the linked articles were merged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vv

[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. Creator tagged with CSD G7. Rusalkii (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. All it contains is the letter "w". 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And at this point I'm starting to think this editor needs a topic ban from the template namespace for creating these pointless templates. Gonnym (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seriously, thank you for reminding me i am a terrible creature with not good ideas and i should've just kept every single one of my stupid templates in userspace Oreocooke (talk) 18:55, 19 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:Hard 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 delete. Creator tagged with CSD G7. Rusalkii (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect serves no purpose. Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was just about to nominate this one myself. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:46, 19 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:Dabsd

[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 speedy delete. WP:G7 requested by creator. Toadspike [Talk] 23:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. Template:Disambiguation automatically adds this as a short description. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also The notice at Template:Short description: Please do not use redirects/shortcuts for this template. Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 19 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 baseball team/styles.css

[edit]

Unused as the infobox uses Template:Infobox/mobileviewfix.css. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox anthem/styles.css

[edit]

Unused as the infobox uses Template:Infobox/mobileviewfix.css instead. Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{Death date and age}}. 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]

Template:Tennis result color

[edit]

Also to be deleted along with {{Tennis round color}}. Replaced with template styles function in {{Tennis sm match}}..waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lewis Hamilton series

[edit]

Only 3 mainspace transclusions. Doesn't actually provide much helpful information to the reader. I don't believe there are enough articles in this 'Series' to warrant a sidebar. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MB2437 19:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

[edit]

Template:Violence against Buddhists

[edit]

Per the discussion from the October 10 Tfd of similar templates. The articles linked in these three sidebars are better suited to categories, which allow overlap, subdivision, and more nuance. Also all articles in these templates are already covered by a category related to the scope of the subject matter. For instance, the article, Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent, from the Violence against Buddhists template is not really related to just violence, but also other factors. That would constitute an OR or synth addition to the template.

Pinging users from that discussion if they are interested in taking part in this discussion. Vanamonde93, EarthDude, RegentsPark, UnpetitproleX WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe these are too broad to be useful navboxes. I think it would be better to replace them with categories. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my statements at the previous TfD. I don't believe the violence against Dalits template should be grouped with these - as a collection about caste-based violence, the issues are somewhat different, but I do ultimately support its deletion as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saban Universe

[edit]

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]

Template:Vietnam Television image navigator

[edit]

Unused and is just duplicating the function of navbox Template:Vietnam Television. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This template is worse than using regular links. If you want to remove disambiguation from the display, you can just use the WP:PIPETRICK. For anything else, a regular link edit will be faster than this. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, pointless templates add to WP:PEIS. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Details?  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to every single delete !vote does not help your case. I don't have anything more to say; I was convinced by Gonnym's case for deletion, and saw nothing more to add to it. And am still not convinced by your rebuttal. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering it is my work that is on trial, it is in my interest to find out why each editor doesn't like it.
    "per nom" could mean you are a deletionist that spent 2 seconds on it and did an automatic "delete". Or it could mean you spent considerable thought on it. Without details there is no dialogue and no hope of resolution.
    Similarly "not convinced by your rebuttal" is no dialogue and there is no hope for resolution. Are you just giving automatic "templates are evil" type votes. Or is there something that I might be able to fix or some reasoning that might convince me that I am on the wrong path? Details are so helpful in a meaningful conversation.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tholme (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Details?  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not pointless. I made it to address an issue I have seen a lot in car articles that has been bugging me for years.
    In car articles we often find wiki markup like "Toyota made the [[Toyota Celica|Celica]], [[Toyota Corolla|Corolla]], (long list of other car models ...) and [[Toyota 86|86]]".
    Or in many articles (eg Toyota Celica (A20) we see markup like "The Celica was based on the same floorplan as the [[Toyota Carina (A20)|Carina]]".
    In both cases the pipe trick works but involves duplication of the model names. Anything that is duplicated runs the risk of typing mistakes. There is the tedium of entering it twice. And it is awkward to read when editing manually.
    Compare the first example above using the new template: "Toyota made the {{short link|Toyota|Celica}}, {{short link|Toyota|Corolla}}, (long list ...) and {{short link|Toyota|86}}".
    Compare the 2nd example above: "The Celica was based on the same floorplan as the {{short link|Toyota|Carina|(A20)}}".
    They display only the shortened model names (ie with the manufacturer and model codes trimmed off) but are reasonably natural to read in the markup. The pipe versions are not natural to read in the markup.  Stepho  talk  03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find reading regular text much clearer than split text in a template. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. But compared to what? I find find repeated text hard to read hard to read. The competing forms are:
    "Toyota made the [[Toyota Celica|Celica]] and [[Toyota Corolla|Corolla]]."
    "Toyota made the {{short link|Toyota|Celica}} and {{short link|Toyota|Corolla}}."
    I find the short link form easier to read.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For editors who like spaces, the following also work:
    "Toyota made the {{short link| Toyota| Celica}} and {{short link| Toyota| Corolla}}."
    "Toyota made the {{short link | Toyota | Celica}} and {{short link | Toyota | Corolla}}."  Stepho  talk  00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can see how this template would be useful in situations where you need to link to car models, as Stepho says, and other instances where you need to trim down a link for something in the middle. It might have limited utility, but for me it seems useful enough and removing it would not result in a significant improvement to the wiki. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there are limited applications for it, I can see the usefulness in those cases. WP:PEIS isn't much of an argument - a handful of these are amount to little in that respect. --Sable232 (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Templates should be used where they actually aid. This does not. (See also MOS:MARKUP where I would assert this is making wikitext more complicated without good cause.) Izno (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bare URL inline

[edit]

It's annoying when drive-by editors tag bomb pages with this template. In the 1 minute it took them to type this template out, they could've just clicked "Convert" in VisualEditor. It's also redundant to insource:"ref https" insource:/ref>https/ or insource:"ref http" insource:/ref>http/. Keep {{Bare URL PDF}} as the fix isn't as easy. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 7,200 transclusions shows that this template is widely used. It doesn't take 1 minute to type this template, however, I'm sure that clicking convert takes much longer. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gonnym. And, as we all know, Citoid-based tools like VE convert aren't perfect. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template serves the important purpose of notifying other users of errors with these marked citations when one editor does not have the time to do that. I agree with @Pppery that automatic citation generation tools are usually not perfect and it is best to have someone check over their results, which this template is asking for. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 17

[edit]

Template:Marcos Pérez Jiménez sidebar

[edit]

Unused sidebar template with at least one incorrect link (Direction – Social Democracy is an article about a Slovak party), one double link (Tiempos de dictadura) and two links with no obvious connection to Marcos Pérez Jiménez (Venezuelan banking crisis of 1994 and Operación Canguro). Pichpich (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template:Japan prefectures population/Fluctuation

[edit]

Unused population table. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current defence ministers

[edit]

While these navigation templates have a topic article, I don't think these group of items are ones that users are going to want to navigate to as there isn't really anything else on common for example, between the current defense minister of Saint Lucia and the one from Laos. As such, these just add clutter to the navigation template section of articles. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 United States Senate elections imagemap

[edit]

Unused imagemap template. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Rhode Island Route 238

[edit]

Unused as Rhode Island Route 238 was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BRICS-Heads of government

[edit]

Unused. Links are present at Template:BRICS. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite EB15/title check

[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 Moved without redirect to User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Cite EB15/title check with comment "Save in user space subpage until I'mready for it." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still unused 2 years after its creation. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 17 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:Lock star

[edit]

Pointless "award" with no actual merit and with text that is intentionally hard to read. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leaders of dependent territories by year

[edit]

Unused navbox. All article linked from it have been deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/BackupHDDVD

[edit]

Unused software release version templates. If any are restored during this TfD, let me know and I'll strike from the list. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to recover BackupHDDVD, Gemini, Jira, and SharePoint ones. They got dereferenced either because of edit warring or someone changing |name= in the caller template. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those fixes, I'll strike them from the list. Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eduardogobi Jira and SharePoint are still unused. --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym The Jira one can be safely deleted as I have fully migrated its content. SharePoint, however, is actually being transcluded to SharePoint (you can even see the deletion message on the infobox), but this transclusion isn't being shown in Special:WhatLinksHere... Do you have any idea what's going on with this one? ―Eduardogobi (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NorthPort Batang Pier current roster

[edit]

Unused as the team has been sold. Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NorthPort Batang Pier roster

[edit]

Unused after being added directly to the article with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peer review list entry

[edit]

Unused. {{Peer review entry}} is the one used instead. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skyscrapers in Frankfurt Map

[edit]

Unused map template. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secunia

[edit]

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Northern Cyprus

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RC Arbaâ squad

[edit]

Template without any players. Svartner (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty template. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 16

[edit]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Papua New Guinea

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Timor-Leste

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Kyrgyzstan

[edit]

Only 1 entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 17 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]

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]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Zambia

[edit]

Only 1 entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Cameroon

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Mauritius

[edit]

With only 1 English entry, not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subscription or advertising

[edit]

A year +later, this template remains unused and redundant with {{subscription}}. Serves literally no purpose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered advertising? Regular ads? Are there commercial websites without ads? Should we tag 90% of the sources with this? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename to {{Adscription}}.
Are there commercial websites without ads? There are if you have an adblocker. Some sites have an adblocker-blocker.
It's fairly common, and and increasingly so, for websites used by ordinary people to have an adscription policy, that is to insist on either allowing the display of advertisements (and/or permission to use cookies ) , or to subscribe to a paid service. The fact that this is unused probably means that someone has removed it from an article, and that people are not aware of its existence.
One example is the Independent, formerly a significant UK newspaper. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
But what value does it give to our readers to know that the website has ads? Almost all sites have ads. Telling our readers the site requires subscription means that the source might not be available to them to even read. That isn't the case with ads. Is there something I'm missing here? Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the website will block your access if you have an adblocker. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Burundi

[edit]

A template with 1 entry is not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 15

[edit]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Senegal

[edit]

A template with only 1 English entry is not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should only have en.wiki article links. Nothing to navigate to here. Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 14

[edit]

Template:Colorado Springs, Colorado

[edit]

Redundant due to Template:Colorado Springs. Used on only two pages. Geracruzcolusa (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geracruzcolusa, I respect your opinion and expressing it, this one is a School template and serves an educational purpose in regards to School articles, please again feel free to disagree and share your thoughts. Tokeamour (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on expanding this to more School articles overtime. Tokeamour (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is based on a template known as Template:Alameda County, California Schools Tokeamour (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong one moment. Tokeamour (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pleasanton, California Tokeamour (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template mentioned by user who expressed their concerns respectfully does not even mention any of the schools in this one from my knowledge. Tokeamour (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It only mentions colleges in Colorado Springs. Tokeamour (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geracruzcolusa Above is the list of my concerns to your argument. Tokeamour (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your template has a broader scope than just articles on education, with sections for landmarks, transit, etc. The original template has an Education section which currently just has universities, but you can add our local schools/districts to it. For navigating between schools, Template:Colorado Pikes Peak region schools is already on all those pages. On a side note, I greatly appreciate your work on the Cheyenne Mountain High School page and hope your GA review is going well! Geracruzcolusa (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geracruzcolusa, Understandable please expand further. Tokeamour (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the compliment! Tokeamour (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like your ideas so much! Tokeamour (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we merge it (with some stuff deleted) Tokeamour (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geracruzcolusa To extend further I trust your judgment on deleting it. Tokeamour (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove it from the article so it doesn't screw up the review, and put the other one. Tokeamour (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. We should probably do that with your other new template too, Template:El Paso County, Colorado Schools. It is also redundant due to Template:Colorado Pikes Peak region schools. There was a deletion discussion on a similar template for Pueblo County a couple of months ago with that consensus Geracruzcolusa (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood put it up for discussion and I'll just say yes so it is faster. Tokeamour (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! Tokeamour (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to move some information over later today and into tomorrow, Tokeamour (talk) 21:51, 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) 21:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope for both navboxes is "Colorado Springs, Colorado", as such they redundant to each other. While not a question here, the end template name should be "Colorado Springs, Colorado" to match the article name. Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Twitch streamer/sandbox

[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; deleted by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An admin decided that declining a standard speedy is the correct way. These are sub-pages of a page that was converted to a redirect. These are not needed. These should not be converted to pointless redirects. These should be just deleted as is standard.. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Standard speedies" are those described at WP:SD, which does not include "subpages of merged templates". Admins are commonly criticised when we delete things not covered by the written criteria, so if it is standard practice to speedy these pages although the page they depend on exists (even if as a redirect) then this should be added to the criteria. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly. The decline was correct and TFD is the correct venue for deletion. Procedural issues dealt with, it is fairly safe to say that following the redirection they are no longer necessary and can be deleted. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 15:52, 14 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 13

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]

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]

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]

Template:Uw-archive

[edit]

At first I considered updating this template could fix its problems, please see Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-archive

However, the more I think about it, the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates.

After all, the guideline (WP:OWNTALK) specifically states "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." and it also states "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." (Back in 2016 when this template was created, the guideline was not clear on whether the 75K limit then in effect for regular talk pages applied to user talk pages as well. Some editors probably did interpret it that way. More specifically, the guideline did not have anything resembling today's clear language)

But if we remove the "officialness" of a user warning, we remove any specific requirements, we remove "you need to archive"... what's even left?

{{please archive}} is what's left, I say. Which is why I'm nominating this template for deletion. It appears to be wholly and fully redundant and non-compliant.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (added 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)): Me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Our guidelines quite clearly say: The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. To me that means we should use a template that in no way implies the user has done anything wrong, such as {{Please archive}}. Please don't oppose this nomination because you disagree with WP:OWNTALK. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please take into account that both for this TfD and the one five years ago, both !votes did not address the causes for nomination, and/or based their !votes on irrelevant criteria. The closer of the 2020 TfD appeared to ignore the poor relevance to the nominated action by the goven !votes. At the very least, I suggest a relist to gain actually on-topic !votes. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update, as the nominator himself had as a first instinct. Whether it's user talk, article talk, other area talk, or all talk pages in general, the issue of large sizes is an issue that should be avoided (some user talk pages are hundreds of thousands of bytes in size, are extremely slow to load are just ridiculous to navigate), and if this template is reworded to suggest archiving in a manner more palatable to the nominator, that is better than nothing. - \\'cԼF 10:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (note: same user nominated this same tfd 5 years ago to the day, and quite resolutely at that. Just the same, the outcome was "keep", and there were several very vaild points made to support that conclusion that still apply today, while not much was offerred in support of deletion. fyi - \\'cԼF 10:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    • Comment First off, that older TfC only got two comments. Both ignored how this template is solely meant for user talk space, at least initially. And now you too include talk page size issues in general? Secondly, our guidelines have changed since that last TfD, so I believe having a new discussion is perfectly reasonable. (I repeatedly tried to have the guideline updated, but apparently discussing it first instead of just making the change was my mistake) Thirdly, why do you say "better than nothing" when I quite specifically point out there already exist an alternative that seemingly avoid all the problems of this template I have brought up? Can you go into more detail about what value you feel this template offers over Please archive, User:Thewolfchild, and what updates you would make if this template remains? I'm asking because, as stated, I don't see how there will be anything left if we address all the issues listed for this template. CapnZapp (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2. The following is copied verbatim from the talk page to keep everything centralized Because after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, what specific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !vote keep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are suggesting that talk page length doesn't matter, it seems that you are talking from a place of being lucky enough to have a new and fast computer and thus having it not matter to you. For those who aren't lucky enough to have one, it does indeed matter and should be called out. I would also assume that an incredibly long talk page would be a challenge for those who require assistive technology. Wikipedia should endeavor to be more, rather than less, accessible, and suggesting that the very slight "offense" taken by people who cannot set up an incredibly basic archive system is more important is a bit ridiculous to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your !vote, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. However, you appear to post based on "this template is what keeps user talk pages from being overly long" (I could be wrong). You do not address my concerns with the template: guidelines no longer warrant an user warning, as opposed to a normal ask - and we already have a template for politely asking users to trim their user pages: Please archive. That is, me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors such as yourself asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Keeping this template would assume you are arguing there is still a case to be made for warning (or notifying) users. I don't see that's the argument you're making, but if you are: on what are you basing this? What makes you want to keep this template as opposed to using {{Please archive}} or just a personalized message? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do admit that I misinterpreted the purpose of the nomination. Nevertheless, I don't think Please archive is as good because it doesn't point to the Wikipedia guidelines. Pointing to the guidelines is important to show that it's a policy and not just a personal opinion. If one is to be deleted, the text of this one should be copied over to Please archive instead.
    I also think the exact page size guideline being removed because of A single discussion by a few editors on the talk page is ludicrous on its face. It should be a Village pump discussion with a guideline this longstanding and prominent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Let's just say it together now: it isn't a policy! All right? :-) (the whole reason for my nom is precisely because this template is created on the assumption the user is warned/notified about policy, and now that this is gone, any template that asks you to trim your talk should be clearly seen to be a personal preference ask!) You are free to contest any change, but please, don't let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. If you do start an RfC or somesuch, I guess you can ask for this TfD to be postponed until such time a consensus has been hashed out, but not sure how the TfD community feels about that strategy for delaying TfDs? Maybe better is for this TfD to run its course. Templates can after all always be undeleted if that is what the community wants. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It essentially is a policy. "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." These exceptions are fairly narrow and generally speaking one is expected to abide by it. It's not considered fully optional like, say, a highly opinionated essay might be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that the guideline used to be even more specific and in line with this template, but it was unilaterally removed by a group of editors working solely on that page. Right now it is continued to be removed for the reasons of "maintaining the status quo" even though it was changed from its decade+ long status quo fairly recently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We appear to misunderstand each other, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. In no way did I mean to argue OWNTALK isn't official guidelines. I was instead telling you that the guideline no longer contains the 75K limit. That is what I meant by "it isn't a policy". It used to be, it no longer is. Historic guidelines no longer active are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. You appear to base your !vote on disagreeing with the current guideline. That is not appropriate. If you want the guideline changed, go fight for that. If you want it more widely discussed, go set up that wider discussion. In the meanwhile, though, please base your !vote on the fact that there is no limit set by the guideline. I would not nominate this template for deletion had the guideline not been changed. But it has been changed, which is why I consider a user warning or notification template to no longer be appropriate, hence this discussion. Once more I am asking you to not let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The change to the longstanding guideline was bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements, so it is absolutely relevant to changing this template as well. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people aren't obliged to start a domino chain of major changes simply because of an order "from the top" that may or may not be correct. It's worth it to go back and ensure that the removal of the idea of a page size limit is actually beneficial to users or whether it is the product of someone assuming that their setup is representative of all Wikipedia users. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree with "bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements" I'm not preventing you from taking steps to further change the guideline. But for the purposes of this TfD it is not unreasonable to assume the guideline is as written. I'm not nominating this template on a whim - the current guideline has been stable for 7 months. Please do not base your !vote here on disagreements about the underlying guidelines. Can I ask you to reevaluate your !vote based on the guidelines that exist, rather than the guidelines you want to have, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm - FlightTime (open channel) 18:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Can I ask you to specify which of Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments you base your "per" rationale on, User:FlightTime? Because I can't pick up any hints you saw how I have tried to point out how little relevance their arguments have, and how they both appear to ignore the actual circumstances that I based my nomination on. Super-quick summary: This discussion covers user talk space only. Changes to our guideline makes a user warning template inappropriate. If you dislike the change to that guideline !voting "keep" is the wrong way to go about that - the guideline has achieved consensus and been stable for several months. We already have a template politely asking users to archive their talk pages. If you disagree with any of my objections, it would be helpful if you addressed them. Alternatively, if it is easier for you, maybe you'll simply give the closer a bit more detail on your reasoning for your !vote without relying on Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: Sure, all of their comments. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasoning for deletion, as far as I can tell, comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT that the language used in the uw- series of templates is a little more "official"-sounding and that "uw" stands for "user warning" even though it also encompasses informational notices. The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative {{please archive}}. If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline, that's an easy fix for the template. I also caution the nominator against WP:BLUDGEONING based on the above discussion. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative {{please archive}} What do you mean by "even", Anomie? I quite specifically am arguing that {{Please archive}} contains the right amount of "do this" which is no amount at all. The guideline changed. It now quite specifically tells us that the length of user talk is entirely up to the editor. This means any user warning or notice template is entirely inappropriate. Insofar as us having a template at all (WP:DTR and all) the template we do keep should be outside the "uw-" group of templates. CapnZapp (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you apparently don't disagree with the idea of a template about this, you've apparently decided you don't like this specific title for some poorly expressed reason. You're also continuing to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Anomie⚔ 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote ...the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates I find it genuinely unfortunate if you find this "poorly expressed", Anomie and I wish I had chosen wording you would have found better or more easy to understand. You are correct I do not disagree with having *a* template for asking users to consider archiving (I'm not TfD'ing {{Please archive}} after all). If this realization makes you reconsider your !vote, that'd be helpful. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This commenter appears to be another one that base their !vote on disagreeing with guideline, which is not appropriate. I will however ping User:Anomie: Please correct me if this isn't an accurate reading of you saying If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline. In short, if there weren't consensus, we wouldn't be here now - I obviously waited to see whether the guideline change would be stable before making this nom. CapnZapp (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or the result of WP:ATTRITION. I'm not going to dig into the guideline's archives enough to determine that for myself, hence the qualified statement. Anomie⚔ 21:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both this and Template:Please archive are redundant and we should have one single template notice. However, WP:OWNTALK says this: User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier an extremely long talk page hinders that. Large pages take longer to load and sometimes even can cause the browser to stop responding. Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Gonnym, no template in the world can force users to do anything. Second, in the very few cases the user's page gets so long it breaks browsers(!) a more personal approach is definitely warranted. Either way, templates in the user warning and notices group are issued based on the assumption action will eventually be enforced. But as long as WP:USERTALKSIZE states The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. having a "uw-" template feels inappropriate. There just isn't anything to comply with since the guideline change. CapnZapp (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather an annoying template be added to a user's talk page letting them know that their actions cause problems and they should fix it. And as I stated, long talk pages do fail the guideline. That the guideline itself contradicts itself between two paragraphs, that is a different issue. You choose to follow one part, I choose the other. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say "possibly" because at this time, it is not entirely clear whether the RFC creator is targeting WP:TALKSIZE, WP:USERTALKSIZE or both. This TfD is of course relevant only to user talk space. I've left a message to the RFC creator asking they clarify their RFC. CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 20 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]

Template:Motorcycle speedway tracks

[edit]

This Navbox is MASSIVE and IMHO far too large and too broad to be useful or helpful. I also would argue that it violates principals of WP:NAVBOX. Namely 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. as well as 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix, I have split the templates into templates per country leaving just the UK nations. MaugerFundin (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaugerFundin: stellar!! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IBA recipe

[edit]

Following the merger of Template:Infobox cocktail to Template:Infobox drink this is now unused. While there is an article for International Bartenders Association I do not think this needs its own template. While it may not technically violate WP:EL, it is behind a you must be 18 or older to view this page pop up, which I would argue violates the spirit of WP:EL. Obviously nothing to stop anyone from manually adding a link to the IBA on the article page or a reference. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFL CF

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in April 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I remember correctly, it was used on 2000 VFL season until the incomplete home-and-away matches section was removed; it will be used again when I or another editor finished said section and I can add it to the season's ladder (alongside other templates) in the interim. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend merging all of these VFL templates into a single template with a switch statement, like {{Australian Football League team}}, which will avoid this issue in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point – don't disagree! Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create a meta template if needed. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Template:Triglyceride convert

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SongContestTableRow/history-list

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. This is a WIP. — TheThomanski | t | c | please ping me when replying! 13:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete. WIP do not belong in user-facing namespaces. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not supposed to become a user template, can we please stop with this bureaucratic nonsense — TheThomanski | t | c | please ping me when replying! 14:37, 17 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]

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]

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]
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]

Template:Chinzah family tree

[edit]

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

Used now in Hausata, and will continue to be used for Draft:Dokulha. Taitesena (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only on one article and serves no navigational benefit. And proposed future use is Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 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) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Later with Bob Costas episodes

[edit]

Single use template. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 5 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]

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]

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]

Template:Accessibility editnotice

[edit]

Unused; and rightly so. The implication that people with no sight should be able to access articles about visual impairment, but not, say, Beethoven or pregnancy, is deeply misguided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template has about 250 uses, so the nominator is mistaken that it is unused. Of course visually impaired editors should be able to access all articles, but we have limited editorial resources, as evidenced by e.g. the fact that we don't have alt text for 100% of the images we use. And common sense dictates that visually impaired editors are more likely than the average reader to be interested in topics like Visual impairment given its direct relevance to their lives. This makes it, as the template says, particularly important (not "only important") to follow accessibility best practices there. This editnotice provides a helpful reminder of that. Sdkb talk 14:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, on looking at the template, I see that its wording had changed since I'd last visited it: @Waddie96 changed , so it is especially important that it conform to the guideline to and must adhere to the guidelines. It is entirely understandable that you'd object to the template with the changed wording, @Pigsonthewing, as I do too; it indeed implied that other articles do not also need to be accessible. I have reverted back to the "especially important" wording, which is hopefully a better ATD. Sdkb talk 14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unused on articles or talk pages, where I expected for find it, I now see that it is used on other templates.
    Contrary to your edit summary it was not the reverted wording specifically which prompted this deletion proposal.
    The point remains that it is not for us to decide which articles are most of interest to certain users; and it is equally important that accessibility measures are applied to all articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an editnotice; those are always going to be in templates.
    I'd love to be in a world in which everyone abided by accessibility guidelines all the time, no matter how cumbersome, but that's a fantasyland. In the practical realm, I would be surprised if you've included alt text with every single image you've ever added to an article, and even if you have, 99% of other editors have not. What this notice does is, for an editor in the process of editing an article like visual impairment, give them a nudge so that they think, "oh, I normally don't bother adding alt text, but for this article where it's especially important I guess I will". Or, "I've never heard of these accessibility guidelines before, but it seems especially important for this article, so I'll take this opportunity to check them out." That's a useful nudge (and it might even get them in habit of abiding by the guidelines more generally once they realize it's not hard). Sdkb talk 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sdkb — articles about disabilities should at least be readable by those with said disabilities. It is quite reasonable that there be a notice for such cases. --Opecuted (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be readable, but that doesn't require an editor-facing edit notice because it should be the default for all articles. Izno (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Arguments with aliases

[edit]

Unnecessary fork. In it's only usage, the aliases are mostly handled before even being sent here. But even if this functionality was needed, duplicating Module:Arguments just for this is bad coding. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The existing Module:Arguments does not actually support aliases; it only handles translation in a somewhat limited and buggy way. However, proper alias support is a very pressing need. Many widely used modules already implement aliases on their own in different ways – for example, Module:Citation/CS1.
Since aliases are present in a large number of templates and modules, the lack of alias handling in Module:Arguments is a serious shortcoming. TemplateData itself includes explicit support for aliases, which further highlights how essential this feature is.
As for the question of why we need a new module instead of simply modifying the existing Module:Arguments: the reason is that Module:Arguments is embedded in a very large number of other modules. Getting consensus to directly change such a widely transcluded core module would not be easy. A safer and more practical approach is to develop this functionality in a separate module first, and once we are confident it is stable and reliable, it could eventually be merged into the main Module:Arguments.
For these reasons, I believe this new module serves a necessary purpose and should be kept
حبيشان (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding how to properly modify a module, go through the proper channels (or even best practices), is not a reason to fork a module and add maintenance burden to the entire community. I also don't find your code to actually save any time on the front end as you already handle the alias at Module:Abyat#L-1. Instead of doing duplicate work, just do args.width = args.width or args.width2 or args.width3 and then you don't need to handle alt names. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Module:Abyat seems to have a dependence on this, so relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assassination of presidents of the United States

[edit]

There are too few entries to be useful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Template:Assassination attempts on presidents of the United States into it or the reverse, but separate them into successful and unsuccessful sections. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 17:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abyat

[edit]

This recently-ish created template and module can be replaced with any one of the templates listed Template:Quotation templates. We don't need language-specific versions. If those templates are lacking, then the issue should be raised and fixed for all languages. Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe this template still fulfills a unique need. Arabic and Persian poetry follow a very specific and distinct formatting tradition that differs considerably from how most English or Western poetry is laid out. None of the existing quotation templates in Template:Quotation templates list can reproduce Arabic and Persian verse with the same accuracy and professionalism.
This is also the reason why Wikipedia has multiple quotation-related templates in the first place: no single template can accommodate every quotation style or requirement. In the same way, Template:Abyat was created to address the :particular formatting needs of Arabic and Persian poetry, which otherwise remain unsupported.
For this reason, I believe the template continues to serve a necessary and valid purpose. to see how Abyat serve Arabic poem quotation see Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Abyat.
حبيشان (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The templates we have can and do work perfectly fine. Also, we should never have templates or modules that expect non-English parameter names or have non-English code. If language support is needed for any given template, it should be brought up on that template's talk page. We've been reducing the language-unique templates on en.wiki over the past few years. There is no reason to start again. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Template:Infobox Australian place

[edit]

Propose merging Propose converting Template:Infobox Australian place to use Template:Infobox settlement.
It is time for this template to be converted to be a wrapper for Template:Infobox settlement. I have created a mockup at the sandbox which is visible in the testcases. This implementation will standardize the infobox to look like every other settlement infobox on Wikipedia. Note that NO other country has a custom infobox that does not use {{Infobox settlement}} as a base. A much more detailed breakdown of what was changed, what was kept and why is avaliable on the template talk page. I encourage commenters to read this breakdown first and to examine the testcases linked to above. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zackmann08 Can you reimplement those custom location and other fields using blank*_name_sec*? Or embed/module? --Joy (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: Probably, I'm not clear on what you mean though... Can you be more specific or point me towards an example in the testcases? Are you referring to the location relative to other places? For example in the first testcase where it says 207 km (129 mi) NNE of Sydney...? Is that what you mean? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you mentioned on talk, can we implement location, adjacent communities and weather box and not drop them? I appreciate the technical aspect of your change a lot, but I don't think it's a good idea to conflate those practical issues with those content issues in this one migration. It would probably be much easier to get this passed if we kept as much useful content as possible, and then had separate migration processes to figure out what to do with that. --Joy (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: that, my friend, is an EXCELLENT point. Give me a half hour. I'll do it now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy:  Partly done The temperature, rainfall and list of location data (# km from some_location) have been restored. I will not be restoring the large box at the very bottom of the current incarnation of {{Infobox Australian place}} however. I stand by my previous comment that that section by convention does not go in the infobox but in a navbox (see {{Adjacent communities}} and its 28,000+ transclusions.).
    Obviously everyone is free to edit. So if you or someone else want to overrule me and implement it in the template you are, of course, free to do so. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens if one actually puts in {{adjacent communities|border=none}} or something like that inside infobox |embed=, could that work? --Joy (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Joy tagged you in a test I did in my sandbox. Technically it works, but it really looks horrible. {{adjacent communities}} is not designed to be that small and nested in an infobox. It is really designed to be a navbox at the bottom of an article or floated in the article body. How about this, let's see if there are any other objections to this content's removal? If it appears this is going to be a sticking point, I will investigate further implementing it. Sound reasonable? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly no objections to its removal from me. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it looks like we'd need an implementation without those arrows for that to work. Maybe it's possible to just extract the Australian place's compact implementation to a separate template. This would also make it easily countable. --Joy (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy:  Done. I caved... I abstracted it out to {{Infobox Australian place/table}} to keep the code a little neater. But check the Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also made a note about local_map/mapframe mapping in the Talk page, I'm sure it's fixable relatively easily. At the same time, now that the main template logic is used, we do get automatic mapframe on other test cases, nicely demonstrating a general benefit of this change - the Australian place infoboxes get to benefit from improvements done in the settlement infoboxes in general.
    Looking at the test cases, I see no other significant issue remaining. The removal of about 8 kilobytes of extra code seems worthwhile. (Merge) --Joy (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the time and effort you are putting in to this proposal. I'm sure it is not a trivial exercise. I think it is not ready yet. I've made more detailed comments on the talk page. Show stoppers for me at the moment are:
    1. Population drawn from Wikidata
    2. Local_map using OSM
Disappointment but not showstoppers are
  1. The prominence of County if it's populated
  2. The replacement of the state name with "town" or "suburb" in the second line.
--Scott Davis Talk 11:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: follow up on the comments on the talk page. Your showstoppers are not intended consequences and are in fact bugs in the code I have written. If you can provide me with links to pages where you saw the issue I will fix it. Unfortunately the nature of Wikidata is that it is very hard to test in a testcase. It really needs to be tested on an actual article so any assistance you can provide via linking me to pages would be greatly appreciated! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the issues you raised get resolved ScottDavis? Would you now be of a mind to merge? Dgp4004 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: @Dgp4004: - sorry for my delay, I currently don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to. Both bugs look like they have been addressed, thank you. County prominence is also improved and acceptable. The prominent link to suburb is still odd in an Australian context on some pages, maybe some of the pages that use it are wrong anyway and should use town. I think the available choices for place type were only town or suburb. Ideally, we'd have LOCB and LOCU for bounded and unbounded localities. The entire country is partitioned into non-overlapping LOCB and SUB areas. I found a page Suburbs and localities (Australia) which may be a better link target. An example I noticed it on is Allendale North, South Australia. Thank you again for your efforts. --Scott Davis Talk 08:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis the sandbox now links the remaining three type headings to Australian-specific articles. --Joy (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>*:Strong Oppose Per the arguments I made last time: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 3#Template:Infobox Australian place. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My basic arguments are unlike other countries, Australian places have crucial information such as federal electorate, state electorate and local government area ETC. Note that Australia is a Federation and not a Unity state. I would actually support creating more seperate templates rather than a merge. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already voted strong oppose but this does not include information on state electorate @Zackmann08 Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere:, before voting did you you actually look at the proposed change as demonstrated at Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases? None of the information you mentioned will be removed... In fact there will be NO information lost so you argument makes no sense... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08 Actually... Uh no. My bad. I am likely going to change my vote, but first, I want to raise a concern. About the top, I do honestly think having state at the top and not having to look down to find it is better, but I do also like the suburb/town/city thing. Is it possible to have both maybe? With like state below? I know some might argue it it is just which state boundaries they are in (Like which is the capital city of their state, examples, the capital of the state Cairns is in is Brisbane, using for no reason as that is one of them I saw not the side by side one) but in my perspective, politics is truly everything. Also, your argument is right. One thing I don't agree with is not having federal and state divisions on cities, same for local government areas. I know links on the article Sydney are outdated and might be inaccurate, but for smaller cities such as Cairns or Hobart, this can be useful. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere: MAJOR kudos for admitting your mistake. Not many people on here are willing to do that. I appreciate that you are willing to consider this merger on the merits of the actual changes being made. The nice thing about the conversion is that since NO parameter names are changing or being removed, changing how/where things are displayed down the line is easy. IMHO, this infobox should follow the conventions of {{Infobox settlement}} regarding where to display the state. BUT that is absolutely something that can be looked at. Can I make a suggestion? Let us see if we can get this merger to happen at all... Then discuss improvements (I have many ideas)? As I said, since no information is lost in the process, it can very easily be moved to the top later. I just don't want to make that change based on a single editor's request. I think it warrants a larger discussion and consensus. Make sense? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere can you please click through to {{Infobox Australian place/testcases}} and check if you see all the local government area and electorate lines both at the right and at the left hand side? --Joy (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I hope you will note that the arguments against this change boil down to WP:OWN and the fact that there is a desire that no one other than people from Australia edit this infobox. Zero information has been removed so the arguments that this doesn't take into account Australia's unique features are also invalid. Finally there have been a number of comments that have pointed out minor issues or typos that have since been corrected. Despite being pinged to let them know their issue has been addressed those users have chosen not to return to comment and potentially change their opposition vote. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Few days late, but changing vote to Merge after realising no content or history will be lost. One thing that is confusing is that one example of cities shows cities federal and state divisions, and LGA'S and one does not. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere:, please feel free to add more testcases! I am not Australian and some of the intricacies of divisions are lost on me. A number of errors have already been flushed out by Australian users who corrected my naivete. Any help is greatly appreciated. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge having read the discussion, I see no reason why Australia should have a separate infobox style, and doing so seems to be an attempt at a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing fundamental has changed since the previous time this proposal failed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Did you look at the testcases? EVERYTHING has changed.. This is a wrapper and all functionality is kept. No previous attempt has actually created a wrapper. Rather than simply stating that nothing fundamental has changed could you possibly provide actual objections to the change? There are a number of issues that have been addressed. Would be helpful to know what your issues are. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to this comment and expanding on what I meant on my talk page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had another look at the 2020 TfD to see to what extent the idea of a wrapper was discussed. The most fundamental difference from then and now is that people were rightfully suspicious whether it can be done - yet we now actually have a reasonable working prototype. I think this makes this discussion significantly different on the merits.
    There was a complaint from @AussieLegend saying you have to edit two infoboxes to make changes to the code. This is technically true, but it misses the point of sharing code - if Australian-related features are mainlined into the main template, while their testing infrastructure is kept, it's fairly safe to estimate that they will be maintained because a larger base of template editors are interested and can take care of any issues that may arise.
    There was a complaint from @Ymblanter saying there was an example of a Russian template wrapper where nobody was interested in correcting errors. I would appreciate more information about those errors, and an assessment of whether the current engagement of template editors matches this sort of disinterest in correcting errors or not.
    Finally there was a call from @Jonesey95 to demonstrate a wrapper. Has the nuance and customization so far been addressed in a satisfactory manner here? --Joy (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. The objections in 2020 seemed valid to me, and nobody was willing to put forth the effort to create a wrapper, so I thought it was unwise to recommend an untested merge of this nuanced template. I have seen people say "sure, merge, it will be easy" and then watched either (a) nothing happen or (b) the merge fail because it was not easy, so I was wary at that time. If a wrapper has been created this time, and stakeholders in this template pretty much agree that it works well enough to replace the existing custom template, then a merge is probably a good way to go. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The documentation in the sandbox says The infobox has been extensively customised for Australia. When even the template acknowledges that it contains extensive customisation, we shouldn't merge it with another template. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: once again, have you actually examined the testcases or read the discussion about this? You clearly haven't because you saw we shouldn't merge it with another template which is NOT what is happening. This is a conversion to a Module:Template wrapper. None of the custom code written for Australia has been removed.
    I would point you to WP:READBEFORE, specifically The issue might be different than it seems. Please take the time to look at the testcases and read the discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal doesn't involve merging, why does the nominator begin with a big bold Propose merging? Let's rephrase this another way: this template is heavily customised for the Australian context, so leave it alone. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: as you know that is what happens when you use twinkle. Once again, did you actually LOOK at the change or the testcases? The customization for Australian places has not gone away... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is heavily customised for Australia because Australian editors at that template have decided to do so due to their WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues. And the suggested merge actually incorporates most of the reasonable Australia-specific changes anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From the very minor example provided on your sandbox I dislike the way the structure of the infobox is changed. I would also like to point out that Template:Infobox Australian Place is used for ALL Australian places, not just towns and this will not map well onto everything. I have issue with what I would call the overly complicated and arguably American-centric structure that Template:Infobox settlement uses and I don't think maps onto Australian places very well.
I especially Strongly oppose this change in relation to local government areas as I think the formatting does not map at all well onto Australian LGAs (or frankly local governments generally but that's another discussion).
While no information is technically lost, the changed structure I think does lose usefulness and ease of information in the current infobox structure. I'm absolutely open to tweaking and playing around with the infobox because it definitely has its issues but I don't like this sweeping conformist way of doing it and I feel a much better middle ground can be found. – Lord Beesus (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Beesus: can you provide some examples? For example, {{Infobox Australian place}} is no longer used for ANY projected areas in Australia. Those have all been converted to use {{Infobox protected area}}. This is a work in progress and many changes have been made during the TFD and ensuing discussion. Can you point me to a page or pages where your concerns are represented? Or perhaps one of the test cases? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to make Infobox settlement less American-centric, for the benefit of everyone? Could you please clarify which parts of the structure should be more flexible, so we could perhaps draft changes to address that in Infobox settlement? --Joy (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Beesus I've tried to re-read and understand this comment better again. Is this about using |leader_*= for LGAs (which shows up under the subheading "Government") instead of |subdivision_*= (which shows up above, with no subheading)?
So if we moved the LGA display into |subdivision_(type|name)5=, so it appears together with Parish/County/City/Region, would that fix it? --Joy (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to do this, but sadly this then created a new issue, because subdivision_* only goes up to 6, there's no room for the Location field. Do we want to add support for subdivision_* level 7 for this purpose in Infobox settlement? --Joy (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that county and parish, being purely cadastral, go to blank_name_sec1 and blank1_name_sec1, and move the others in the section down. There's room for 8, and we are currently using 5. Innesw (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great, done. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looking at the objective changes here, the testcases show that no information is being lost, and there are very significant benefits in terms of consistency across the encyclopedia and maintainability. (I also added a cadastral testcase and tweaked the sandbox very slightly so this is well-represented for completeness). Subjectively, I think the layout is nicer, but this is WP:ILIKEIT against a number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints above. Thanks Zackmann08 for your efforts. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Convertion The thing preventing me from supporting the convertion last time was no higher levels of government infomation in IS. This has been neatly addressed using leader fields, and no other infomation has been lost, so I can support this now.Techie3 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

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]

Template:The Da Vinci Code

[edit]

Propose merging Template:The Da Vinci Code with Template:Dan Brown.
No reason not to merge these, there is substantial duplication here. Only the "Deriviative media" section and two other links are not included at the propsed target. --woodensuperman 09:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different proposal. Rename Template:The Da Vinci Code to either "Robert Langdon (novel series)" or "Robert Langdon (franchise)" (based on Robert Langdon (novel series) / Robert Langdon (franchise)). Make sure navbox includes all links from those pages. Keep only works that Dan Brown wrote in Template:Dan Brown and remove all the rest. The topic and the author while sharing a lot of links, are not the same. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar thought to that firstly, but then you'd end up with only two articles (novels) in {{Dan Brown}} that weren't in {{Robert Langdon}}, so you'd be seeing a similar level of substantial crossover. --woodensuperman 13:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, I'm not convinced we need three Robert Langdon articles, but this isn't the right forum for that discussion) --woodensuperman 13:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of the adaptions have nothing to do with Ban Brown directly so those are much less fitting there. The Da Vinci Code (video game) and The Da Vinci Code (soundtrack) for example. So the overlap is just a subset of the topics. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there were fewer Robert Langdon articles, this would be simpler! But as a second choice happier to go along with your suggestion to move to a {{Robert Langdon}} navbox than what we have now. It's strange not having all of the sequels to The Da Vinci Code in {{The Da Vinci Code}} at present. --woodensuperman 15:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for analogous templates. {{Rick Riordan}} didn't fit. So what about {{Jack Reacher}}? Or {{Harry Potter}} and {{J. K. Rowling}}? How about the examples below? Οἶδα (talk) 21:18, 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) 21:28, 1 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1317386574"