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 Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 3 101 0 104
TfD 0 0 11 0 11
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 2 9 0 11
RfD 0 0 38 0 38
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

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/2026_January_5#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]

January 5

[edit]

Template:Notice newuser

[edit]

Unused editnotice. Similar to Template:Vandalism editnotice below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice

[edit]

Propose merging Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice with Template:Pronoun editnotice.
Redundant, and the latter has its own tracking category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding the extra content from Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice into a collapsible section for when the {{{1}}} is (or contains) they/them. But yes, I agree they should be merged — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism editnotice

[edit]

Well, of course. None of the 12 pages with this editnotice seem particularly prone to vandalism, and frequently vandalized pages should be protected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swastika not Hakenkreuz

[edit]

Unused editnotice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice

[edit]

Now used only on Template:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree, subst and delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/2025 United States federal government shutdown

[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 per G7. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Event is no longer current. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 5 January 2026 (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:Greater Manchester Police

[edit]

Infobox of little value. The Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner has been abolished, and the list of previous forces is already covered at the main Greater Manchester Police article and is better in list form. In fact, it is dubious whether some of the historical forces even warrant an article.

Overall a low-value navbox linking a few trivial articles only. Elshad (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1912 Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings

[edit]

Unused standings table template. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now used. @Gonnym: it looks like the wrong template was being used on the relevant article. This edit fixed it so it is now used... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I'm fine with keeping. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: safe for me to close this as "withdrawn" (or you can do it of course)? I don't like doing that without explicit "permission" from the original poster...
@WikiCleanerMan and JHD0919: for transparency, please see above comment about this template now being correctly used. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Single-use. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per WCM. JHD0919 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that there are currently two uses of this template in the article space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now has two uses. Although I'm sure the rotating cast of deletion reasons will now swing to "should use LST instead"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pruned editnotice

[edit]

Unused editnotice. If a list article is pruned at AfD, it is usually for notability of entries, and most cases can be handled with another editnotice, such as {{Lists of companies and organizations editnotice}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Company list editnotice

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Company list editnotice with Template:Lists of companies and organizations editnotice.
Editnotices cover the same scope, but not equally: the former mentions that companies should be classified by country of headquarters if the list is nationality-based, while the latter has its own tracking category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found a third redundant editnotice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National symbols of Wales

[edit]

Redundant to {{Wales topics}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a lot of pile-on "delete per nom" here but no actual refutation to DankJae's comments which makes that argument relatively weak. Let's hope for some more in-depth discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HanesBrands

[edit]

Too small, outdated information, several non-link items Update6 (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 07:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see anything mentioned that couldn't be resolved with an unremarkable amount of effort. Yes, there's room for improvement, but it is still useful and leaving it in place gives the next person motivated to work on it something to start with and an idea on where to take it. I just found myself in the middle of doing that with Template:Hosiery, which was in a very similar condition as of a few days ago. I can promise you it's never something I would've undertaken sua sponte, but after visiting a page that transcluded it and using it to move around, the path to improvement was clear and it seemed like a welcome break from my current Wikidata project of much larger scope. The only things we should ever be deleting are things of embarrassingly low quality or outright lies, and this template is neither of those; everything else is just waiting for the next random shepherd to come along and move it closer to excellence. — ℛogueScholar  ₨🗩 13:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil War and slavery editnotice

[edit]

Used only at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy, subst and delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Burundi

[edit]

redundant to links in template:Burundi topics Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic groups in Rwanda

[edit]

for consistency with this TfD, this navbox can be merged with Template:Rwanda topics Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused Autobahn-related templates DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Avira Free Antivirus

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox song contest/Our Generation Song Contest 2023

[edit]

Unused sub template. Our Generation Song Contest 2023 does not exist. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox volleyball Olympic tourney

[edit]

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family tree of the Idrisid dynasty

[edit]

Unused family tree. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonia at the Olympics

[edit]

Unused navbox. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Country at games navbox ([1]). Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iq

[edit]

Text that should be in italics should not be in quotes, neither in addition or instead per the relevant MoS guidelines. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaddar Telangana Film Award for Best Feature Film

[edit]

The main award is no longer a Wikipedia page so this serves as useless navigation. Created by SOCK but G5 does not apply. CNMall41 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 4

[edit]

Template:Spd

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Spd with Template:Spaced en dash.
I cannot see any reason why we need two templates that provide essentially equivalent visual results other than for grammatical pedants (no offense). – and – appear the same so I'm not sure why we need both of these. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and we already have {{snd}} as an alias. Redirect. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tim

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Tim with Template:Template links at Meta.
Both of these templates provide a link to a template on meta, not sure we need both. Primefac (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tiw

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Tiw with Template:Template link interwiki.
Two templates that provide an interwiki link to a template, which is probably one more than necessary. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National tug of war team

[edit]

This template creates a wikilink to a country's national tug of war team. However, we don't any articles on these teams. The template is only used on one page, thereby creating a mess of unnecessary redlinks. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad there was no interest for eight years. I would not call the effect of this alone on that one page a “mess”. Redlinks are supposed to be good, but eight years … oh, well. Maybe some day the TWIF will step up its marketing. Until then, c’est la vie and so long. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are okay in body text, within reason. They're not okay in navigational box templates. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Improve videos

[edit]

Maintenance template, newly created within the past few days by a single user without any obvious attempt to establish any consensus that it's needed. There is no rule that Wikipedia articles must contain video clips, so there isn't nearly as much wiki-infrastructure in place to track video usage as there is for still images -- but the creator, a relatively new user with less than 100 edits in their entire history, appears to have just straight-up copied {{Improve images}} to create a new video equivalent. If any significant number of established Wikipedians felt that this were actually needed, however, then it would already have existed long ago, without waiting until 2026 for one random newbie to start it.
Further, the creator tried to make this file its sole carrier in a dated monthly tracking category that doesn't exist -- but the fact that maintenance templates generate process overhead like that is precisely the reason why this would require consensus to justify it, because there just may not be the editorial will or desire to establish a whole new maintenance queue for this. So the creator is free to propose this for discussion if they'd like, but is not at liberty to just implement it all by themselves without anybody else's knowledge or participation. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Terrorism

[edit]

This template is not necessary to keep because it simply links to Template:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. It should just be a redirect to the base template as the terrorism parameter is more than easy enough to use. A substitution like this is harder to use than the template itself directly. Other template names Qwerty123M (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is obviously not going to have any transclusions because it is a substitution template. People often type this in instead of WP Crime, and this has the effect of auto tagging it with the task force, which most people don't bother to do. A redirect is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai with Template:Dubai.
Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own collapsible section without worrying about navbox size. Do not add red links over to the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portland neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Portland neighborhoods with Template:Portland, Oregon.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial reaction is oppose. Better to leave the main navbox as a general overview and have a separate navbox for the neighborhoods. Having too much clutter in the main navbox would hamper it as a navigational aid. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Navboxes are not for a general overview on the subject. Per WP:Navbox: "The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc." There is no issue of clutter for main navbox. Having multiple navboxes is plain redundancy and overkill. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Amsterdam

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods of Amsterdam with Template:Amsterdam.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods in Washington, D.C.

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. with Template:Washington, D.C..
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlanta neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Atlanta neighborhoods with Template:Atlanta.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighbourhoods of Beirut

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighbourhoods of Beirut with Template:Beirut.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is very small and is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. Only keep links and not include plain text. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico City neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Mexico City neighborhoods with Template:Mexico City.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Tripoli

[edit]

No longer used after replacing with main navbox. Some links were not neighborhoods that were removed and only three links are present. Fails navigational purposes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging. — The Anome (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grnscneighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Grnscneighborhoods with Template:Greenville, South Carolina.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Combine Greenville, South Carolina neighborhoods with the city itself into one template would be great. Keep it simple. I would change City of Greenville to Greenville, South Carolina though as personal preference. Chris (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anatolian neighborhoods of İstanbul by the Bosphorus

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Beykoz, Istanbul, Template:Kadıköy District, and Template:Üsküdar. All links are already on these three templates and transcluded on those articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European neighborhoods of İstanbul by the Bosphorus

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Sarıyer and Template:Beşiktaş. All links are already on these two templates and transcluded on those articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo with Template:Sarajevo.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. And there is already a section on the main Sarajevo navbox for this. Redundant to have two navboxes. Just keep the blue links into the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods in Doha

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods in Doha with Template:Doha Municipality.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. And there is already a section on the main Doha navbox for this. Redundant to have two navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of San Jose

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods of San Jose with Template:San Jose, California.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own section without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main neighborhoods of Tehran

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Main neighborhoods of Tehran with Template:Tehran.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods with Template:Greater Richmond Region.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. In this particular case, just keep only the links. Don't add plain text or any red links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seattle neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Seattle neighborhoods with Template:Seattle neighborhoods.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main Seattle navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Division 4 (Swedish football) seasons

[edit]

Sixth-tier in Sweden. Only contains one article from 2011, which is nominated for deletion. Mattias321 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 3

[edit]

Template:Uw-name1

[edit]

This set of four templates ( {{uw-name1}} .. {{uw-name4}} ) recently added to the multi-level templates series of user warning templates seems to be a series of escalating warnings about article title choice, but placing any of them on a User talk page would be contrary to article title policy and commonly used how-to info on WP:Moving a page.

There is already a process for changing article titles. For uncontroversial moves that no reasonable person could disagree with, it is simply a WP:BOLDMOVE. For all others, it involves starting a discussion about the title on the article Talk page and inviting the creator to it, possibly followed by a WP:MOVE proposal, to be resolved by consensus.[a] Under no circumstance do we template a user on their Talk page couched as a user warning, asserting that their choice of title is wrong without starting a Talk page discussion first. Besides being contrary to policy and established practice, it is insulting; no user should get templated by one editor acting unilaterally and feel that they must initiate a discussion to defend their choice of article title, where there is no prior Talk page discussion about it, but merely an unsupported accusation of non-compliance with COMMONNAME by a single user. That is not how we do it.

For users creating articles in bad-faith with titles that are a joke, vandalism, a hoax, etc., there are already procedures in place, and certainly this template series would play no role there. For those creating articles in good faith who are bad at spelling, not native speakers, or simply not that good with words, WP:BOLDMOVE suffices; no need to castigate the user with templates that do not reflect a WP:CONDUCT issue, and that would not result in improving the situation (i.e., the reason for communicating on a User talk page in the first place). For those who choose a title in good faith which might be debatable, the established procedure is requested move, involving starting a formal discussion, page tagging, and user notification by bot via neutral notification; this template can play no role there.

There being no situation where this template series is ever appropriate to use, it should be deleted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,@Mathglot! These templates are used as warnings for violations of WP:COMMONNAME. It isn't meant for title of the articles, but specifically edits that are contradictory to the policy. For example, see Special:Diff/1329894489,Special:Diff/1330858496. It is warnings for such edits. Also, it's not the only one for specific policy violations. I created it as this policy is one of the most violated ones. Nearly all my MOS reverts are for WP:COMMONNAME. I hope, this clarifies the reason for making this template. Thanks. codelivid 06:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Livid. WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:Article title policy, and has to do with naming an article properly. You link to the Article title policy in your template, and so your template would appear to be about article title policy (even though it is piped misleadingly to "Manual of Style for naming", but that could easily be fixed). But your links above to edits at Khandoba (1329894489) and İsak Vural (1330858496) are something different, and have to do with whether links are correct, in particular, whether they use the right anchor text, a different issue. Take the Vural edit for example:
−
|nationalteam2 = [[Turkey national under-17 football team|Turkey U17]]
+
|nationalteam2 = [[Turkey national under-17 football team|Türkiye U17]]
This edit has nothing to do with COMMONNAME or article title policy. Templating a user for this edit based on that would be wrong-headed in my opinion. (O/T for Tfd: I don't think that edit is worth a template, just a fix and an edit summary. The real issue here is the WP:NOPIPE issue that should have been flagged; that is, the link should be simplified to [[Turkey U17]]. I suppose you could message an editor if they have a persistent habit of NOPIPE or WP:NOTBROKEN edits, but I don't see a WP:WARN template that covers that. Maybe you could create one.) Maybe there is a use case for your template that I am not seeing. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (uw-name1–4)
[edit]

  1. ^ "Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." Source: Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering changes

Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christopher Lee sidebar

[edit]

Only three articles of relevance are linked. Previously with actor sidebars that were nominated, there are a lot of unrelated links with no direct relevance to the subject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 2

[edit]

Template:Infobox profanity

[edit]

From Talk:Fuck: they're terrible for things that are generally dissimilar and where anything you try to add is going to be couched in nuance. This is one such case, and [this infobox] has to be one of the most inane examples I've seen of trying to shoehorn in an infobox where it doesn't belong. ...It's nothing but a terser version of a part of the lead....There are about eight uses of this. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Template:Infobox phrase as it doesn't need a unique template. Any new parameter should be discussed in that template's talk page. Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the 44 items that use that are similarly just a terser version of part of the lead; I'm more inclined to add Infobox phrase to this TFD, as it has exactly the same lack of necessity and absence of useful information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by terser version of part of the lead. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article, so not having unique information is by design. Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template a few months ago.
I believe my reasoning for the template was:
  • To summarize key information, or in the words of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, [...] summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article, so not having unique information is by design. (as Gonnym quoted)
  • To provide a dictionary-style entry to the term the article discusses
  • To add visual consistency in the article's organization
I am down to merge (or replace) the template with {{Infobox phrase}}. Looking back at it, I think the infobox template makes more sense for terms in general than just profanity.
| GrafiXal (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memphis Showboats roster

[edit]

Per Memphis Showboats (2022), this team no longer exists, so a current roster template is no longer usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hokkaido Soccer League Teams Map

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National football squad player (social)

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in September 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible football match

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VE fake button

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in September 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Percentage bar compact

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Provincial-level libraries in China

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this difficult to understand? - The Provincial-level administration units (=> Province-level divisions of China) have their own libraries, in other countries this is called State Library or Landesbibliothek (in German). --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the links (if not deleted). It's useful, and it's used in the Chinese Wikipedia. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English independence and nationalism

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paganism in England

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ELMS cars 2025

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Variations

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously used in articles, but it has been removed. We need to reach consensus to add these variation tables back to articles. @Oklopfer what should be our criteria for including variation tables? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ talk 18:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BodhiHarp the usefulness of such tables is extremely limited, as they just display letter + diacritic combinations and what they could represent. By far, the occurrence tables which provide actual examples and explanations of realizations in languages, are far more useful for serving this purpose. We don't want to be creating indiscriminate tables, especially ones which could additionally suggest to a reader norms which don't actually exist. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's userify this. Yes yes yes yes, let's do that. Yes, no deletion. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ talk 19:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any significant advantage in having this as a template giving generic possibilities not relevant in all cases, rather than simply having a table for the actual information in each case, if such tables are to be used in articles. JBW (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or userfy per creator's request. I don't see its usefulness in mainspace right now, and it may only confuse rather than clarify on the pages it is intended to be used. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:States of the United States for category namespaces

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kurdish Rebellions in Ottoman Empire

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sheriffs of Kings County, New York

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socialism in Poland

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whiggism

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikilover

[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:UBX/Wikilover with comment "move per [[WP:UBXNS]]" by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. No objections to moving this to a subpage of User:UBX (per WP:UBXNS) and converting it to a userbox, for which deletion practices are more lenient. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jonesey95. If you celebrate…. Season’s and new years greeting. Please go ahead and move. Be good if datalover - - could also have a similar home base? Best for 2026.
Derek J Moore (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2026 (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:U4C banned user

[edit]

No transclusions. Unclear whether it is useful at the English Wikipedia. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socialism in Denmark

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism in France

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Granat

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the tempplate text clearly says its purpose. it was created in pair with {{Cite Granat}}, similarly to {{Cite Efron}} and {{Efron}} It was created a month ago. Instead of wasting Wikipedian'all's time. why didn't you ask me first? --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you invoked the instead of wasting Wikipedian'all's time card, I'll ask the same to you. Instead of wasting Wikipedian'all's time, why did you create a template and not use it (over a month and counting), not write any documentation and not even add it to a single category? If you want people to waste their time and do extra steps for you, then you should follow your own advice. Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a real life in the meat world, you know, and I can miss something, distracted. I needed the template. If someone (a SINGLE person rather than y'all) raised a question, I would have done something. And by the way, if someone misses something, I fix it if I can and tell the person about the issue and that I fixed it for them. This is is called friendly cooperation. Suggesting to delete someone's work without asking first is called hostile cooperation. --Altenmann >talk 20:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if it's unused; then it's not needed. Vestrian24Bio 12:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quantum computing sidebar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ratings

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GeorgiaSenDst21–30

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Cambridge Dictionaries pronunciation

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussion to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

​I created this template to cite a pronunciation here. I guess someone has since decided that the pronunciation is too obvious. Cambridge has one of the better pronunciation websites with both UK and US recordings, so I thought I might use it again in the future. I had previously created Template:Cite Cambridge Dictionaries for definitions, and it has since been used by other editors. —  AjaxSmack  01:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Referendum color scheme

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blazon-arms

[edit]

This template is mostly used to make a "table" with a file and its description (example), which is redundant to MediaWiki's standard file syntax, i.e. this usage:

can easily be converted to this:

sapphaline (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly useful. Used on 1,400 pages. If the OP has a proposal to change how the template displays, that proposal should be made in the template's sandbox and discussed on the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 1

[edit]

Template:Kivu conflict detailed map

[edit]

Kind of a procedural nomination now that {{Map with marks}} and {{Graph:Map}} been deleted, these templates don't do anything. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


December 31

[edit]

Template:Trinidad and Tobago Standard English

[edit]

Similar in scope to Template:Use Trinidad and Tobago English (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_22#Template:Use_Trinidad_and_Tobago_English) which was recently deleted. CROIXtalk 06:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Korean transliteration notice

[edit]

Not used or very useful; similar template McCune–Reischauer was previously deleted, this is the same case. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yale romanization of Korean

[edit]

Not used to significant degree or very useful; similar template McCune–Reischauer was previously deleted, this is the same case. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 San Marino Winter Olympic team

[edit]

No need for this template. There is only 2 links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


December 30

[edit]

Template:Zoos of Manitoba

[edit]

Another zoo navbox with only one article, and no more to add. This is already covered by Template:CAZA as well. Useless as a navigation aid. MediaKyle (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zoos of Saskatchewan

[edit]

Only one article included in this navbox, and we have no other articles about zoos in Saskatchewan to add to it. Useless as a navigation aid. MediaKyle (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Evolution of Warner Bros. Discovery

[edit]

Recently created sidebar that is basically its own article... Violates sidebar principals as well as MOS:DONTHIDE. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll just shorten it and correct the issues. Deletion is quite unnecessary. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can make that same argument for most templates regarding company histories. If someone doesn't feel like reading a whole bunch of text for a company timeline, then the template timeline will be there to help them. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Subst and delete. This is a regular list of entries. This does not need to be in a template and does not need to be in more than one article. This seems also too large to be in a sidebar. The information is good, but should be in its proper place in the article and also referenced. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox space agency

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

The result of the discussion was keep. If anyone still thinks this should be merged feel free to start a new discussion with an accuratr rationale. Reviving this discussion will not lead to anything fruitful and make it hard to determine consensus. Trialpears (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox space agency with Template:Infobox government agency.
Is there any other distinguishing variable than "spaceport"? Could this variable somehow better be incorporated into the otherwise useful merged template, in order to avoid redundancy? PPEMES (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but PPEMES what do you propose doing with the "Spaceport" value... Do we drop it or find a way to incorporate it into {{Infobox government agency}}? Personally I say drop it and put it in the body of the article... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a deletion review this is being relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:33, 30 December 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:Christopher Plummer sidebar

[edit]

Single-transclusion sidebar, not useful or needed for navigation. The sidebar could only really be placed on a total of three articles, seems more fitting for hatnotes within the main article. This appears to be the only sidebar for a Canadian person in existence currently. MediaKyle (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Berezhany Raion

[edit]

Unused navboxes for former raions. If links are wanted, navboxes for the updated raions should be used. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List:Cyrillic script letters/ru

[edit]

Unused. Template:Cyrillic navbox has links to the letters. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest planning areas of Singapore

[edit]

Unused "Largest cities in" template. Probably removed from pages where it was incorrectly used as a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina

[edit]

Unused "Largest cities in" template. Probably removed from pages where it was incorrectly used as a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Denmark

[edit]

Unused "Largest cities in" template. Probably removed from pages where it was incorrectly used as a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan Panthers roster

[edit]

Unused roster template for a former team. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kajang line mapframe

[edit]

Unused route map template. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


December 29

[edit]

Template:Democratic socialism in Canada

[edit]

Linkspam template with only a handful of transclusions. Also seems to go against the spirit of WP:SIDEBAR -- these is no main article for "Democratic Socialism in Canada", and this is definitely not a small, well-defined group of articles. Templates such as this are problematic for determining inclusion criteria as well, so I would sooner delete this than convert it to a navbox. MediaKyle (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G7. When I made this template initially it made more sense. Since then, there have been several discussions about limiting the use of sidebars on Canadian politics articles, so I’m fine with its deletion. RedBlueGreen93 21:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox templates

[edit]

Unused navigation template that is basically empty. We already have Wikipedia:List of infoboxes to maintain. Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HOIOpenTasks

[edit]

This was a one-time task list for a user talk mass message. It has not been updated since 2006 except for maintenance edits. It could be substed and deleted. (Note: a few of the subpages have been updated a couple of times since 2006, but this template family does not see ongoing maintenance. It could also be moved to project space as a subpage of the WikiProject page.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Does not need to be a template. Convert to a project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history/to do (which works with {{To do}}) if needed. Gonnym (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancient Egyptian culture

[edit]

Redundant sidebar to Template:Ancient Egypt topics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian football code crowds

[edit]

Not needed as all the articles the navbox linked to have now been deleted as non-notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Look and Read

[edit]

Template for a on BBC childrens' educational series, which featured links to each individual story broadcast. None of the individuals stories however have ever been supported by RS so failed WP:GNG and have been reduced to redirects back to the list of episodes at the mother article. As a result of cleanup this template is now unnecessary so should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Antonio Brahmas roster

[edit]

Unused as the team is no longer. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairs and Festivals in Assam

[edit]

Duplicates the culture section of Template:Assam. It should either be deleted and usages replaced with {{Assam}}, or the section removed from the later and any transclusions replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Assam

[edit]

Duplicates the history section of Template:Assam. It should either be deleted and usages replaced with {{Assam}}, or the section removed from the later and any transclusions replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Close paraphrasing inline

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Close paraphrasing inline is currently only being used twice. They are Mandelbrot set and Silver Age of Comic Books. Both of these tagged articles appear in Category:All articles with close paraphrasing. This category only mentions Template:Close paraphrasing. In comparison, Template:Close paraphrasing is being used in 59 articles currently. I'm not sure whether two article transclusions are enough for this inline template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the banner seems better suited. Vestrian24Bio 07:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly useful. Inline maintenance templates will not have many transclusions if someone is actively fixing the problems as they are tagged. The inline template is much more useful than the banner template for identifying a specific passage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It describes a very real problem we've all seen more than once, so I'm unclear as to why this would be nominated in the first place. As I see it, it's either doing it's job in directing editor scrutiny and remediation efforts to lazily-produced existing content, or if not being utilized enough, then the answer is to add more visibility for it in navboxes, template categories, the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces and anywhere else that promote tools to editors. Until that's been attempted and (if necessary) iterated a few times, this TfD is so premature it should be put in a NICU. Face with tongue sticking out — ℛogueScholar  ₨🗩 02:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serves a clear purpose, and hence should be kept. Kora ^^ (she/her) say hi!/what I've done 11:41, 1 January 2026 (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:History of Chutiya people

[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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Kora ^^ (she/her) say hi!/what I've done 11:44, 1 January 2026 (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]

December 28

Template:Domestic cricket in 2025–26

[edit]

Navbox with no main/central article connecting the articles. Vestrian24Bio 06:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio I think these are similar to Template:2025–26 in European men's basketball (and Category:Sports by year templates). Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: there are already separate navboxes in Category:International cricket by year navigational boxes for international cricket. And these navboxes combine three forms of cricket in one.. also, within each country there are other separate navboxes covering all seasons and forms which makes these just redundant. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not redundant if you want to go by "what happened in Cricket in the 2024–25 season in the word" which is what these sports by year template do. It's also not the same as International cricket, as the above templates deal with "Domestic" games and not "International" games. Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grouped all nominations together as they are the same issue. Feel free to revert if you think otherwise. --Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Vestrian24Bio 11:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created one of these. Many already existed, but not at the time for the ongoing season, and I had found it personally much more difficult to find and navigate to those articles with the navbox missing. To address some of the things that have been discussed:
  • Central article. I'm not aware of this being a requirement for navboxes to exist. A central article certainly could be created on these topics in a similar vein to International cricket in 2025, which would include things like league tables/winners without detailed match-by-match breakdowns, but that would be quite a lot of effort that is perhaps better spent getting the more specific articles up to scratch first.
  • Redundancy with national infoboxes. The existing national infoboxes are things like Template:Australian cricket season. This is great if you want to navigate through the entire history of Australian cricket, but not fantastic if you're focusing on some specific time period, which would be the typical use case. There's no Template:2025 in Australian cricket or similar that allows easy cross-navigation between those heavily-related articles. Given the scope of how many professional domestic leagues exist at the moment, having these global navbox is preferable to a dozen or more tiny ones with 1-4 links in them each, and in my opinion necessary as a trimmed-down alternative to the full national history mega-navbox that includes multiple defunct competitions, is occasionally unclear on what year certain events took place in, and can have potentially 300 different links to search through.
  • Combining multiple forms of cricket. Ease of cross-format navigation is one of the main reasons that I created the 2022–23 navbox. It's in line with the international infoboxes and domestic structure ones (e.g., Template:Cricket in the West Indies), and also results in the navboxes fitting into the ideal 10-100 link range for efficient navigation.
So I don't think there's any real issue with the structure of these navboxes. And as mentioned, I find the value they add to be pretty substantial - particularly when it comes to directing attention to the nations under-represented on (en) Wikipedia; while the current County Championship article will likely be kept in good condition no matter what, these navboxes made it a lot easier as an editor for me to make substantial contributions on the equivalent competitions in places like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, which were lacking local editors to create and maintain the articles to the same standard as some of the Western leagues.
In short, I think these navboxes are not problematic and add value in both navigation and ease of editing beyond what any similar navbox currently offers. SellymeTalk 09:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As editors, these template help us to navigate from one article to another, which makes it easier to keep them maintained and up-to-date, especially those domestic articles which are not covered by many editors.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MASSIVE violation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL across the board! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Xviews

[edit]

These templates are supposed to display a graph of page views. To properly set them up, a bot needs to update the page views data for each page with this template. There would be a delay between setting up the template and it functioning. You would also need to maintain the bot indefinitely. All of that effort... or you can visit WP:PAGEVIEWS to see all of the page view data you please, including comparing the views of different pages, viewing arbitrary time frames, filtering by views on mobile/desktop, and other additional functionality which would not be easily replicated by a template.
Even if we get it working, these templates are a massive source of banner bloat. We need fewer banners so that editors actually read the important ones, like {{contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Frequently asked questions}}. We could include a link to the appropriate WP:PAGEVIEWS graph in {{talk header}} if people feel that the link already provided by the MoreMenu gadget, in the page information link on each page, and of course at WP:PAGEVIEWS are insufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to user space. There is a void placeholder there now to prevent Talk pages from complaining about missing templates, so it can be deleted whenever. A lot of people (even senior editors) either don't know about the page views link, or don't always remember how to find it again, so the idea about adding something to the Talk header page is an interesting one; maybe a discreet icon somewhere with tooltip help would be enough, and save having to have a text link. Here's one from Commons, and there are no doubt others. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above premature and incomplete action has resulted in unfortunate side effects, including creation of two blank templates, and transclusions of nonexistent templates like Template:Xviews/gSTALE. It would be nice to get those sorted, regardless of the outcome of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at links to Template:Xviews/gSTALE and all are species of template discussions, like this one, where red links are normal, so I don't see anything needed here. I could go edit the five discussions or database reports to point them into the page in my userspace, but that hardly seems like a good outcome; seems to me showing them as red links is what we want. Or am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Xreadership and Module:Xviews should also be added. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: would you be willing to userfy (moving to Module:Sandbox/Mathglot/*) these as well? I'm happy if you want to save the code for further projects. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, willing, but I would like to give Ahecht first refusal, before taking them on if they are not interested. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot Go ahead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two module pages moved; Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Sandbox/Mathglot (along with two created redlinks?) Mathglot (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Module:Jf-JSON

[edit]

Unused; superseded by Scribunto. sapphaline (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Template:Transliterate

[edit]

Unused template with no clear use case where you would need to manipulate a string in this fashion. This is particularly true for the case where you would supposedly substitute the template... Just change the characters before you paste the string. This requires so much more work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We virtually have no alternative ways to do the same on English Wikipedia. The only other theoretical possibility is Module:MultiReplace, however that is the perfect example of what not to do in order to accomplish what this template has been designed for – for instance, create a {{Unicode italic}} template with the following content:
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
	| 3 = 𝘈𝘉𝘊𝘋𝘌𝘍𝘎𝘏𝘐𝘑𝘒𝘓𝘔𝘕𝘖𝘗𝘘𝘙𝘚𝘛𝘜𝘝𝘞𝘟𝘠𝘡𝘢𝘣𝘤𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘪𝘫𝘬𝘭𝘮𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘲𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘷𝘸𝘹𝘺𝘻
}}
    The use case as a substitution template is that of a meta-substitution (i.e. templates for substitution that use this template need to be able to use it as a substitution template). More in general, this template is the way to go when we want two map two different alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah - you could use it, in fact. If you want to transliterate text from, say, Greek to English. But per nom., it is just too much work, and doesn't have any clear benefit over just doing it yourself. That is presumably why it is unused. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't want to write manually
    {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘱𝘴𝘶𝘮 is a lovely sentence}}
    You'd rather write:
    {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|{{subst:uitalic|Lorem ipsum}} is a lovely sentence}}
    We have no other way to show italicized text or similar things inside the popup message of templates like {{Abbr}}. Italic characters are one example. Then we have monospace characters, then we have bold characters, and then we have—especially in math formulas—fraktur characters, and so on. --Grufo (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again Grufo has found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point of view. I really do. But try to transcend yourself, and think that a person even less skilled than you will tell you one day “We don't need these two apostrophes here you keep using to write italic characters. We don't need to write italic characters. I never needed to write italic characters in a page in my life.” --Grufo (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason we cannot just use <em>Lorem ipsum</em> etc.? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. It simply won't work. --Grufo (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you mean in the tooltip. Well, okay, what you suggest would work, so I'll strike my delete. Not moving to a keep, though, as no one has seen fit to actually use this for such purposes, and as other solutions exist to insert the unicode in such very limited cases (and as tooltips can't be displayed in main text, it is all a bit meta), I'm unconvinced, but neither is it doing any harm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are really many nice use cases for this template, especially in math and languages. For instance, imagine you have the uitalic template above and a template named usup with the following content:
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-−=()
	| 3 = ᴬᴮᶜᴰᴱᶠᴳᴴᴵᴶᴷᴸᴹᴺᴼᴾꟴᴿˢᵀᵁⱽᵂˣʸᶻᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖ𐞥ʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁺⁻⁻⁼⁽⁾
}}
    Then you will be able to write,
    {{abbr|{{mvar|G}}|{{subst:uitalic|G}} is the gravitational constant, i.e. 6.6743 × 10{{subst:usup|-11}} m{{subst:usup|3}} kg{{subst:usup|-1}} s{{subst:usup|-2}}}}
    which will generate
    G
    Of course we can already do that by hand. But do we really want to do it by hand? Then if we move to languages the use cases will go beyond the {{Abbr}} template (i.e. transliterating alphabets, removing/adding diacritics, and so on). --Grufo (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "by hand"? We usually write 6.6743 × 10<sup>-11</sup> m<sup>3</sup> kg<sup>-1</sup> s<sup>-2</sup> to get 6.6743 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. (P.S.: And we could write {{times}} to get  × .) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrisahn: In the specific example in question it is not possible. It will not work. --Grufo (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I got it now. I hadn't understood the main point of your example. {{abbr}} copies the text into the HTML attribute title="...", and HTML tags like <sup> don't work in HTML attributes: {{abbr|Sqm|m<sup>2</sup>}} produces the HTML <abbr title="m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;">Sqm</abbr>, which renders as Sqm, whose mouse hover text is almost as ugly as the attribute content. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're going to need a MOS-compliant example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts says not to use these characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95: I totally agree with the MOS, but I also think that the MOS does not go as far as forbidding the only way to express something in specific situations. Also, as explained earlier, this template is not limited to the superscript Unicode characters and the italic Unicode characters shown above. For instance, I am quite persuaded that the MOS has nothing against the fraktur characters used in math, or against other types of transliterations or alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Here is a MOS-compliant example (it is a substitution template—let's call it {{subst:bfrakt}}):

{{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
	| 3 = 𝕬𝕭𝕮𝕯𝕰𝕱𝕲𝕳𝕴𝕵𝕶𝕷𝕸𝕹𝕺𝕻𝕼𝕽𝕾𝕿𝖀𝖁𝖂𝖃𝖄𝖅𝖆𝖇𝖈𝖉𝖊𝖋𝖌𝖍𝖎𝖏𝖐𝖑𝖒𝖓𝖔𝖕𝖖𝖗𝖘𝖙𝖚𝖛𝖜𝖝𝖞𝖟
}}

This allows writing

Given ideals {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|a}}, {{subst:bfrakt|b}}}} of a commutative ring {{mvar|R}}, the {{mvar|R}}-annihilator of {{math|({{subst:bfrakt|b}} + {{subst:bfrakt|a}})/{{subst:bfrakt|a}}}} is an ideal of {{mvar|R}} called the [[ideal quotient]] of {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|a}}}} by {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|b}}}} and is denoted by {{math|({{subst:bfrakt|a}} : {{subst:bfrakt|b}})}}; it is an instance of [[idealizer]] in commutative algebra.

which generates:

Given ideals 𝖆, 𝖇 of a commutative ring R, the R-annihilator of (𝖇 + 𝖆)/𝖆 is an ideal of R called the ideal quotient of 𝖆 by 𝖇 and is denoted by (𝖆 : 𝖇); it is an instance of idealizer in commutative algebra.

Source: Ideal (ring theory). Of course the same can be done via LaTeX too. But this applies to most use cases of the {{Math}} template. --Grufo (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the redirect. I am unconvinced by the arguments presented by Grufo (and no, I don't need any more). The tooltip examples are clearly a non-starter, and while I could maybe see a use in the \math realm as described, I will note that the actual text from the ring theory example above is about 6 characters shorter per character of rendered text; specifically, \mathfrak{a} is six chars shorter than {{subst:bfrakt|a}} but when including the {{math}} template itself compared to the <math> group it actually jumps up another half-dozen chars. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize this was previous ply a redirect. As the nominator, I fully support this outcome! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Specifically, \mathfrak{a} is six chars shorter than {{subst:bfrakt|a}}”: The next editor however will thank you, because now {{subst:bfrakt|a}} went away and 𝖆 is 11 chars shorter than \mathfrak{a}. “And no, I don't need any more”: And yet I will give you one more: A {{subst:straight quotes|...}} template to straighten quotation marks in entire paragraphs/sections:
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = “”‘’
	| 3 = ""''
}}
    (Especially useful when we reference sources that use curved quotation marks). I know I can appear overly certain about the utility of this template, but the truth is that I have a lot of experience in using it and I know how much time it can spare in very different situations. --Grufo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:GorillaWarfare/script/curlies, much more useful. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really arguing only for the sake of arguing. Besides the fact that User:GorillaWarfare/script/curlies.js does exactly the same thing, and besides the fact that using scripts has a higher difficulty bar in general, according to what they write that scripts forces you to save the page with curly quotes first, and then straighten them afterwards, whereas here you can simply paste the text with the quotes already straight. --Grufo (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much it factors into the discussion, but on the off chance that I don't notice the curly braces, I just let someone else gnoming and/or using AWB with genfixes to fix it. Curly braces are a style thing, not anything critical. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not go further with this discussion (I love curly quotation marks btw). The {{Transliterate}} template essentially implements (via module) the translit() function from m4. Up to the participants of this discussion the ability to understand, in a preprocessing context like wikitext, how useful or useless that is. Please delete it if you feel more at ease doing things like
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />#invoke:MultiReplace|main|plain=yes|{{{1|}}}|A|𝕬|B|𝕭|C|𝕮|D|𝕯|E|𝕰|F|𝕱|G|𝕲|H|𝕳|I|𝕴|J|𝕵|K|𝕶|L|𝕷|M|𝕸|N|𝕹|O|𝕺|P|𝕻|Q|𝕼|R|𝕽|S|𝕾|T|𝕿|U|𝖀|V|𝖁|W|𝖂|X|𝖃|Y|𝖄|Z|𝖅|a|𝖆|b|𝖇|c|𝖈|d|𝖉|e|𝖊|f|𝖋|g|𝖌|h|𝖍|i|𝖎|j|𝖏|k|𝖐|l|𝖑|m|𝖒|n|𝖓|o|𝖔|p|𝖕|q|𝖖|r|𝖗|s|𝖘|t|𝖙|u|𝖚|v|𝖛|w|𝖜|x|𝖝|y|𝖞|z|𝖟}}
    I can only say that Module:MultiReplace was not designed for that and the code above will be about ten times slower (and infinitely uglier). --Grufo (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bolivia medical cases

[edit]

Basing this nomination on a similar Tfd from October 2024.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Bear in mind, this is the first batch of templates. The entire lot needs to be deleted. But this is the first step in the process. Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada medical cases by province is updated daily, the statistics are relevant to the articles it accompanies, and all of it is sourced from federal, provincial and territorial health sites, all of them named in each entry. ~2025-32525-60 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if up-kept; modifications as needed.
Hello, a culprit of those tables here - I think the tables still have the layouts that I designed.
This data has crucial value in often being irreplaceable and of scholarly (etc.) interest. Crucially, they record daily counts that the official releases often don't care about - typical to see official releases that either show the cumulative or overwrite old numbers with new ones. So at minimum they need archiving.
For actively maintained tables, I'm strongly keep. Like someone said above, at least Canada cases are being updated daily with current relevance.
I would argue that those are discriminate collections of data, as they include strictly only specific items of info with a single consistent set of criteria, so WP:NOTDATABASE and its sub-rule Wikipedia:NOTSTATS don't incontrovertibly apply here. The issue here is, it just so happens that the set of "notable info" here is hard to split in any non-arbitrary way. This is unlike the "list of Norwegian bands" example where we expect only notable Norwegian bands; we simply have one set called Covid case numbers, by the day (/week, etc.). "Covid situation" is in general still rather notable, and may unfortunately become very notable at anytime in the near future; it would be unwise to kill actively maintained tables only to restore them later and face an awkward blank.
Still, in cases where the table has not been maintained for a good while, clearly the notability has become questionable. If either it is no longer practical to restore the data or the data can be retrieved elsewhere, deletion is clearly fine (but archive first!).
Modifications:
A couple of ideas to improve issues of current tables.
1) Getting bulky, where one table covers all cases from the beginning unto eternity. My suggestion is either to split off parts of the table, or to flip the row order so that the newest is at the top. When I sort of designed the first few tables I wasn't expecting for a pandemic lasting indefinitely (profound naïveté; besides the point). If I had expected for a long-ish pandemic, I would have at least inverted the row order so that the newest comes at the top. Scrolling all the way to the bottom feels a bit silly to me personally.
2) Ill-fitting layout. I suggest re-sizing the tables with timescales appropriate for the given period; e.g. a weekly release means rows of weeks, not of dates. The Canada table for example still uses the 2020 "daily" row layout, but that was because back then numbers were being released daily; it was for the same reason that the rows weren't by the hour or half-day. I do in fact remember perhaps it was South Korea that had a few half-day rows in 2020 - because the data was being released twice per day and the data was notable, not because we adored that split. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one out of this batch is updated, but that one template that is is being done by one user, a TA of all people. Most editors are not concerned with updating this info anymore. Any information on total from 2020 can be included as part of the article instead of on a separate space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they may have been useful at the height of the pandemic and a IAR exception of the the NOTDATABASE & NOTSTATS violations were ok. But now 5 years on and these are wildly out of date a not useful. Any argument for keeping them is based on the idea that someone would take charge of keeping them up to date... Even if that were true, they still violate NOTDATABASE & NOTSTATS. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of San Diego

[edit]

Redundant to Template:San Diego. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplicate information. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - preserve existing format as a sub-box in {{San Diego}}. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The layout in Template:Neighborhoods of San Diego is much cleaner and easier to navigate than in the corresponding section in Template:San Diego. A better solution would be to delete the neighborhoods section in Template:San Diego and leave both templates. (see WP:NAV-WITHIN regarding size of navigational templates.)
  2. If consensus is to not have two templates, then the content of Template:Neighborhoods of San Diego should be merged into Template:San Diego.
  3. There are a number of unlinked and red-linked neighborhood names in both templates. They should be confirmed not to have a Wikipedia page (e.g., some may have pages such as Neighborhood name, San Diego although the wikilink in the template is to Neighborhood name. Any remaining red-links should be deleted per WP:EXISTING
--Lexiconaut (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a navbox for everything. This navbox is redundant and is not needed. San Diego navbox is doing the job just fine. And meeting the nav-within already. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my above comments, I agree with parts of what both Lexiconaut and WikiCleanerMan have said. So I propose this compromise which merges the 2 navboxes, but keeps the separate districts of {{Neighborhoods of San Diego}}. Thoughts? (Note this is a proof of concept... I have not verified all links are present...) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still pointless. The main navbox is already doing the job. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some debate about outright deletion vs merging into Template:San Diego.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smyrna, GA neighborhoods

[edit]

Only one article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: I can expand it to be about the whole city. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need articles first then a navbox. I don't think you will be fast enough to create at least five links for a navbox. Plus, the one article is suspect for GNG. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: Typically I collect five articles before making a navbox. The school district, the relevant high school, any shopping mall, and any airport should push it to five at least. Any National Register of Historic Places sites in the Smyrna city limits should push it higher. If there's an Amtrak station, that can do it too... I'll try now. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the relevant school district (in Georgia law, school districts are independent governments), a public comprehensive high school in the city limits, a list of mayors of Smyrna, and the public library. There is a covered bridge associated with Smyrna, though it lies outside the city limits. See PDF p. 4/6 and compare with the actual location of the covered bridge. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Module:Bar box/doc

[edit]

Unused /doc template. Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Module:Bar/doc per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RFC:_Updating_T5_to_account_for_parent_templates_that_have_been_merged_at_TFD. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you see consensus. "No consensus for a change" ≠ "consensus for current thing". I see a 3vs4, so hardly a consensus. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_30#Module:Bar_box/sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Every single !vote in that discussion other than yours supported redirection. Pppery: the /doc, /sandbox and /testcases should be redirected to those of the target, Thryduulf: In most cases redirection following a merge is going to be preferable, Jonesey95: Subpages of a merged template should be redirected, The Banner: Should be redirected, not be deleted., BodhiHarp: redirect such pages when possible. Consensus can exist even when not specifically mentioned in the close. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The close SPECIFICALLY SAID There is no consensus for this proposal... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no consensus for the proposal to apply T5 to subtemplates of a template that was merged. A clear reading of the discussion shows a consensus for a different topic, which is redirecting following a merge. WP:CONSENSUS covers much more than just closer comments. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to have a doc page for a base page that is a redirect. What possible value does this serve? Other thank links to this discussion, this doc page has no incoming links. Ahecht what purpose does it serve to keep this redirect around? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: note I have also taken Module:Bar box to RfD here as it has no incoming links except its own doc page (which we are discussing here) and no reason to keep as not used and not a plausible typo. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted then subpages will be deleted per WP:G8 and so should not be listed separately. Pinging someone who has supported your position in a related discussion, but not the ones who have opposed it, is a contravention of WP:CANVASS, and as such is considered improper. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm publicly pinging the person who started this discussion. Clearly not canvassing. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not the others involved who have no more or less reason to be interested. Per that page "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" not solely limited to a nominator. Please take care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the future. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reduce trivia/doc

[edit]

Unused /doc template. Apparently T5 is meaningless. Gonnym (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Trivia/doc per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RFC:_Updating_T5_to_account_for_parent_templates_that_have_been_merged_at_TFD --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G6 housekeeping. @Ahecht: There is absolutely not a consensus to keep these types of pages. The discussion you linked to was very clearly closed as No consensus with the comment There is no consensus for this proposal. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 that discussion showed no consensus for the proposal to speedy delete subpages of moved/merged templates, but there clearly was a consensus that they should be redirected if possible as all but one !vote supported that option. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 08:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very obviously not a WP:G6, a classic WP:!G6 actually. And any page deleted as such would be overturned following a WP:DRV listing. WP:NOCON means the existing consensus that the pages are not subject to speedy deletion remains. However, they are still subject to ordinary deletion as a result of an XFD listing, so the error is resolvable by simply removing speedy from the beginning of the post and altering the explanation in accordance. Since there are responses that needs to be done by following the procedure described at WP:REDACT. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Template:R to diacritic/Explanation

[edit]

Unused (not transcluded) template that is linked to from a few category pages. If this is a help page and is still needed, it should be converted to one (moved to the help namespace with the redirect deleted). If it isn't needed, it should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline a T5 for this case given how the links point to it. Izno (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: educate me... Why is it not a T5? It is n unused sub template... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't a T5able case, but that I would decline a T5. My reason is as above. Just because something qualifies for a criterion doesn't mean it should be deleted for such. Izno (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Template:Scottish English

[edit]

Given that this template's counterpart {{Use Scottish English}} redirects to {{Use British English}} (and has since 2016) I suggest we do the same here to make it consistent. As was noted at a previous TFD, MOS:ENGVAR deals with National varieties of English and Scotland is a subnational entity. In any case, we need some consistency here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since this talk page template announces what variety of English is being used (not what should be used) in the corresponding article, it should not simply be redirected. This would leave an incorrect claim about the article. What should happen is that, after an article has been rewritten in British English, the template should be removed. When the template ceases to be used over all articles, deletion will likely be uncontrovertial. Thincat (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are various words or spellings that may be used in an article about Scotland that are not "British English" (whatever that is). Some have English English counterparts, (and it is not clear to me why these should be "rewritten" - do we do this for other varieties of English?) but for others, especially when it comes to the law, but also education, local government etc. it would simply be erroneous to use their alternatives from elsewhere. Ben MacDui 16:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ben MacDui I would point out as an example there is no {{Texan English}} despite there being Texan English. These templates are designed to denote National varieties of English not regional differences. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology related to law, education, &c., has nothing to do with ENGVAR. 'Advocate' is the proper name for the Scottish equivalent of a barrister, no matter the variety of English used – no one is going to come in and replace it with the English 'barrister' because this template was deleted. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the top-level subcomponents of the UK are a bit of a sui generis case. Often they are referred to as countries, or nations, Scotland most especially. Which is further complicated by the fact that the definitions of those terms are loose, used both interchangeably and differently by various organizations and experts. They can be used to designate a sovereign political entity and there are degrees of sovereignty what fun or a cultural community, or a linguistic one. In the past it was the norm, even in RS, to refer to ethnic groups as nations; some authors still do.
I probably would have recommended avoiding this nomination as any practical effect is likely not to be worth the bother it causes people, but we're here I guess.
I don't think consistency itself is an automatic reason to do anything even if one is dead set against using nation with respect to Scotland. Little inconsistencies often exist for a reason fun discussion on VPP right now on that very topic actually and sometimes different kinds of consistency conflict. A slight bit of untidiness is just an inherent part of the wiki way, no need to sniff everything one bumps into closely.
Ultimately I doubt there are any practical issues that could not be solved with some tweaks to the documentation. But this is one of those flamebaity areas I'd rather not spend too much time on even if I had some available maybe not quite on the same level of LAMEness as deciding whether Hiberno or British English is better for NI stuff, but close so I don't intend to take any formal position on this. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{British English}} since its counterpart was replaced by Use British English. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is no difference between written Scottish and British English in the encyclopaedic register when WP:COMMONALITY is accounted for – I say this as a Scot. Someone may try to come here and say, 'but what about 'outwith' and the like?' 'Outside' is also acceptable in Scottish English – outwith should never be used in Wikipedia articles per WP:COMMONALITY. Anyway, 'outwith' is also used in the north of England, and is just as British as the rest of our English. There is no justification for the existence of this template. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with the British English template. Scottish English is a subset of British English and is not much different. It and British English look visually identical. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until pertinent arguments for deletion given. Updated, to clarify, Revert redirect and keep.
From not being particularly exercised about the continued existence of this template, the series of poorly considered arguments given for deletion has started to give me concern that, if these are the bases, we should not.
We should be concentrating on the purpose of the template and if it serves that purpose. What is that, it’s not clear to me? To indicate that pertinent ENGVAR terms should be respected? Something else? If it serves a purpose, does its existence cause any problems? If not, why delete it?
I’m unconvinced that the nation of Scotland not being politically independent has any bearing. Strict employment of COMMONALITY could justify the removal of preferable terms. “Scottish English... and British English look visually identical” except when they don’t; that instances when they are not identical are comparatively few is neither here nor there.
(As far as I am aware, there has been no stipulation that, re ENGVAR, “national variety” refers only narrowly to political nation states. Unless otherwise stated, it is to nations, broadly defined. Language subdivisions aren’t defined by administrative boundaries anyway. That "this template's counterpart... redirects to" British English is down to this edit, the edit summary also giving this erroneous basis as its rationale (and should thus be un-redirected). So that discounts the nominating entry above and that the related template redirects.
I don’t know if this is pertinent to the existence of the template but, there would only be “no difference between written Scottish and British English” if WP:COMMONALITY was actively enforced, rather than “acounted for” and that brings its own problems. The enforcement of a term on the basis of commonality could justify the removal of a more suitable one. Very different at the extremes, there is no hard dividing line between Scots and Scottish English. As an example, at the Haggis article, would COMMONALITY dictate the replacement of “neep” with swede (British English but not really employed in Scotland) or turnip (used commonly in Scottish English but meaning a different vegetable in other parts of the UK)? Whether in a vernacular or a formal register, nobody talks about “haggis and swede” or “haggis and turnip”. Does the existence of this template help protect the usage of "neep"?)
Maybe the template should go but not on these bases. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use Scottish English already redirects to Use British English and this talk page only template is therefore a redundant orphan. This is a cleanup operation of an unusable template. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Covered above, 5th paragraph. That it does so is based on an erroneous rationale, so with the duff redirection reverted, the problem goes away. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 'X is a country, therefore it must have its own spelling tags' argument has not held much weight on similar templates which have been deleted, but we'll see if it gains more traction here. I think you're on firmer ground with the terminology argument. But even then, you'd need to argue that words like 'kirk' have no place in British English, which just isn't the case in my view. The British English tags are more than sufficient.
And an aside: it is fascinating how many retain arguments have a focus on vegetables! They seem to come up on all these TfDs on Engvar templates, regardless of the country. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very point is that 'X is a country, therefore it must have its own spelling tags' is not the argument, despite the reverse (not a country… therefore must not) being argued in support of deletion. This template’s purpose does not hinge on X and whether it is a country or not. The related template was redirected on this erroneous basis, so should not have been and should be reversed. This template and similar ones regard language varieties, not places that they may happen to map to and their geographical or political nature. If the language variety appropriate to the article appropriately employs vocabulary (more so than just "spelling") that would be less well-served by terms with greater COMMONALITY, the tag has a valuable purpose. You'd be happy for "kirk" and "church" to be used interchangeably in British English ENGVAR articles that have no particular and strong ties to Scotland or parts of the UK where the term is/was used? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valiant attempt to reframe the question but Use Scottish English was redirected, what, ten years ago was it? That's an established edit per BRD and it's a bit late to start the revert cycle now. What you're proposing there is a new change which would need its own discussion.
As for terminology, these templates are not as prescriptive as that. I think it was Johnuniq who said on another of these discussions that 'adding a template to a page does not require editors to lose their minds'. An article on religion in the UK, for example, might well refer to the Presbyterian Kirk in a Scottish context regardless of the absence of a 'Scottish English' tag on the talk page. And an article related to Scotland is likely to use the term church when talking about a Catholic church. Editors often present the existence of such words as a 'gotcha' moment in these discussions but it's much less clear cut than that. Dgp4004 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m only talking about what we do with this template. The nomination is on the basis of consistency with another template and we do not have to lose our mind to automatically make this template consistent with a flawed action on a flawed basis at another. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland is neither "a independent sovereign" or "a state under UK". Again, it is not that Scotland being a nation automatically necessitates this template, it's that the basis that it must go because "MOS:ENGVAR clearly says (it must be) a independent sovereign" is baseless. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the points made by Ben MacDui and Mutt Lunker. Of the defined types, the big and noticable differences exist between British English and American English. However, Scottish English is a well recognised variant. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that Scottish English is notoriously difficult to define (and it describes some of the overlap with the Scots language, for example) but nevertheless recognises it as a distinct entity [2]. I'd also flag up a plain language explanation of Scottish Standard English that might help [3]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are only for maintenance purposes – there are no differences between written Scottish and British English in the encyclopaedic register. Your links are about spoken English and pronunciation – these are irrelevant to Wikipedia maintenance as concerns ENGVAR. Thus, the same reason that was recently used to justify the deletion of similar templates, such as {{Use Singaporean English}}, applies here. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. It's not simply about the pronunciation. Article titles might also be affected by this, not just the words used on the page of an article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources that attest to the existence of an independent written standard of Scottish English that is different from British English in terms of spelling or grammar in the encyclopaedic register, excluding any proper names and terminology. I mentioned pronunciation because the links you provided were specifically about spoken English, which is irrelevant in a discussion about the guidelines governing how we categorise articles in a written encyclopaedia. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 4 January 2026 (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=1327315792"