Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFDHOWTO)
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 62 11 73
TfD 0 0 27 6 33
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 8 1 9
RfD 0 0 3 5 8
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_November_10#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

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

Notify users

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

November 10

[edit]

Template:Uw-softerblock/preload

[edit]

While this is a preload and subst template, I couldn't find any usages of it in an insource search. It also has no incoming links and no documentation which might have added any insight to where it might be used. This might have been used somewhere in the past, but currently it seems it isn't. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jawed Vertebrates

[edit]

A disaster of a navbox. Absolute usability nightmare. Still supposedly under construction but this should be stopped before it goes any further. Full of errors and absolutely massive. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too large to be of any use. On my screen I need to scroll both vertically and horizontally to be able to see it all. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locality table data

[edit]

Only 2 uses. creates a large table of mapframes in 1 use and a single mapframe in the other. neither really belong in the articles to begin with. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox port-of-entry

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox port-of-entry with Template:Infobox port.
These appear to be nearly identical... Documentation shows almost the exact same parameters. I actually couldn't find anything unique. Per the talk page, it was created as a fork and intended to be different, but doesn't look like that making it different ever happened... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage and categorisation are entirely different, which is the intention of the fork. There are tons of fields in there that are irrelevant for ports of entry and can be removed. Retrograde step to merge. Fob.schools (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What categorization? Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement myd

[edit]

Unused and un-need custom wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. No meaningful edits in years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theropods & Maniraptoriformes

[edit]

Recently created and (thankfully) unused navbox. This is WAY too much information to try to cram into 1 navbox. Accessibility nightmare and difficult to use. Also flooded with CAT:DUPARGS. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 9

[edit]

Template:Country data Gorno-Badakhshan

[edit]

The template is being used to push an editor's original creation (OC) to represent a separatist movement. Gorno-Badakhshan does not have a flag, so the template has no function beyond one LTA using it to sneakily add someone's OC using the "unofficial" variant tag. Yue🌙 20:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its used in Articles. Someflags (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modesto Nuts roster

[edit]

The baseball team is defunct. There is no longer a team for which to have a roster. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator, unused and no longer needed. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAIV block

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Maile66 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary block template, especially given that Temporary account IP viewers do not have the ability to block users. Sugar Tax (talk) 15:04, 9 November 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.

Philippine Basketball League team templates

[edit]

The Philippine Basketball League ceased operations in 2011, so there isn't really a need for these templates anymore. MarcusAbacus (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this will also affect the category Category:Philippine Basketball League team roster templates since all four of its templates are included here. MarcusAbacus (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 8

[edit]

Template:The Biggest Loser (Brunei TV series)

[edit]

Orphaned navbox, only consists of red links. ✗plicit 23:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no use to anyone Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Assyrian-Kurdish Conflict

[edit]

Unused and appears to be an OR and synth grouping as there is no main article on this subject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats topic? NEMURO (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it’s wrong, you can remove it, it’s okay for me. NEMURO (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KORTV year

[edit]

Unused and a sea of red. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metals-metalloids-nonmetals: compare, overview

[edit]

Delete as WP:SYNTH. This table is transcluded from Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals#Comparison of properties. It essentially proposes a metric for comparing elements classified as metalloids with metals and nonmetals, based on the set of properties selected by the article's author(s). As such, it is WP:original research and not suitable for WP. Additionally, the table is difficult to read, and its intended message is unclear. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS header

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. The template creator affirmed that a different template has replaced this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 7

[edit]

Template:Infobox international water polo competition

[edit]

Grand total of 16 uses. This is an un-needed wrapper that basically duplicates Template:Infobox tournament season with a few custom parameters. Not enough use to warrant a custom, separately maintained wrapper. Just replace these instances with Infobox tournament season. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Those different parameters are useful and make table different to the rest. I will be using this table way more in the future for water polo tournamnents' so please don't delete it.
ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only just learnt about this water polo Infobox and I think it is better than the handball one that is used for some water polo competitions. The water polo one is more catered to water polo. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RationalWiki

[edit]

Contested CSD G11. With all due respect, I disagree with User:Seraphimblade on this; the template serves no purpose other than to promote rationalwiki.org with spam links that fail WP:ELNO. WP:OPENWIKI does allow links to wikis with substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors, however RationalWiki fails this due to a history of major disruption and complete overhauls due to in-fighting amongst contributors, repeated appointment of unqualified individuals to include known trolls such as User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver to positions of authority, and a recent restructure in organization due to multiple lawsuits related to apparently inaccurate information being published in BLPs (and apparently their former organization being frivolous due to improper board elections). Even failing that, RationalWiki should not be linked on point 1 of ELNO because anything they can do we can do better and from a WP:NPOV, as well as point 2 since they've basically conceded that they were hosting inaccurate information in response to the lawsuits. A 2023 RfC didn't reach consensus to deprecate RationalWiki, but there was general agreement that its use should be limited (with the few instances in which it should be linked better served without this template in my opinion). Finally, the only articles this was used on (before I WP:BOLDly removed it from them) were those of justices of the United States Supreme Court, articles where a link to RationalWiki would be anything but compliant with WP:NPOV. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment Nominator PCHS Pirate Alumnus has declared a connection to RationalWiki at Talk:RationalWiki, is an admin on Conservapedia (a rival of RationalWiki), and has been WP:BOLDly removing this Template:RationalWiki from multiple articles, including Murc's law, Gender-critical feminism, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts. Only at Gender-critical feminism was this BOLD removal of the Template:RationalWiki opposed, where at Talk:Gender-critical feminism#External link, nominator is engaged in heated debate with other users, arguing inter alia that RationalWiki is not a neutral source, it's not a reliable source, it's not really a notable source, links to it aside from a very small number of places (like its own article and on topics where reliable sources mention them) are nothing more than spam and highly inappropriate. In the rationale above, it seems that nominator is trying to circumvent the 2023 RfC that reached no consensus by unilaterally removing the Template:RationalWiki from every page, in an apparent attempt to force the template's deletion by eliminating all transclusions of the template (WP:TFD#REASONS no. #3). I am concerned that such conduct might be disruptive of ordinary procedure. To add to that, it seems like nominator never mentions at Talk:Gender-critical feminism#External link that he has nominated the Template:RationalWiki containing the external link (that he unilaterally tried to remove multiple times) for deletion. Participants in that talk page discussion seem unaware that nominator seems to be trying to force the template's deletion by eliminating all transclusions. Therefore, I think it is important that participants in that discussion are made aware of this TfD, and I'll ping them now: @Katzrockso, Bluethricecreamman, and Snokalok: for your information. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for mentioning this pertinent information.
    I vote to procedurally keep this template as the nomination has presented no valid deletion rationale under the listed deletion reasons WP:TFD#REASONS and seems to appeal to a laundry list of WP:IDL reasons against the template. I agree that attempts to remove the template from every page and then consequently nominating the template for deletion appears to be disruptive behavior. The nominator seems to substitute his interpretation of the policies on external links with the policies on templates, which are distinct. Katzrockso (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that, despite the apparent no consensus, the link at Vaginal steaming (which was spammed by a board member of the former RationalWiki Foundation, something I will say as a Wikipedian since 2008 should have never happened) was removed by another editor without further comment. A request for deprecation, which was only rejected due to a lack of links to the site, follows the RfC and question and should be revived if links to the site persist. Biased websites like RationalWiki and Conservapedia have no business being linked to in articles not directly related to those subjects. As for the rather strong allegation of disruptive editing, I don't see anything disruptive at all about removing spam and vandalism, the latter being how I learned about RationalWiki and Conservapedia in the first place. Also, WP:ELNO is not WP:IDL, and RationalWiki fails WP:ELNO on multiple fronts, including WP:OPENWIKI because the site as a whole lacks a "substantial history of stability" (I interpret that to mean the wiki as a whole, not an individual article, and the amount of vandal attacks alone disqualifies it as being stable). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the request for deprecation was denied because you asked at a completely irrelevant forum. The WP:RS forum is about determining whether a source is reliable for use in an article, if people are using wikis as sources in articles there are much bigger problems. Your personal interpretation of the stability of RationalWiki (I checked and don't seen any indication of the supposed instability you cite) notwithstanding, you still have yet to present a deletion rationale recognized by this forum.
    It is apparent that you are very invested in this topic, but it is bordering on disruptive as seen by the manner in which you are going about it. Katzrockso (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The template is recent (created in April of this year) and ultimately wrongheaded. RationalWiki is user generated content, which clearly makes it a WP:SPS for citation, but we do allow self published sources in external links. Nevertheless there is a question as to whether we should have this SPS. An example of an SPS that has a template and has utility is IMDB. Listings on IMDB are user generated, but it is a useful movie database that Wikipedia should not be re-creating. Wikipedia writes the articles, and external links go to databases (in that case with cast lists, release notes etc.) where the database information is not summary style prose. So I think you can make a case that external links to a specialist wiki are suitable, and if that specialist database is extensive, a template is in order.
    But, that is not the case here. RationalWiki is offering encyclopaedic articles about subjects from a specifically rationalistic sceptic point of view. That is not a wrong thing to do, but links from our articles to that wiki raise pertinent questions. Why would we curate links to RationalWiki and not to other wikis with other points of view (the various conservative forks, for instance, or even Musk's AI abomination)? To link to one and not another applies a POV to our articles in the curation, and there should be nothing on RationalWiki that is pertinent to the encyclopaedic subject that we cannot say ourselves on our article. This is not like IMDB. This is a deliberate choice to curate articles from a particular POV and present those. It may be that a case can be made for some kind of links from RationalWiki, but we should not be encouraging them in general. The template encourages inappropriate external links, and should go.
    For the avoidance of doubt, this meets WP:TFD#REASONS reason 4. Deliberate curation of articles from a POV source is not WP:NPOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I declined the G11, as it wasn't the type of blatant spamming that G11 covers, we should not be routinely linking to non-Wikimedia wiki sites and should not have a template which encourages people to do so. That's true whether it's Fandom, RationalWiki, or anything else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that editors at Conservapedia, a far-right website known for promoting conspiracy theories and disinformation (including Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories), dislike this template, is no reason to delete it. --Tataral (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But similarly, no reason to keep it. We should delete any templates for Conservapedia for the same reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An absurd comparison. To my knowledge, RW is not known for promoting Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but as a site criticizing conspiracy theories. --Tataral (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems rather easy, this template shouldn't be here due to rule 4: The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.Halbared (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not centred

[edit]

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

  • Comment: This template was created as humour; I was thinking maybe users would put it on their talk page as a parody of {{censor}}. Remember that humour templates aren't often actually used (does anyone really warn people using the uw-constructive templates?), they're more there to give people who stumble across them a good laugh. Newbzy (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Humour may sometimes be kept, but perhaps not in the form of a template like this? I don't know what the policy is. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, move it to userspace, since it's intended for user talk pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wives of Sigismund Augustus

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 Belarus Winter Olympic team

[edit]

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

At the Olympic Games, all team members of a nation are called the "Olympic team." Sczipo (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a source for your claim. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Caribbean English

[edit]

This template was redundantly created in August 2025 and is used on only six articles. But on closer inspection, those pages use a 'UBelE' tag. This template appears to be redundant to that Use Belizian English template - although the usefulness of that template will also need to be discussed separately. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unusable guidance, per MOS:COMMONALITY. The article at Caribbean English provides no examples of words or phrases from Caribbean English that could be used, without glossing, in English Wikipedia articles. Look at Caribbean English#Samples for examples of phrasing that we could not possibly use here. Look at Caribbean English#Overview for an unsourced list of pronouns that we can't use here at the English Wikipedia. I acknowledge that there are differences between Caribbean English and standard American or British English, in word choice, syllable emphasis, and pronunciation, but the former is not relevant here because of MOS:COMMONALITY, and the latter two are not relevant here because Wikipedia is written, not spoken. Meanwhile, the article itself claims that The written form of the English language in the former and current British-controlled Caribbean countries conforms to the spelling and the grammar styles of Britain and in Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands conforms to the spelling and the grammar styles of United States. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of most-followed Twitter accounts

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Unnecessary template that only served one article. Prefall 10:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10TeamBracket-PagePlayoff

[edit]

Unused bracket template. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons stated Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've just amended the template for use in the AFL and VFL (the first example with paths crossing in columns 3-4 will apply), so will add it to the last few VFL season articles (since the wildcard round was added) and it will otherwise be used in the AFL from next year. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now has four transclusions with more to come, so should be closed as speedy keep. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per 4TheWynne, the AFL have today announced that they're adding a wildcard round from next year so this will be required. (And is now in use on the page describing the finals system.) Tantusar (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russo-Ukrainian war overview map

[edit]

Unused map. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kenwick railway station

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kelmscott railway station

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

[edit]

Template:Diplomatic missions of the Dominican Republic

[edit]

Only 1 English entry which is about an attack and not the embassy article. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 11

[edit]
(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh AND Template:Andhra Pradesh topics should be merged into Template:Andhra Pradesh).
(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Bihar AND Template:State of Bihar should be merged into Template:Bihar).
(Clarification: Both Template:Life in Tamil Nadu AND Template:Tamil Nadu topics should be merged into Template:Tamil Nadu).
Note: The other states and union territories of India do not have culture sidebars.
Note: Template:Odia culture (footer navbox) should perhaps be renamed Template:Culture of Odisha (currently a redirect to sidebar Template:State of Odisha) after main article Culture of Odisha, but otherwise I would keep it separate from Template:Odisha (footer navbox). I'm excluding this issue from the current nomination, but for the sake of completeness I'm mentioning it.

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing), Culture sidebars part 8 (ongoing), Culture sidebars part 9 (ongoing), and Culture sidebars part 10 (ongoing, see below). NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. " Moxy🍁

Template:Ontario topics

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Ontario topics into Template:Ontario.
Strong overlap: merge. Created in 2007 and 2008, but no significant distinction in scope. Both have 'History', 'Government/Politics', 'Geography', 'Culture', and 'Economy' as groupings, only differing in 'Transportation' versus 'Communities'. Template:Ontario is far better transcluded though, so that should be the merge target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here's the right approach. Moxy🍁 00:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree! NLeeuw (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. Same purpose. Seems so obvious to me that if I had seen this, I would have WP:BOLDLY merged it... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Scottish Championship Winners in Soling

[edit]

Navbox with one bluelink (except UK ans U.S.) in the grey area, therefore it serves little purpose and I propose deleting. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 10

[edit]
Former countries
Subnational divisions

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing, see yesterday), Culture sidebars part 8 (ongoing, see yesterday), and Culture sidebars part 9 (ongoing, see yesterday). NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't think courtesy pings will be necessary for this one. I notified everyone 3x yesterday, I don't want to overdo it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the question, really, is whether the other 6 are also worth transcluding, and thus transferring to Template:England topics:
  1. National symbols of England: Well, we've already got National anthem of England and English national identity in Template:England topics, so this seems like a good addition. Advice: yes.
  2. Tourism in England: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
  3. English folk music: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
  4. Glossary of country dance terms: Well, country dance originated in England, and English country dance redirects to country dance. But, I think Template:English folk music better serves navigation on all (English) country dance and English folk music already, and if we're already transferring English folk music, they could find it easily. I think this is too specific and niche for the Template:England topics. Advice: no.
  5. Garland dance: well this quite a small article about a very specific English folk dance. This is a relatively niche topic, which is also already transcluded by Template:English folk music. Advice: no.
  6. Sport in Bedfordshire: With all due respect for Bedfordshire, I don't think it is representative of England as a whole, in sport or otherwise. Sport in England is relevant, but we're not gonna link to every county. Advice: no.
So, if we just transfer articles 1, 2, and 3, I think we can Just-delete Template:Culture of England as well. Although Template:England topics already has 61 transclusions, I don't think adding 3 more is much of an issue. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Wales topics has 138 links (!), and 282 transclusions (!!). I think this is wayyy too much to begin with, even before we ask the question whether we should merge Template:Culture of Wales into it or not. The fact that it has almost double the number transclusions to the number of links suggests that people are dumping the footer Template:Wales topics under lots of articles that they think are of general importance to "Wales", regardless of whether those articles are actually mentioned in the footer itself. That is a sign of poor editing practices. More importantly, 138 links is really overdoing it. Take the grouping "Religion". It has links to:
  • This way too elaborate for a top country navigation footer. Most Fooland topics footers only have a general link to "Religion in Fooland". Moreover, there is a separate Template:Religion in Wales which contains the same links and more (but it is not properly transcluded, with just 17 transclusions versus 64 links).
At any rate, that's a separate discussion. In this case I think Moxy is spot on: the pragmatic solution would probably be not to merge Template:Culture of Wales into Template:Wales topics, but to convert Template:Culture of Wales from a sidebar into a navbox footer. NLeeuw (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I WP:BOLDly fixed Template:Northern Ireland topics to include and transclude the few of the 6 articles that didn't overlap yet. Now, we can Just-delete Template:Culture of Northern Ireland without further fuss. NLeeuw (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That way, we'll solve most issues without creating new ones. NLeeuw (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy @R Prazeres Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Northern Nigeria

[edit]

Just delete. 2 blue links and 2 red links does not a navbox/sidebar make.

  • WP:ANOEP: Navboxes [are] not to be created [for] A very small collection of articles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand for which that is the limit. I.e. it should be at least 6 links in total.
  • WP:NENAN: A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? (...) If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet. I.e. it should be at least 5 existing articles other than the main article. NLeeuw (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cultures of Somaliland

[edit]

Just delete, unused and a complete duplicate of Template:Culture of Somaliland, which is already nominated to be merged into Template:Somaliland topics. The only transclusion it did have, Sports in Somaliland, is also already in both other templates, so I removed it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RM-BET

[edit]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RM TnG

[edit]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PLUSTransit TnG

[edit]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zionism US

[edit]

Highly specific template that does not have a single transclusion (literally every entry violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) and shouldn't. Almost every entry included is either incredibly minor or already drowning in sidebars. A poor fit for a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zionism UK

[edit]

Highly specific template that does not have a single transclusion (literally every entry violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) and shouldn't. Almost every entry included is either incredibly minor or already drowning in sidebars. A poor fit for a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shared IP advice

[edit]

No longer necessary due to the deployment of temporary accounts. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary per nom. Is substing this on all pages it's transcluded on really worth the bother? The template doesn't add any substantive detail and doesn't really need to be on the page, particularly now that no IP user will ever see it again. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNAF U-15 Tournament

[edit]

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:UNAF Tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:IPA font

[edit]

Unused after {{IPAfont}} was deleted here. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why isn't this a G8 use case? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-published source

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Self-published source with Template:Self-published inline.
The inside/outside <ref>...</ref> distinction doesn't seem to actually do much, and it feels needlessly confusing to have two visually nearly identical tags do different things. Also would prevent instances of the two tags sorting to different categories in the unlikely event the category ever gets changed again. The |expert= and |ABOUTSELF= params might be useful in the other template as well. I think those more or less cover the main reasons I'm requesting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect. Only one is needed. I doubt it even matters if it is in fact a self published source or is not. If it is tagged, another editor along the way will check the tag and either remove the tag or remove the text with the tag. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These serve completely different purposes. The first is an annotation attached within a specific citation (inside <ref>...</ref>, noting that it is self-published but that it's permissible as a WP source due to subject-matter-expert author or is a WP:SELF matter (or it can be used to suggest that a source is self-published, in a situation in which this doesn't matter enough to interrupt the reader, e.g. because the claim has multiple source citations). This one is mostly an FYI to the few readers who are going through sources in detail, and a means of avoiding editorial dispute about a valid source. The second is a more typical, reader-interruptive inline template, used in the article body (ouside <ref>...</ref>) as a reader-warning and editor-cleanup/dispute template, noting or claiming that the source used is an impermissible self-published one. This one indicates a situation that needs attention and resolution. Just because two templates are superficially similar and have similar names does not mean they should be merged (or we would have tens of thousands fewer templates).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell that it has a different* purpose (in the sense of aim, or intention), but the purpose (as in function, what it actually does) was nearly identical up until, oh, 2017 or 2018 or so. If the |expert= and |ABOUTSELF= params shouldn't be used except inside the ref tags, then sure, whatever. It's possible to just not use them. I don't see why the purpose (aim) of the tags would be served any less well if both names had the purpose (function) of transcluding the same bit of code. (* though "completely" different seems like a bit of a stretch to me)
    As the creator of both {{self-published source}} and the redirect {{sps}} (which is to "self-published inline" and not "self-published source" for some reason) you are obviously an authority on the aim or intention, the why those templates were created. I just don't see a difference in function that isn't served purely by the location it's placed, which means we can just note somewhere "hey, if you don't want readers to pay attention to this you can put it inside the ref tags" and it will do pretty much exactly the same thing. I don't see why having tens of thousands fewer templates would be a bad thing if those templates are like this pair. And, I don't think the actual users of the tag reliably make the distinction (not that there's an easy way to tell except looking through the transclusions to find the times where the wrong one is used, given there is next to no difference between the two). Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. "Self published source" also has an external function, warning potential users of the information that it is not a peer-reviewed source. Student users writing papers are sometimes forbidden to use non-peer-reviewed sources. This proposal seems to me to be another example of doing something for the sake of doing something, rather than to make a situation better. If it's not broken, then don't fix it. Vicedomino (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that it has a function. I believe my nomination and previous comment indicate why I believe the function to be redundant (i.e. duplicating the other template) and what I believe to be broken. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew Ross

[edit]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films directed by Matt Ross

[edit]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bilal Lashari

[edit]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jennifer Kent

[edit]

With the TV show single episode removal, this only links to two films. Does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Léa Fehner

[edit]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pekin Ibrahim

[edit]

Only links to one article; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably can be merged into Template:Campaignbox Hezbollah–Israel conflict? Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless sidebar. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

[edit]

Template:Universal page list with custom separators

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal page list

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Karl Schäfer Memorial

[edit]

These non-notable competitions have all been redirected to Karl Schäfer Memorial, rendering this table obsolete. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination this is a list of pages that all redirect to one page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RM (cash)

[edit]

Substitute and delete. One transclusion, unclear use otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not used in any articles. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 9

[edit]
Note: Template:Culture of Libya already redirects to Template:Libya topics
Note: Template:Culture of Malawi already redirects to Template:Malawi topics
Note: Template:Culture of the Canary Islands already is a footer navbox and is functionally indistinguishable from topics navboxes. (Same goes for Template:Culture of Madrid Community and Template:Culture of Andalusia, and Template:Valencian Community topics)
Note: All other countries and dependent territories in Africa do not have a culture sidebar, but only a topics footer navbox.

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing below), and Culture sidebars part 8 (ongoing below). NLeeuw (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom and prev discusions —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 21:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge we have too many sidebars and these ones are not helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Stacked

[edit]

The template is marked as deprecated and has only 3 article uses left. The MediaWiki "main version" (according to the /doc) was deleted (MW:Template:Graph:Stacked). The /doc says to use COMMONS:User:Tomastvivlaren/graphDataImport to replace usages. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Population history

[edit]

The template is marked as deprecated and has only 4 article uses left. The MediaWiki "main version" (according to the /doc) was deleted (MW:Template:Graph:Population history). The /doc says to use COMMONS:User:Tomastvivlaren/graphDataImport to replace usages. Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 8

[edit]
Note: Template:Culture of Cuba already redirects to Template:Cuba topics
Note: Template:Culture of El Salvador already redirects to Template:El Salvador topics
Note: Template:Culture of Jamaica already redirects to Template:Jamaica topics
Note: Template:Culture of Nicaragua already redirects to Template:Nicaragua topics
Note: Template:Culture of the United States already redirects to Template:United States topics

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, and Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing below). NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Argentina

[edit]

Procedural withdraw: This nomination cannot proceed until Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 8#Culture sidebars part 6 has been carried out. Sorry for the confusion. (At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#South America history sidebars you can see my proposal, which I'll postpone until Culture sidebars part 6 has been processed). NLeeuw (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw well that discussion ended in merge, so there is nothing stopping you from implementing that merge and then continuing with this. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Well wouldn't that be confusing? I'd rather not mix things up. NLeeuw (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it will be, then sure. Close this and reopen at a later date. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pls stop spamming country navigation templates with every damn link possible.

Moxy🍁 23:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to convert these sidebars into new footer navboxes rather than merging them into existing country navigation templates? I think I'm starting to understand your objections, now that we're dealing with much larger templates than I started this series of culture sidebars TfMs with. NLeeuw (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely - as per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) Moxy🍁 00:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. One issue is that WP:NAVBOX never defines a maximum number of links. With Benjitheijneb, I've been working on User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Maximum links rule, where we set 50 links as a maximum for campaignboxes (which are technically sidebars rather than navboxes). I think we could take that as a rule of thumb for our purposes here as well? If you agree, then the next step seems straightforward.
At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#South America history sidebars, I've outlined how many links each history sidebar has, and how many of them are actually transcluded (which may included transclusions from pages that are not linked, but that's fixable). What I would propose is to only count the transclusions, and use them as a basis for new footer navboxes. E.g. the 8 transclusions of Template:History of Suriname. I'll put links to those 8 articles in this new footer navbox, add them to the bottom of those 8 articles, and then nominate Template:History of Suriname to be Just-deleted. (I might add the 5 missing transclusions in this case as the number is still very small). Sounds good? If you agree, then I'll proceed.
The only real problem might be converting Template:History of Brazil (174 links, 85 transclusions). 85 is still arguably way too much for a footer navbox. What would you suggest? Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merger of this nature is crazy. We should not go out of our way to make templates inaccessible. Moxy🍁 04:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But you shouldn't revert mergers that were carried out after a discussion to merge them reached consensus. That could be taken as disrupting the process.
Nevertheless, I am very much open to splitting off a UK culture footer navbox from Template:United Kingdom topics in order not to make the latter too loaded with links (what you called "mass link spam"). You've convinced me that it's important to consider the resulting total number of links in a merged template. Sometimes we should convert a culture sidebar into a new navbox footer rather than merge it into an existing topics navbox footer, and this seems a good example of just such a situation. NLeeuw (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why It may be best to bring this to the wider community - what I am seeing is a small group of editors forming a local consensuss that is the opposite of what our editing guidlines says is best. Simply no way most will think adding every Society article to the template bellow follows our editing guidlines WP:NAVBOX...that said if the future plan is conversion over merger it may workout.Moxy🍁 14:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. How would you suggest we bring this to the wider community? An RfC? Personally, I am trying to refine my approach by turning my overview at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars into a proper essay that may eventually evolve into a guideline. I'm using the 50+ links and transclusions a lot as a rule of thumb in order to recommend against some of the larger mergers I've recently proposed, and now (thanks to your objections) I am reconsidering. There are several examples we might use to base a general rule for separating society/culture footers from other "topics" footers that would get overpopulated, or are arguably already overpopulated (Gotta keep 'em separated! ). Quoting several examples I wrote earlier elsewhere:
So, while it may be obvious that a template should probably be split if it has more than 50 links and/or transclusions, it may not always be obvious how the split should be made, and into how many new templates it should be split. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#What to do when not to merge?, I summarise this discussion and propose a standard model for country and territory topics templates with fixed parameters, so that the total number of links can never exceed a certain number. (Kinda like an infobox, in which parameters that are not recognised simply will not display anything). NLeeuw (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here a very long time and in my opinion you're one of the greatest editors in regard to how your taking some criticism on something that is clearly a good faith effort...... your approach of compromise and common sense is a breath of fresh air. If your spearheading further endeavors of this nature I'm am very confident you have what's best for our readers in mind. ..... Special Barnstar coming your way in the near future.! Moxy🍁 21:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Thank you so much :D I'm trying. I know I'll sometimes make mistakes, and that I should try to correct them rather than pretending I'm always right. Fellow editors like you have a way of seeing my mistakes that I myself failed to see. We need each other to move forward.
I just hope I haven't been overwhelming you with questions, and asking your thoughts on how to improve the situation. So far you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate that very much, especially when we are dealing with complex issues that require a lot of effort to properly disentangle and figure out. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 7

[edit]
Note: Template:Culture of Cuba already redirects to Template:Cuba topics
Note: Template:Culture of Jamaica already redirects to Template:Jamaica topics
Note: There is already a Template:Aruba topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Aruba
Note: There is already a Template:Barbados topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Barbados
Note: There is already a Template:Cayman Islands topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of the Cayman Islands
Note: There is already a Template:Curaçao topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Curaçao
Note: There is already a Template:Grenada topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Grenada
Note: There is already a Template:Guadeloupe topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Guadeloupe
Note: There is already a Template:Martinique topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Martinique
Note: There is already a Template:Montserrat topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Montserrat
Note: There is already a Template:Saint Kitts and Nevis topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Saint Kitts and Nevis
Note: There is already a Template:Saint Lucia topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Saint Lucia
Note: There is already a Template:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Note: There is already a Template:Turks and Caicos topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of the Turks and Caicos Islands
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, and Culture sidebars part 6. See also Culture sidebars part 8 above. NLeeuw (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per previous discussions —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 17:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect comics templates

[edit]

Propose merging Template:R comics with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities; Template:R comics from alternative name with Template:R from alternative name; Template:R comics to list entry with Template:R to list entry; Template:R comics from merge with Template:R from merge; Template:R comics from related word with Template:R from related word; and Template:R comics to section with Template:R to section, respectively.
Note that this isn't a proposal to merge all these templates into one huge template, but to merge the comics redirect templates into their non-comics equivalents. I think the comics redirect templates should be merged into their respectively similary titled templates, without the word 'comics' in them, because they otherwise serve similar purposes, and I don't see the point of them being separate. I'm open to the proposals of the templates without the word 'comics' in their titles having the {{{comics}}} parameter instead if that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and its participants want. I'm surprised these proposals weren't made sooner. I've deliberately excluded 'Template:R comics naming convention' from this proposal because it serves a specific purpose and because there's no non-comics-related template similar to that one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TadgStirkland401: The nominator wants to merge all the comics into the non-comics. I.e. merge the first with the second ("R comics with possibilities" with "R with possibilities"), the third with fourth ("R comics from alternative name" with "R from alternative name") and so on. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2025-11-09 I feel that the proposal is clear enough (replace all the "R comics" templates with their regular counterparts), and I weak support because this also seems unnecessarily redundant to me. If anyone has a good reason for keeping them then I'd be interested to hear it! But my hunch is that it's just historical cruft. Hopefully an automated replacement can also automatedly "add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect" or whatever (if anyone actually cares about that; I don't really know) as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per voidxor. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the actual intent here. This was mislisted as a single merge (i.e. to one template), when the intent is clearly to merge {{R comics with possibilities}} to {{R with possibilities}}, then separately merge {{R comics from alternative name}} to {{R from alternative name}}, and so on. This should be done unless there's a compelling reason we need to divide each of these "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" rcats into topical subdivisions, and that comics in particular should be one of those subdivisions. (Even if that's actually true in some case, it is not necessarily true for all of them.) We shold do all of these merges in absence of a strong showing that one or more should not be merged. This is basically useless micro-intersection, of a sort that badly mixes categorization types and purposes. The identification of something as a comics topic is already accomplished (and is a reader- as well as editor-facing matter) by comics topical categories of the usual sort. Meanwhile, "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" categories are maintenance only and just editor-facing (nor do these generally need to be topically split, since editors working on categorization of, and other maintenance pertaining to, redirects that go in such categories are doing so on a cross-topical basis. Another way of putting it is that a redir being from an alternative name (or whatever) and it also pertaining to comics is a trivial intersection and non-defining characteristic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question to supports: You are all saying you support the nomination, but three of you said per "SMcCandlish" which (if I read correctly) isn't in support of continuing with the comic-specific categorization. So it would seem the intent here is to replace (or redirect), rather than merge any functionality. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no need to differentiate FaviFake (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Support merging the comic variants of these R-cat templates into the corresponding general templates with matching names. For the avoidance of doubt, I Oppose merging the various R-cat templates that do not include the word comics. The proposal is badly worded and confusing at first glance. It would have been clearer if a separate proposal was made for each template that it was proposed to merge with its corresponding target template; as I interpret the proposal, it is only proposed to merge Template:R comics from merge into Template:R from merge, etc. This is not actually a proposal to merge all these templates together, even though it appears to be one based on the way the templates are listed. Hence my partial opposition. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the "redirect comics" after they have been replaces with the "normal" R-templates. My first vote was support, but it was unclear what I was supporting, but still per user:voidxor. strong oppose merging. Christian75 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if I've understood correctly that this is fundamentally equivalent to replacing "R [media type] from [relationship between source and target article]", at least for those articles to do with comics. If we have "Redirect from alternative name", we don't need a more precise "Redirect from comic with alternative name", for example. I think I'm in agreement with BobKilcoyne. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOPAGE Freddy[citation needed] 18:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Will this have any effect on the 109,000 uses of {{R with possibilities}} other than to add that template to a few comics redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pallas class frigate default image

[edit]

Unused Infobox ship image template. Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nacra 17 World Championship medallists

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement/checkauto

[edit]

Unused sub template. Seems to have been replaced with something else. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Textbook WP:T5... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement/borough converter

[edit]

Unused sub template which isn't linked from anywhere. The code makes this seem as if this is a subst template, however preview (after removing the includeonly) shows unsupported parameter errors and the no documentation, no incoming links, and no updates in 9 years suggest no one uses this. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Textbook WP:T5... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/shield/KEN

[edit]

Unused sub template. Probably replaced with Module:Road data/strings/KEN. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Textbook WP:T5... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/areamask/MEX

[edit]

Unused sub template. Probably replaced with Module:Road data/masks/MEX. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Textbook WP:T5... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language templates/styles.css

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Textbook WP:T5... -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ITL map

[edit]

Unused location map template. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football in Pernambuco

[edit]

Unused navbox. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyprus problem detailed map

[edit]

Unused map template. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete glad this is unused. A nightmare for accessibility. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate change and health

[edit]

Unused sidebar. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused and unneeded. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to some of the articles, I'd add it to more in the future but now I can't as the deletion notice ruins article layout. I think this is a useful template for an important topic. Adam Harangozó (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine to withdraw. Please add it to the rest of the articles. Navigation templates should be placed on all pages it links to per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Propose merging Template:Link if exists with Template:Auto link.
Hike395 has overhauled both templates to use Module:Link if exists based on this discussion. It would appear that now these two can be seamlessly merged with no loss of behavior and functionality. I feel that the high use count of both templates (both have over 70,000) warrants a TFD rather than just a unilateral redirect to ensure there aren't unforeseen issues.

The main question is which do we keep, and which becomes the redirect? Also documentation will have to be merged and updated. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if both do exactly the same thing (I haven't checked, but the function calls are different. One calls "auto" and the other "lie", which their function seems different), then I'd say "Link if exists" is the better name. Both are also currently lacking in documentation, with complete parameter description missing. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, the parameters of {{Link if exists}} and {{Auto link}} are non-overlapping (except for the first parameter, which is the title of an article that may be linked). {{Link if exists}} accepts |prefix= and |nsp=, both of which alter the namespace of the link. {{Auto link}} accepts a second parameter that is the text displayed by the template. Module:Link if exists implements the union of all of these parameters. Upon merging, both templates would accept the union of the parameters and there would only be one template not two. — hike395 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395 does the new module also do what Template:Link if exists with link text wants? It's not used so no idea if this is needed, but before I send it here, just making sure. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Yes, Template:Link if exists with link text implements the same behavior as the proposed merged template. I would note, however, that there are 0 mainspace transclusions of that template. — hike395 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Works by Chuck Black

[edit]

Only 1 article, not useful for navigation. Οἶδα (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is this monstrosity?! No use to anyone or anything. There isn't even an article for the subject Chuck Black (Note Draft:Chuck Black is about a different Chuck...). -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction... Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the main topic does not have an article, then in most cases, there is no valid reason for a navigation template. Regardless, only one article with a link here. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zackmann and Gonnym; no article, no template. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 09:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 4

[edit]

Template:Utah Warriors squad

[edit]

Team has withdrawn from competition, so a squad template is no longer needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-ablock

[edit]

Now that temporary accounts have replaced IP editing, anonymous users no longer receive notifications for IP talk page messages (I've tested it myself), as well as can't (easily) access their IP talk pages anymore. The "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked ..." templates have only been used on user talk pages of IPs and never as something to be put into the block reason, thus I don't see why these templates would still be useful. (Also potentially applies to the "anon=yes/no" parameter of the rest of the block templates.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not "never"; there's ten blocks I can find with one or the other of these templates as the reason. All expired, at least. —Cryptic 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you proposing to delete these, update these, etc? Even though they are subst'd, I am not sure deletion is necessary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am proposing that they be deleted as the primary option, since there seems to be no practical and common use for these templates anymore. But if they are still useful in the form that they may be used in the block reason, then I'd say the substitution of these templates should be deprecated (i.e. tools like Twinkle should remove the options to substitute the IP-only block templates) since there is no notification system for IP user talk pages anymore, hence no point in placing them any longer. I should also make it clear that I am not asking for existing substitutions of all "Anonymous user(s) from this IP address have been blocked ..." block notices to be removed, especially considering that we aren't going after and deleting every single legacy IP talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Related: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2231 (block: have the block evasion preset show for temporary accounts). In other words, we may code Twinkle to use {{Uw-ipevadeblock}} on temporary accounts user talk pages, at least temporarily. We need to get a block evasion preset into the Twinkle block module for temporary accounts since it's a common block reason. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distribution of languages in the world

[edit]

This template is linked to from two image captions (but not transcluded anywhere), one in Language#Language families of the world and the other in Human#Language. Templates should not be treated as content pages, as among other things, maintenance of unsourced content is not preformed there and these pages don't show up in regular searches. If the template's content is useful, then convert it to an article at Distribution of languages in the world. If it isn't then delete. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2008 peer reviews

[edit]

Now unused. Usages replaced with {{Peer review entry}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with deleting these as long as it doesn't break anything. Presumably there are many others that will be up for deletion too. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do these in small batches as I'm (trying) to make sure each one is indeed the same call. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PulitzerPrize Music Finalists 1980–1990

[edit]

Non-winners. WP:NENAN. Navigation between non-winners of an award is not useful nor an established usage for navboxes. Not winning an award is not a well-defining grouping. Οἶδα (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom here. We should limit the award templates to winners of the award. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MO Constantine squad

[edit]

Another Algerian club empty/abandoned template. Svartner (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 3

[edit]

Template:Article wizard/editintro

[edit]

I propose deleting this obsolete editintro template, which links to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions B, which is an old name of Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Wizard-New edit instructions B, which is part of Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1, which is superseded by Wikipedia:Article wizard, which uses Template:AfC draft editintro (see source code of Wikipedia:Article wizard/CreateDraft). As far as I can tell from searches (one, two), there aren't even outdated places where this template is used as an editintro. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Nicaragua

[edit]

Only 1 English entry, not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CheckUser granted

[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 under G5. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was oddly recently created with the first edit of a brand new user. Given the involved process of attaining CU permissions, I don't think a boilerplate template has an utility and I don't see it ever getting any use by those who grant such permissions. cyberdog958Talk 20:47, 3 November 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:Use Malaysian English

[edit]

Template:Use Malaysian English was only reluctantly (re)created last year by Jonesey95, with an edit summary "I give up on trying to stem this obviously wanted tide of Use XX English templates. I welcome deletion of this template if a TFD is started." Well, I'd welcome its deletion as well. We have too many "use xxx variant of English" templates, some of which -- like this one -- are doing more harm than good.

Firstly, per Jonesey95's argument at Template talk:English variant templates#Malaysian English template is missing: Malaysian English, as described in the article, should not be used on the English Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY: "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences". So Template:Use Malaysian English should not exist. The only differences between British English and Malaysian English described in the article are ones that would create confusion among readers if used without glossing.

Secondly, because Template:Malaysian English doesn't exist (it was deleted in 2013). Talk pages of articles that use Template:Use Malaysian English cannot display the correct language variant in the header (example), and recreation of that template seems counter-productive. Also compare Dgp4004's argument in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Template:Malaysian English. Renerpho (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russo-Ukrainian war detailed relief map (oblasts)

[edit]

This map is unused and is invoking a sandbox module. If this is still being worked on, it should be moved to their user's sandbox and out of main template space. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western United FC (women) squad

[edit]

Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently unused due to the club being in hibernation for the season. There is a chance they will be restored and play again next season. Is it worth deleting only to possibly refund/recreate next season? --SuperJew (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leftover unused or unmaintained template cause issues. See Template:Western United FC squad which you mentioned below. That template is still in use on John Aloisi. Should it be? If the team has no squad, then this template isn't navigating between anything. If in the future it resumes playing, it can be recreated. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aloisi's status is more unclear than the players. The players all got a release of contract, while Aloisi was as far as I understood kept on contract. The rumours are that he's searching for a new gig though. --SuperJew (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest including {{Western United FC squad}} in this discussion too. --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States 2025 Rugby World Cup squad

[edit]

Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the House in the 113th United States Congress

[edit]

Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1956-1990EastGermanShips

[edit]

Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pelé series

[edit]

Previous TfD resulted in this being turned into a bottom navigation template. That template was later moved to Template:Pelé with this being left as a redirect. It has now returned to its sidebar template once again. Since there was no deletion review or any discussion linked when restored, this seems like a recreation of previously deleted template (WP:G4). This time it should be deleted, so the page history is lost and can't be reverted again. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation DLR 2017

[edit]

Unused citation templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tubeexits2018

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refinery CMS version

[edit]

Unused software release template. Refinery CMS was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused and unneeded. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netherlands national football team at the Summer Olympics record

[edit]

Unused table as data is used directly at Netherlands national football team#Olympic Games. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Template was previously a table used only in the location above, obfuscated behind an unnecessary template. I merged it into there, and if needed elsewhere can do a section transclusion, as the template currently does. I only held off requesting deletion myself in case the template history is needed for for attribution purposes.
Spike 'em (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the merge templates that I neglected to do at the time. Spike 'em (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Athletics at the Olympics

[edit]

Unused Olympics sport meta sidebar template. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a shame, it was an interesting idea, just way too complicated to maintain. Better to do it in LUA, definitely not worth keeping. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boxing at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games

[edit]

Unused boxing sidebar template. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref supports2

[edit]

Unused citation template, other than in a few old talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Valgrind

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused and unneeded. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French commune/forsubst

[edit]

Unused template but its name suggests it is used for substitution, however, this template is not linked from anywhere and previewing shows it uses unknown parameters and hasn't been updated in 12 years and has no documentation. This does not seem to be used by anyone. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:T5 Unused and unneeded particularly after the recent refactor of {{Infobox French commune}} --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cabinet members/row

[edit]

Unused sub-template probably after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Gonnym: Hey that was my edit! Should have taken this to TFD 7 years ago, my bad. Unused and unneeded. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FIVB ranking men

[edit]

Unused Volleyball ranking templates. Seems it was replaced by Module:SportsRankings/data/FIVB World Rankings and Module:SportsRankings/data/FIVB Women's World Rankings. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused and unneeded. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/WinDVD

[edit]

Unused software release template. WinDVD was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused and unneeded. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mohamed Muizzu

[edit]

Fails basic requirements of a navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

November 2

Template:Annual readership

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete - Well argued nomination. Redundant to wmcloud.org. No need to keep broken code laying around. If someone DOES want to make this work, better to just WP:BLOWITUP anyway. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Newbzy (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more is less User:Easternsaharareview and this 02:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (WP:PAGEVIEW quickly and easily provides this information if and when needed). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Alex26337 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems like this is a WP:SNOW consensus. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an experimental alternative pageviews charting template is available at {{Xreadership}}, and could be upgraded to replace {{annual readership}}, keeping the old name as a redirect. It isn't so much that I object to deletion of the content of the {{Annual readership}} template itself—I am actually okay with that—what I object to is the removal (presumably by bot) of all the transclusions of it, so we would lose the memory of where it was located, thus making a transition to using the new template via redirect more difficult. For now, we should just replace the template content with nil but leave it in place. Then a separate decision can be made about whether and how to upgrade the new template (which will require bot assistance to avoid a manual step) and replacing it with a redirect to the new template. Currently there are 50 transclusions of {{Xreadership}}, half are up to date, the remainder are stale. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Xreadership}} still requires updating data on-wiki, with the same drawbacks mentioned (no comparison, fixed timeframes, no filtering by mobile/desktop). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is true. However, all of those are a function of its initial design as a stopgap intended to disappear and be replaced by a plug-and-play reactivation of {{Annual readership}} which would "just work" with the new extension, after altering the string Graph: to Chart: At least, that was the impression I was under for the two years or whatever it was while Charts was in development, and I am pretty sure many people thought the same. Clearly, things did not turn out that way, rendering {{Annual readership}}, in its current form, useless, and thus a deletion nom a reasonable response.
    But Xreadership with a bot-assist (already in the works) is not useless. Admittedly, it does not have all the features you mentioned, partly due to its conception as a throwaway, but it already has enough features to be useful, and some of the things you listed could easily be added, or already are part of the design. In particular, it was designed to be mobile-friendly, and whereas Annual readership was useless on mobile for periods longer than a few weeks because the vertical bars got squeezed into illegible lines, Xreadership does not suffer from this, as the bars are horizontal, and the Xreadership charts look much the same on mobile as they do on desktop. As far as 'no comparisons', not quite sure what you mean, but if {{Annual readership}} offered comparisons of two pages, I was unaware of it. There are other missing features, like log scale, but it is designed to easily handle that as an upgrade. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to say that the external tool allows comparing pages, and you can specifying any timeframe you want, and looking at page views coming from mobile vs. desktop (I wasn't talking about whether the template is mobile-friendly, but rather whether it can say "we got X views from mobile" or "Y views from desktop"). For instance, here is a comparison of the pageviews of Cat, Dog, and my userpage from desktop users between October 10 and October 23: [1]. You can do this for arbitrary pages without waiting for a bot to come around and update an onwiki page. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, indeed, and nevertheless, numerous editors have thought it was useful and worthwhile enough to take the time to add {{Annual readership}} to 50,000 article Talk pages over the years, even though the more powerful features you describe were always available in Tools the whole time. That is not an insignificant figure, and some editors will no doubt continue to find it useful to have the ability to see page views on the Talk page, even lacking the multi-page or multi-device comparisons available in the tool. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Template:Annual readership/doc, I see no guidance whatsoever on which articles it is appropriate to place the template and which it is not. Given that, I presume the list of articles that included the template is basically a list of places where someone happened to have a personal preference for it and decided that it was worth the banner bloat. That's not a very cohesive strategy, and as such I don't think the list is particularly valuable info. Sdkb talk 21:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance at {{section sizes}} isn't much more than that: "To be used on the talk pages of very long articles, or in discussion of other articles where it is desired to show the sizes of subsections." Is that all that's needed? So, if I modify the objective on the doc page of {{Annual readership}} to add, "...or on talk pages where it is desired to show the page views of the corresponding article", that would change things wrt guidance? What's wrong with someone simply making a bold edit to add a pageviews graph based on pure, personal preference, and then everybody else leaving it there because they seem to like it? At some point, it isn't just personal preference anymore, and now we have, or at least, had, 50,000 of them. Isn't that worthy of some level of respect? Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot, the problem with leaving decisions like this up to personal preference at individual pages is that we make better decisions when they're centralized. There's a debate to be had about whether/when the benefit of this outweighs the banner bloat concern. It'd be one thing if that debate was had when this template was introduced, with considered perspectives from editors who care about talk page design, resulting in documented guidance. It's another to have a bunch of separate instances where someone said, "eh, I like it, might as well", and either no one noticed or no one felt strongly enough about it to fight it (banner bloat often happens by a thousand cuts). It's too late to have that debate now. But without it, I don't see any evidence that there was ever affirmative consensus that introducing this template was a good idea. Cheers, Sdkb talk 17:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sdkb talk 21:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose deletion, I see value in opening a bug with the WMF and getting an integration of the annual readership API with the Charts extension instead of deleting the template completely (which at a technical level is "not that hard" on the scale of technical work if a volunteer wants to take it up). The template I think has a place on talk pages with a lot of traffic (which is it's usecase?) and it's primary audience is not editors, but rather the fact it allows non-contributors/readers interested in the backrooms (who might not have accounts and thus be unfamiliar with MoreMenu or the pageviews.wmcloud.org domain) to visualize the readership of a article. -- Sohom (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per concerns listed in the nomination's rationale. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replacing this with a talk header link to the specific graph would be a good idea. A whole lot of people are going to be unaware of this and linking it in context would be helpful. For example, I use PageViews a lot, yet I wasn't even aware you could add it to the More menu until I stumbled upon this discussion. --Joy (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British barrelled name

[edit]

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

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

  • Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
    And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is there a need for this to be the most prominent disclaimer about most people? Hatnotes are great where many readers need this information. But why do we think the exact structure of the surname is the key attribute many people will be interested in? meamemg (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page and we should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person using MOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing about Helena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Jonesey95. This template is pretty darn clear about how to use it and why it exists. The nominator admitted I don't understand what this template is for which is one step away from IDONTLIKEIT. Not understanding is what the template's talk page is for, not what TFD is for. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping but renaming, per PamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong feelings about it being either kept or deleted, but as some users have pointed out if it were to say it should be changed to "double-barrelled", which is normal English usage. Keivan.fTalk 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it says "barrelled" (which I agree is weird) as opposed to "double-barrelled" because some such surnames have more than two parts, such as Vane-Tempest-Stewart – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but we shouldn't be re-inventing English usage for our convenience. "Barrelled" is not used in that way; "double-barrelled" and "triple-barrelled" are. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My latest article Verité Reily Collins gives an example of where it is helpful. Her surname is Reily Collins, which she got from her father, her first name is Verité. The banner make this clear. Unfortunately Germaine Greer was unable to consult Wikipedia in 1970 and therefore in The Female Eunuch Ms. Greer gave her the sole surname of "Collins". This is left unchanged in the article's text as a direct quote, but in a subliminal way it explains why Reily Collins is used elsewhere in the article. Ms. Greer is a long term UK resident but it would not be unusual even for Brits/Commonwealth readers to trip up on this, and so it is helpful to clarify. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a bit niche, but usage has been well explained. Moving because this has utility outside of British names sounds reasonable but should be done through WP:RM. As for consolidation with other templates, show me a demo merged version first so functionality can be tested then we'll talk. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" rather than being specifically British or "barrelled". Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" as per Eilidhmax and others- this isn't British-specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mishustin sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Zhirinovsky sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Integralism

[edit]

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

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

Comment: if the issue is with what links to include, then whatever is in Category:Integralism should be valid. Navigational templates should follow the category system. If the category itself has pages it shouldn't have, then fix that issue first. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nom. makes a good case for why most WP:SIDEBAR templates are rife for abuse. Editors collate articles based on their views, without any reference to sourcing, and there is perhaps a larger discussion as to whether they should all just be deprecated, because they are visually intrusive and I have seen pages with four or five such sidebars jammed into them! But that is not for here. Enforcing the principle of WP:BIDIRECTIONALity should be sufficient. If the watchers on a page determine the page should not be part of a series (by removing the template or not adding it in the first place) it can be removed from the "grab bag". Is there any policy reason to delete this though? What about policy to retain? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add: I have removed non bi-directional entries, but the nom. has a point here about the utility of this very long series. The template has been added to many pages without being tightly integrated to the pages. Readers following the template (which may be few, since it is so big) would be taken to pages that may leave them scratching their heads as to relevance. I removed a couple of egregious examples but if this is ever to be a useful series, more work is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjacent place

[edit]

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

Comment: {{Adjacent communities}} is a bad template. It's a pretty dumb template as a navigation template, taking way too much space for a very trivial piece of information. I also really doubt that readers navigate between articles like that. Additionally, it is being used in a lot of situations in the middle of an article, which hides article text completely from mobile viewers. Since {{Adjacent place}} does not use a base navbox it doesn't hide the information, nor does is it unnecessarily large. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only place this is used is within {{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} where it is marked as deprecated... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Template:Not a test

[edit]

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

Note to closer: Please userify this. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 04:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it to a subpage of my userpage. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's do that!! HA - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-u5

[edit]

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

October 27

Template:100 greatest Bears

[edit]

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

Delete per nom. and I thought this template would be referring to actual bears when I first saw the section title. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mayer, Larry (20 May 2019). "Centennial Scrapbook chronicles Bears history". ChicagoBears.com. Chicago Bears. Retrieved 28 October 2025.

Template:Infobox London station

[edit]

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

  • Lean support (see updated comment below) - generally I am in favor of this type of merge. We should not have custom templates for different localities that do the same thing for consistencies sake. This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} and {{Infobox US metropolitan area}} both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}} for example. HOWEVER, {{Infobox London station}} is widely used with over 850+ transclusions. At first glance, there are a number of parameters in it that are NOT present in {{infobox station}} so a straight merge could result in a significant loss of data. The real question there is are there too many params in {{Infobox London station}}? Could it use with some trimming down to be consistent with station articles around the world? I would say yes, but that needs to be part of this discussion.
@Smithr32: it might be helpful to do a param comparison chart (here is an example) of what data would be lost in this process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, potential data loss needs to be addressed first. -MJ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the data loss may be necessary, may be an improvement, may be good overall... But right now it isn't clear WHAT will be lost and that is what needs to be addressed.
@Smithr32: here is my 2 cents... I would withdraw the nomination for now. I would do a detailed analysis of what would be removed and start that discussion on Template talk:Infobox London station. Once there is a detailed breakdown of exactly what changes are being proposed, come back and renominate the templates for merger. Then you will have more information and people like myself, MJ and all the others who patrol TFDs will be in a position to make informed comments.
The problem is that right now we have no idea what will be changing and most of us are unwilling to dive into the research to figure it out so will likely just vote to keep it as is since there are too many unknowns...
If you decide to go this route, feel free to {{ping|Zackmann08}} me and I can help you close the TFD. Again, withdrawing the TFD does not preclude you from renominating it at a future time! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zackmann08, I'll work on a comparison list betweens params in London station and Infobox station. Passenger count for previous years can be featured in the main article as a section instead of a long infobox. Smithr32 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please remove "‹ The template Infobox station is being considered for merging. ›" which is shown at the top of every page using Infobox station? Its completely irrelevant for most articles like Węgliniec railway station which has nothing to do with London. I think it should only be shown above pages that use Infobox London station. Fortek67 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying a merger notice is standard practice for all infobox templates, plus it allows interested parties who frequently edit Infobox station to add input on this merger proposal. Cards84664 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant for every article that uses either template. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Please revert your edit hiding the notice from Infobox station. Cards84664 06:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Message restored to 57,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For how more longer will this message be on pages? Can we just limit it to pages with categories in the United Kingdom? Fortek67 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. I can't support a merger that would result in data loss with no indication of what data will be lost and no justification for losing that data. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now until a proposal can be put forward that addresses the data loss issue. — The Anome (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Template:Infobox London station works perfectly well as it is. Nominations containing phrases like "modern up-to-date" and "hasn't been updated in years" are a red flag. We are not some advertising agency in the business of persuading the client to part with thousands of pounds for the agency to "update" the website in the expectation that they will return eighteen months later with another wad of cash for another pointless "update". There is no issue with Infobox London station that could be fixed by merging, and it would bring about a whole bunch of hassle. Have any perceived shortfalls in Infobox London station been raised at Template talk:Infobox London station, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? Answer: no. Has a potential merger been suggested at those same pages? Answer: no, again. How often does Smithr32 (talk · contribs) work on London station articles? Answer: never. How often does Smithr32 work on station articles of any kind? Answer: extremely rarely. In fact, I can find only two articles about railway stations with edits by Smithr32: Reading Green Park railway station and West Malling railway station, neither of which use Template:Infobox London station; and between them, they have no more than five edits by Smithr32, none of which involved the infobox. In short: Smithr32, what does this have to do with you? Why do you want us to go through all this grief again? Five years on, I am still waiting for answers to some of the questions that I asked during that debacle. I say again: Oppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have to edit London transport articles to know it makes more sense to use the main station template. 👀 Smithr32 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality does not help progress the discussion. Focus your criticism on the edits being proposed here, and not the editor. Cards84664 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will second what User:Cards84664 said. I too find User:Redrose64's overwhelming WP:OWN mentality troubling. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal not on attacking the nominator for not discussing with the right people. WP:TFD is the proper avenue for this discussion and the notices atop tens of thousands of articles are meant to draw people to the discussion. If you object that others weren't notified, FIXIT and notify them. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing my point. Why was this merge not suggested at the WikiProjects before a TfD was raised? The feasibility and method could have been discussed by the people who actually use the templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this Infobox has been tailored for its specific needs and if merged into the generic Infobox station, would lose the parameters and information it gives the general public about. Saying that it "has not been updated for many years" is wrong as it is updated yearly with the latest data when possible. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm going to restate what I said in 2020: it's not all obvious why London, and only London, needs its own infobox. This is what I said then: "There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for the entire rest of the planet." The attitude of certain members of the UKRAIL project hasn't changed. If the idea didn't originate there, from one of their own, they're not interested. The outcome of that 2020 TfD included a senior editor maintaining a years-long public grudge against the nominator, which is unprofessional at best. Template consolidation is an accepted principle. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate hidden minefields for the unwary. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mackensen. There is no need to have a special template with completely different formatting and parameters for one city with <1.5% of total station articles. If there are more than a handful of London-specific parameters that are somehow essential (which I doubt), then this template should be turned into a wrapper for {{infobox station}} with those extra parameters. Certainly, the parameters for decades of ridership data are superfluous and do not need to be transferred - they violate the principle from WP:INFOBOX that The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That being said, I do think there should be some more discussion on which parameters make their way into {{Infobox station}}. I see no reason why we can't merge parameters unique to the London station infobox into the main one. However, I agree with Pi.1415926535 that some parameters might be better off omitted from the infobox – personally I'd rather they be included in the article body, if at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Long overdue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing my initial lean support to support. This is a good faith effort by the nominator to merge a template that is long overdue for a merge. There are certainly concerns about what will be removed and what will not, but those discussions can take place in the holding cell. There is MUCH precedent for this such as the recently created {{Infobox social media personality}} and {{Infobox gridiron football biography}}. Both were EXTENSIVE merges of multiple templates. The TFD agreed to merge, then numerous editors discussed how and what to merge vs what to remove. The only objections thus far have been 100%, pure WP:OWNERSHIP complaints. This is a definite yes in my book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Zackmann. Parameter omissions and additions can be hashed out in the merger process. There is no reason why we need an infobox for specific locations, and ten other Infobox templates have already been merged into Infobox station since 2014. Cards84664 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Couple of suggestions above that the infobox contains decades of passenger data. This is not the case with only the last five years shown on each station article. MRSC (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely nothing special about London stations that justifies this template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inclined to Oppose. I think there are plenty of parameters of the current infobox that cannot just be displayed in the newer infobox.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some examples of which parameters cannot be displayed on the newer infobox? I'm currently doing a parameter comparison on my Sandbox page with the main Infobox station template. Smithr32 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support for now, per Mackensen, on the condition that we can discuss exactly which parameters can be merged (rather than just redirecting the template and calling it a day). For example, a couple things I noticed:
  • The London template uses a lot of historical ridership data. Should these be kept or deleted when the infoboxes are merged?
  • The London template has some London-specific parameters like original, pregroup, and postgroup, along with some London-specific external links. Should these be retained?
  • London stations have specific accessibility categories; how should these be handled?
Overall though, in the long run, merging these templates will increase the ease of maintenance, as it means that we don't have to maintain one infobox for most of the world and ten other templates for very specific locales. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion results in "merge", I sincerely hope the passenger usage statistics on this and all other GB rail station articles are retained. As a casual reader I find this *incredibly* useful Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear what improvement would be achieved by merging the London station template with the generic version. There are specific features of the London station template that are not present in the generic version that would need to be added; for example the London station templates use of a set of subtemplates (i.e. {{Tubeexits2023}}) that add the usage data automatically so that individual articles don't need to be amended when new data becomes available. My biggest concern is that the the generic version is completely locked off from editing except by a Template editor.
DavidCane (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Emperor of Byzantium: Can you clarify your comment on coding, I'm not sure what the correlation between railway stations in Greece and railway stations in London is, you are already using Infobox station and can always suggest parameter adjustments. Cards84664 15:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cards84664, it’s in response to both ‘Infobox station’ templates possible losing data (if merged to create one signal Infobox?) its impact on other railway Inboxes (Greece in this case), and the fact with 2500+ railway stations in the UK… it will be a lot of work correcting the errors created by this decision… I only mention Greek railway stations because, of the work involved in creating less than 300 stations, and updating the Infoboxs of 2500+ worries me of the amount of work involved… it’s not a criticism of standardised of the Infoboxs, it’s the worry more articles will need to be ‘fixed’ ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Emperor of Byzantium: Nothing's being removed from Infobox station, we are going to be determining which features from Infobox London station are being carried over to Infobox station. Cards84664 01:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cards84664, thank you for your quick response! Appreciate you put my concerns to rest! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox

[edit]

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

October 26

Template:Principal Naming Criteria

[edit]

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

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

Template:Saudi Arabian elections

[edit]

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

Keep now that it has at least five links. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 16:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer AAC Championships High Jump Men

[edit]

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

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

Template:Greek Athletics Championships

[edit]

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

Procedural keep, I think this should be withdrawn because this is far too sweeping of a nomination for 21 templates used on dozens of pages. As discussed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 21#Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships, number of links on a navbox is not a P&G-based reason for deletion. Please, a precedent needs to be set first that deletion of these types of templates is supported by the community before doing a mass nomination like this. --Habst (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a merged template at {{User:Habst/National athletics championships editions}} per the explanatory essay linked. It can be split by continent or region as well should the template be too large, and the formatting can be fixed up so you don't have to expand twice. Would that be an acceptable ATD? The navigational purpose is to move between national championship editions, even if there are only four or five of them, and to know exactly what years national championships were staged (not all of these navboxes have corresponding overview articles where these are enumerated). --Habst (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is way too hard to navigate. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that's a P&G-based reason for deletion. If the reason is technical (e.g. clicking expand twice), it can be fixed by someone knowledgeable with templates. If the reason is conceptual because it is large, it can be split by continent or further collapsed as in {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. --Habst (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different and are not addressing the fact that 3 templates are just a sea of red. This putting a band aid over a hole in the wall. It does not address the failures present and yes hard to navigate is an issue. The more you argue for policy and guidelines from me, the more you are bludgeoning the conversation. I would ask for a policy and guidelines from you as to how that fixes the issue. The pandemic template does not combine respective country navboxes into one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only responded briefly to people that have directly addressed me by my username; that is not bludgeoning, and on Wikipedia, we generally do need policy or guideline-based reasons for deletion. How is it a failure to have red links on a navigation template? The links serve a purpose as pointers to create new articles, and some of the work is already done (i.e. disambiguating the titles) that wouldn't be done with unlinked text. --Habst (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 templates have no articles at all. The rest have less than the basic five. No, they don't. That is a Crystal argument. These navboxes have been around for a while, if articles were not created then after all this time, it is unlikely that they would be created before this nomination. It is not the responsibility of Tfd nominators to create those articles. Tfd nominations are based on the now and if someone is willing to create the articles to help these templates meet the requirements, then they can, but we can't wait around just because one day someone will. You haven't provided a policy or guideline for these to be kept. And NENAN is a long-standing precedent and not going to change soon. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having lists of red links isn't a CRYSTAL argument; that is why we have many WP:Red link lists on Wikipedia across many topics. As national championships receiving SIGCOV it's likely that these articles will be created soon; there are actually a few of them in my backlog along with hundreds of other articles.
Lastly in Wikipedia deletion discussions, generally speaking we need a policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. It doesn't quite work that way in the reverse, though I would argue in these cases that the standard WP:NAVBOX would apply in standard use.
As a compromise if you want to nominate the ones with no blue links only, I would support deleting or merging those to overview pages. --Habst (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habst procedural keep doesn't really make any sense. These all fall under the same category and the same reason for deletion. It is MUCH easier for them to all be nominated as a batch as is routinely done at WP:TFD as opposed to having to copy and paste the same comment 15+ times. HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to !vote to keep one and not another in this batch, but if that were to happen (and it has in the past) you can simply say "Keep these 3 because they are useful and delete the rest". But having 15+ duplicate nominations just gums up the process and makes it harder for everyone involved. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed my !vote to keep per your comments. For a mass nomination to succeed, generally there needs to be demonstrated some type of appetite for deletion of these types of templates among Wikipedians, and that plainly hasn't been demonstrated yet. I'm open to any solution including one I disagree with as long as there's consensus. I think it is highly likely that Wikipedians will have different opinions about these templates -- some have at least five four links (including plus the overview link) while others have only one or two, and some editions are more likely to be created than others.
Re: NENAN, as I said at comment I honestly do not have a position on the navbox debate but either way NENAN "is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted by WP:NBFILL". --Habst (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None nominated have five links. Title link does not count. It's about the individual article links that are the primary purpose of navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my above comment to say four links plus the title instead of five. I think the argument still stands. --Habst (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as the creator of these I'm happy to move to userspace the ones with no edition links. I created them as articles exist on other wiki which can be translated, but ended up focusing on the winners lists first and never got around to the national editions for those countries. I oppose the deletion of templates with 3 or more links. I don't think there is a single reader out there who thinks the conversation of whether two links should be in navbox or a see also is worth the effort of consideration. We've all got better things to do in life. SFB 01:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note Template:Swedish Athletics Championships links to five year events, the general outdoor championship article and the general indoor championship article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaffet i halsen, you forgot to sign. We don't count the articles linked in the title or the two on the side because its more about the links in the body. Still to few links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Template:Controversial issues

[edit]

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

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

October 24

Template:NTA Film Network shows

[edit]

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

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its only used on one page. No reason for this to be in template space if it can't find more uses. But overall, it is not needed. A timeline for a list of shows on a network, what value does this serve to have? It provides no information for readers. Its just a chart. On article space, you can find this information in simple list prose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a template must be used in more than one article is nonsense. WP:TFD#REASONS says that reasons for deleting a template are the following: 1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. 2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template. 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. 4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing. This template (and the one you nominated below) does not meet any of these criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Substing templates being used in one place as a result of a Tfd has been done for years. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps keep? Don't see what's wrong with having it; besides, subst-ing it might clutter the article up seeing the template code is fairly long. —Opecuted (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Georgian alphabet sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Manx monarchs

[edit]

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

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

Template:ItemCost

[edit]

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

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

Template:Pronunciation audio requested

[edit]

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

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

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

Merge/redirect for the nominator's reason and we shouldn't have separate templates for "article text or language pronunciation" and "article title pronunciation only". Maybe merge/redirect Template:Pronunciation requested audio to the other one. BodhiHarp 16:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not enough participants to fully determine consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete sub pages. If the feature for a title distinction is needed, a parameter can be added and probably a category to go along with it. Also delete one of the current categories as redundant. Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much completely agree with this —Opecuted (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright violation

[edit]

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

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

Template:Diplomatic missions in Azerbaijan

[edit]

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

Template:AeroRoutesRef

[edit]

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

Comment - if we do delete, can we make sure we replace it with a citation needed tag where it’s removed, since this would be a reference we’re removing? Danners430 tweaks made 16:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The given entry at WP:AEROROUTES does not state that the source is deprecated, just that the source is a self published source and not reliable. But for that matter, the blog is based on the industry-provided OAG-publications. Are these also an unsuitable source? The Banner talk 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district

[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox military exercise

[edit]

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

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

Template:Image hoax

[edit]

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

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

October 23

Template:Death date and age text

[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox bullfighting career

[edit]

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

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

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

October 22

Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War

[edit]

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

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

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

October 21

Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships

[edit]

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

October 19

Template:Disappeared date and age

[edit]

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

Redirect. By that argument there is nothing to merge. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Touché... I guess this is more of a sanity check to make sure I'm not missing anything. I'll correct the text above to say redirecting not merging. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: redirect, delete all sub-pages (do not redirect them). --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, only if the instructions for how to correctly use the death template for people who disappeared are explicitly added to the documentation. If that's not possible or would be confusing, then the disappeared template should be converted into a wrapper instead. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: can you clarify? There is no additional documentation that is needed. They function EXACTLY the same and produce the EXACT same output (except for the "See TFM" of course).
  • {{Disappeared date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→‹See TfM›October 5, 2020(2020-10-05) (aged 30)
  • {{Death date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→October 5, 2020(2020-10-05) (aged 30)
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Death date and age/doc currently makes absolutely no mention of how to use the template for someone who disappeared. If {{Disappeared date and age}} is just redirected to {{Death date and age}} someone who doesn't know that the two templates are the same under-the-hood will likely just be confused about where they've ended up where they have and/or have no idea how to get the template to produce what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: that makes sense! We can ABSOLUTELY add a sentence to {{death date and age}} that says {{Disappeared date and age}} redirects here. They do the same thing and produce the same result so use this as you would use that. (That is TERRIBLE language, perhaps you have a suggestion for a better explanation?). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Object - there are families holding out hope that their disappeared loved ones are not dead. Kire1975 (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: that doesn't really have ANYTHING to do with what we are talking about here... The two templates do the exact same thing? What is the reason you feel there should be duplicate code? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
factual accuracy Kire1975 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have converted {{Disappeared date and age}} to use the module code so that they are now LITERALLY identical except for the word death vs disappeared. @Jolielover and Kire1975: Please review this comparison and see that this is ideal for a redirect. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To clarify: What about situations where one is notable because of their disappearance, but later was found, and died later (or perhaps during their disappearance)? Would the ability to use both fields be kept? ~2025-31135-21 (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: I was brought to this discussion from Lawrence Joseph Bader, which currently uses both. He is notable because of his disappearance, and later re-discovery, before his death. ~2025-31135-21 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can use both... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

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