Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 1 38 94 133
TfD 0 0 11 23 34
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 4 5 9
RfD 0 0 6 8 14
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 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 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_September_19#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]

September 19

[edit]

Template:Hell (American band)

[edit]

Only two albums, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Created by bot

[edit]

Maintenance template newly created for use on just one article, with no evidence of any wikiproject consensus that it would be needed. As always, maintenance templates should not just be casually created on a lark -- because they require regular ongoing editor attention, there needs to be a consensus of editors that they're needed and will be used, rather than being created willy-nilly by just one editor for just one article.
Specifically, the problem here is that this template was coded to apply an Category:All pages created by bots tracking category that doesn't exist, as well as a dated-monthly Category:Wikipedia articles created by bots from August 2017 subqueue (which also doesn't exist, and would require the "all pages" tracking category to be populated into the thousands before it was justifiable) -- but precisely because maintenance templates generate process overhead like that, a wikiproject would need to establish a consensus that the new process and tracking queue were needed.
Further, we already have numerous cleanup and maintenance templates to track the various individual issues that bot creation can cause, so it's much more useful to tag for those specific problems than it would be to just indiscriminately track bot creation as its own standalone thing. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contradicts other

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Contradicts other with Template:Contradicts others.
These templates were created in 2005 and 2010 but have become redundant. Apparently the "other" template was made for referring to one article, and the "others" template was made for referring to multiple. However, this seems moot now as the doc page of the "others" template shows accommodation for a single article entry. Proposing to merge "other" into "others". Left guide (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 18

[edit]

Template:Digwuren enforcement

[edit]

Deprecated templates redundant to the more brief e.g. {{subst:alert|ee}}, so a redirect is not helpful. Delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virus topics

[edit]

Hopelessly broad topic for a navbox, with an essentially random inclusion of a handful of articles relevant to the topic, and transcluded in a disjunct set of articles. Plantdrew (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / RemoveRedSky [talk] 18:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 17

[edit]

Template:Transparent text

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why this template exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to be quite descriptive in the template documentation precisely to explain why the template exists and in which cases it's meant to be used. (The reason it is not used yet is due of technical limitations which I also described in the documentation and in the talk page, with a reference to possible solution that I haven't yet had time to implement). Maybe I should have included a concrete example to make the motivation clearer. FWIW, the specific case that led me to create this template was the article Pe̍h-ōe-jī, which I was searching for in the text of another article using the "asciified" "Pe'h-oe-ji", and was unable to find it. My goal with this template was to provide invisible searchable text matching what one might search for, as an alternative to the proper string — not too dissimilar to the behavior of the {{anchor}} template, by way of analogy. Waldyrious (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of the Third Polish Republic

[edit]

Both navboxes have too large of a scope for there to be reliable and defined navigation for a topic like this. Both cover almost every event in Poland for the respective periods and contain links to articles that are covered by other navboxes. Such as elections, protests, and matters of international relations. If a subject does not have a respective navbox like for protests, then one should be created. And for some articles, its best to be just covered by a respective Poland subject category if a templates does not suffice. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PPR not going to change, and TPR is also not to long and contains essentials for recent history Bildete (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed the nomination. Its not about the existence of the respective republics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Autodescription

[edit]

No function exists for a autodescription to be placed on pages. If user intends to work on this, this can be moved into userspace until it is perfected for use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So as I understand the auto description template, the description is pulled through from the Wikidata label. This is helpful to make sure that the wikidata entry and the wikipedia page are similarly aligned! Derek J Moore (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Arguments with aliases

[edit]

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

  • Keep: The existing Module:Arguments does not actually support aliases; it only handles translation in a somewhat limited and buggy way. However, proper alias support is a very pressing need. Many widely used modules already implement aliases on their own in different ways – for example, Module:Citation/CS1.
Since aliases are present in a large number of templates and modules, the lack of alias handling in Module:Arguments is a serious shortcoming. TemplateData itself includes explicit support for aliases, which further highlights how essential this feature is.
As for the question of why we need a new module instead of simply modifying the existing Module:Arguments: the reason is that Module:Arguments is embedded in a very large number of other modules. Getting consensus to directly change such a widely transcluded core module would not be easy. A safer and more practical approach is to develop this functionality in a separate module first, and once we are confident it is stable and reliable, it could eventually be merged into the main Module:Arguments.
For these reasons, I believe this new module serves a necessary purpose and should be kept
حبيشان (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abyat

[edit]

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

  • Keep: I believe this template still fulfills a unique need. Arabic and Persian poetry follow a very specific and distinct formatting tradition that differs considerably from how most English or Western poetry is laid out. None of the existing quotation templates in Template:Quotation templates list can reproduce Arabic and Persian verse with the same accuracy and professionalism.
This is also the reason why Wikipedia has multiple quotation-related templates in the first place: no single template can accommodate every quotation style or requirement. In the same way, Template:Abyat was created to address the :particular formatting needs of Arabic and Persian poetry, which otherwise remain unsupported.
For this reason, I believe the template continues to serve a necessary and valid purpose. to see how Abyat serve Arabic poem quotation see Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Abyat.
حبيشان (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 16

[edit]

Template:Mumbai – Suburban Railway, Trans-Harbour

[edit]

Unused. From checking a few articles, those pages use Template:Mumbai – Suburban Railway, Harbour. Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Useddenim (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, i added this template to relevant pages, this is different line from the Harbour, so please Keep this template. 2409:40C0:4D:58F4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now used. @Gonnym and Useddenim: Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit it's removal seems to be more of a content dispute, and so far it seems to have been resolved and hasn't been removed again. So I'm fine with keeping it. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia categorization

[edit]

No transclusions of this sidebar. The more comprehensive {{Wikipedia categorization navbox}} appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems the pages use different templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Years in Generic medicine in India

[edit]

Navbox with no blue links and no transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image background

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why this template was created. Created in January 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 This template is to make the pictures without background show in the articles. It can show a specified background color in the information section of an article. It is useful. As for there's no link, it is just because I uploaded a fixed version of a svg file. This template can be used in no-background non-free pictures which cannot be modified. Hehua (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EngvarB progress

[edit]

No transclusions after the parent template ({{EngvarB}}) was deleted, followed by the category pages on which this template was used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Slam Track

[edit]

Delete. First of all, Grand Slam Track has not shown itself to be a major factor within athletics; the opposite could be argued, a hot air balloon that collapsed during its first season. That being said, this discussion does not regard the notability of Grand Slam Track in itself, but the accentuated focus on these particular meetings that ensues from having dedicated Grand Slam Track sections/tables in athlete biographies. I do not at all understand, then, why it should have its own section in articles and the complete results from Grand Slam Track being presented in table form in biographies. (In including every single result it would also include results that are trivial in the context of athletes' careers - not every particular result in an athlete's career is worth mentioning.) Quite contrary, tables such as this should be converted to prose in any and all cases. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there any point to this? It was created in 2010 and does nothing. According to its description: "This template deliberately expands to nothing until some consensus will reached [sic] on showing interlanguage links from sections." Since that was 15 years ago, it seems like whatever that was about either went nowhere or was not implemented into this template. The creator is blocked so won't be able to explain it. Mclay1 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The proposal the creator of this template was making can be found in meta:Fine interwiki. Considering that the proposal predates Wikidata, which replaced most (albeit not all) WP:LOCALLINKs, and that its creator is blocked I don't think this has a chance of getting anywhere. Even if the template was finished, I'm not sure we'd want interlanguage links on individual sections anyway. The interlanguage link for the whole article should be sufficient. Warudo (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current iOS 16/short

[edit]

Unused software version template. Gonnym (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tramlijn 12

[edit]

Unused route diagram template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's also a duplicate off Template:Amsterdam tram line 12. Jackdude101 talk cont 23:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Gabriel Subdivision

[edit]

Unused route diagram template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 15

[edit]

Template:Far-right politics in the United States sidebar

[edit]

Duplicative of all our other far-right sidebars and inherently an inappropriate sidebar topic; the topic is very broad, most entries have no ties, and it is not part of a series. We do not need a dozenth far right politics sidebar to stack on all the others, every single entry here is applicable to a better, clearer, and more appropriate sidebar. This topic is too broad to work as a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. Many entries are not actually part of the series in that they are generic articles about racism, or minor elements inappropriate for a sidebar. These are not tightly related and easily replaced by the many existing far right templates. Most entries violate WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and almost all violate WP:SIDEBAR. Sidebars are also contentious and there is talk of deprecating them, we don't need more worse ones. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can understand the point (without agreeing or disagreeing) about the sidebar being too broad as a legitimate critique, but "Sidebars are also contentious and there is talk of deprecating them" is not a reason to delete individual sidebars. That's a larger conversation and separate from this individual sidebar. Many entries are not actually part of the series in that they are generic articles about racism, or minor elements inappropriate for a sidebar Well then, those elements should be removed. However, sections such as "People" and "Organizations and movements", I would think, are the correct direction and application. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was more a generalist point because of how new this is. Those aren't good either, because the people can be added to a better, more specific one. Almost the entire people section is Neo-Nazis, which have their own sidebar. Why would they go in the more generic one? They shouldn't go here, certainly. We have better sidebars for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite being a very important and contentious topic in Post-1992 US politics, and relevant to current events, the nominator wants to delete this sidebar because... It's "too broad"? The goal of sidebars is usually to collect articles under a broad topic so people can easily access specific topics. Improvements should be made before deletion. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 04:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1963–64 Primeira Divisão table

[edit]

appears to be a fork of the table in 1963–64 Primeira Divisão Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1962–63 Primeira Divisão table

[edit]

appears to be a fork of the table in 1962–63 Primeira Divisão Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Template:San Diego Santa Fe Depot Platform Layout

[edit]

Unused HTML platform layout template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old Town Transit Center Platform Layout

[edit]

Unused HTML platform layout template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it back to Old Town Transit Center for now, though if there is any reason why it shouldn't be there, you are more than welcome to show me where it says so in Wikipedia's consensuses. - SleepTrain456 21:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepTrain456: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Consensus was reached that these HTML station layout diagrams are deprecated, thus the reason why they have been being consistently removed across various station articles everwhere. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the information, @OrdinaryScarlett! - SleepTrain456 22:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article list

[edit]

This template was provisionally kept three years ago, but it has no transclusions. It appears that the concerns about its usability were valid. I think it can safely be deleted as "not useful". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comments after a week and still unused. Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Crusade of Varna

[edit]

Nominated by OrionNimrod with the rationale that this is redudnant because Template:Campaignbox Hungarian–Ottoman War exists. See Template talk:Campaignbox Crusade of Varna § Delete, redundant. Casablanca 🪨(T) 12:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major stadiums in Northern Cyprus

[edit]

Of 13 entries, 10 are red links. Svartner (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 14

[edit]

Template:Quote inline

[edit]

This mainspace inline quotation template (for <q>...</q> tags) shouldn't be used in articles because html q tags (1) create quotation marks that many browsers do not include in copy-and-paste (e.g., Google Chrome) or Ctrl-F (e.g., Chrome and Firefox), and which search engines like Google do not show in results, and (2) create less simple wiki markup (MOS:MARKUP) compared to simple quotation marks. Use of a tooltip for translation is also less favored than explicit translation per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Is there some technical reason this was created to solve? Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The goal was to globally standardize the style of inline quotations, in order for them to:
  1. be more consistent in style, as many pages formerly used wrong quotation marks and even italic quotations (deprecated by MOS);
  2. be easily tracked by a maintenance category;
  3. and assure globally-consistent changes in case of eventual MOS updates.
Commenting just to provide context, feel free to implement eventually-better solutions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GAR request

[edit]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says it is mandatory to give a reason when nominating a good article for reassessment (which presumably speeds the process considerably). The instructions say to use {{subst:GAR}} to do this, which is also applied to the talk page, and collects the reason. Eliminating this template would prevent editors from making reassessment requests without giving their reason.

Several articles have been left in limbo for many months with this template applied but no active reassessment. The handful of existing instances of this template can be converted into assessments if the edit summary adding the template mentions a reason, or just dropped if no one wants to contact the complaining editor or skim the article to find a reason. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A mandatory |reason= can be added and be worked as the predule of GAR itself, notifying in advance that the article has issues that have to be solved before GAR is opened. Adding the template has the advantage that it categorizes the page at Category:Good articles in need of review. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reword the text per Tbhotch's suggestion above. It would be helpful to add this template to GAR notifications (before the article is sent to GAR) as it adds the article to the category. I would like to reword the text a little bit so that it is more explicit that the banner is a GAR notification, if there is consensus to do so. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reason field makes sense to me too, perhaps even being the default field if no X= is added. CMD (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The suggested "mandatory |reason=" parameter should resolve the issues mentioned in the nomination, Rjjiii (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I probably created this template. If it is still working well for GAR editors, then it should be kept. Geometry guy 14:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ECHL profile

[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place to leave this but it seems logical. The ECHL website has changed its link system which breaks this template. Now, a valid link must have not just the player's ID, but also his full name, which seemingly makes it impossible to fix without editing all player pages with the template one by one. Шахматист2025 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/update warning

[edit]

Unused sub template. Not found with an insource search also. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/TW

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedia, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Says it on the main TFD main page. "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." Template copied onto foreign language is not impacted if its deleted. Foreign language Wikipedia's are not of concern to the English Wikipedia. If you or anyone can find this template and others below to for them to be used, then it can be kept. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, in which case I think there is a high liklihood of these templates being used, and certainly not no liklihood - there will almost certainly be editors on this country and the ones listed below who will find this useful in the future. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
high liklihood of these templates being used: after more than 4 years of not being used, that doesn't seem to be the case. Wikipedia is not a git repository for code. If you think some template is missing and create it, use it. If you, the creator, after 4 years, couldn't find a usage for it, then either it's not needed, or no one cares. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added it to an article that it benefits after very little searching. I was not searching for uses for these templates, because they are for the use of editors working articles about these countries. We can quibble over 'high likhlihood,' but there is zero doubt that there is not 'no liklihood' of these or the templates below being used, as for all of these currencies there are outdated amounts that would benefit from the inflation adjustments of the template. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the creator of a template should be the one to use it. If even the creator didn't bother to use it, then the more than likely scenario (and I'm speaking from years of experience in TfD) is that it won't be used. If the bottom templates are still unused, then they will just appear here over and over again. As they should. Do with that what you will. Gonnym (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PT

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PE

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IS

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IL

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/FI

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/EG

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/CL

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/AR

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TemplateBox

[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 G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Possibly copied from Commons without attribution. This looks like a type of Commons template that we do not use at en.WP. Possibly a recreation of a previously deleted template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was attempting to make commons code function here. Did not work. Speedy delete this. Apologize. 18:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC) SecretName101 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 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:Talking Heads (British TV series)

[edit]

Template is out of use (all episode articles now redirected to main series). U-Mos (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 13

[edit]

Template:Block-reason

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Uw-block. Not used in tools like Twinkle, and the blue colour seems exotic and not consistent with other block messages. It reminds me of the good faith block messages, like Template:Uw-ublock, which wouldn't work here. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 16:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:555B:2F9:D54B:7F4C (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 12

[edit]

Template:Houston SaberCats squad

[edit]

Team has withdrawn from competition, so current squad template is no longer required Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom EvansHallBear (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa Redgrave sidebar

[edit]

Only three of links are Wikipedia articles about Redgrave. – MW(t•c) 15:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also links to Quotes & Commons so that those links are clickable while viewing her filmography or awards, for example. The Oscar speech may just be a section on a page, but it's still also significant. The other two items are roles/characters, so their removal would be understandable. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 17:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BENGALIYEAR India

[edit]

Unused and created four years ago. All it does is display the year 1432. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Voice Kids (Australia)

[edit]

Only one link outside of the main article. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Igor Mangushev

[edit]

Out of eight articles in the infobox, those in the Background and Employers section are very broad and general, and Mangushev plays a small and undistinguished role in the topics they cover. In fact, Mangushev is not mentioned in the text of any of those articles, only being linked in some of them due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine navbox.

The two organizations he founded would belong in a navbox to him, but if they're what the navbox depend on, I don't think Wikipedia needs it. Both organizations are already widely mentioned and linked in Mangushev's article, and so is he in both's articles. I don't think this navbox improves navegability for readers in any way due to its small size and I don't think we need it. Super Ψ Dro 10:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only two links are directly pertinent. --woodensuperman 12:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charlie Kirk sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) QalasQalas (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough pages to justify a sidebar template. Easier to list all of these in prose in relevant articles. – MW(t•c) 08:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's an official guideline for how many related pages a topic needs in order to have a sidebar template, but surely the standard is higher than one notable family member, one notable mentor, a single TV episode, two organizations, and a page split from a section of their biography. Note that the only page listed in "ideology" that mentions Kirk in its prose is Trumpism, which lists him in passing as a critic of one aspect of Trump's foreign policy. – MW(t•c) 08:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — Spotcheck of here shows some shorter ones, like Template:Vaughan Gething sidebar. Also, as you stated there isn't really a guideline and also WP:RUSHDELETE, template was just completed and could be expanded. Aside: for the future, please use |type=sidebar in your nomination. The nomination broke every page the template is on. I have fixed it, no worries. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 08:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the aside, was confused about why Kirk's page was temporarily broken.
That's a fair point, though it's worth mentioning Vaughan Gething is a former head of state. – MW(t•c) 09:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, though it's worth mentioning Vaughan Gething is a former head of state I don't see the relevance? I just picked the first one I saw that was a similar length at random. Here's another random pull: Template:Vanessa Redgrave sidebar Are you asserting that Vaughan Gething is more notable than Kirk and thus more deserving? I don't think that would be a very productive use of time as a criterian... deciding who is the most notable of the lot. We struggle enough as is with the binary "is notable" or "isn't notable" as is. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 09:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vaughan Gething is the elected leader of a nation. He is inherently more notable, yes??? Flatthew (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why wikipedia lacks any credibility. 2600:4040:B30C:6B00:C4C8:A523:36AA:8B06 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The head of state of Wales is the British monarch. Gething was head of a devolved government (somewhat equivalent to a state governor) for five months. But I digress. It looks like these sidebars just exist when somebody wants to make them, as with a navbox. I don't see a sidebar on JB Pritzker, despite it being a very comprehensive article, for example. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as you mentioned, there are lots of shorter ones. I don't believe length in a very new sidebar template has any say in whether it should stay or not. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most pages this is linked to are not pages that this template will be placed on. This fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and leaves for a very small amount of links in a prominent placed template. Iff there are enough links, a bottom navigation template can be created. Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. WokeScientologist (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deletion, there aren't sufficent pages for justify this sidebar. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per above to Delete QalasQalas (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient pages for the sidebar. ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 13:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. 65.190.241.158 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An attempt to expand what does not need expansion. His article is the only article about him really.
--Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator (@The Midnite Wolf), and with @Gonnym and @Bobby Cohn. This template a) duplicates functionality already covered by links in the prose of the articles listed and does not serve a broader navigational purpose, and b) includes links to articles of only tangential relevance to Kirk. This template functions more like a fan-made link collection created to make the subject look more important or central than they actually are rather than functioning as an encyclopedic aid, and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for navigational sidebars. Willsteve2000 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonnym. Phoeromones (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonnym. AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for this in articles like Got a Nut. --Usp (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete it. It is good to hear what he preached and stands for- Jesus and his principles. 23.28.119.6 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather it not get deleted either. If for the only reason being everyone here on the 12th calling for Deleting it are just sad people. Thank you for speaking up. He will become bigger just because of the same ones trying to silence and delete him. Have a great day. 2601:C2:700:1A50:F08A:3F5A:50E7:67B4 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait there are many with less Pantagraph (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Gonnym's point. There's not enough articles to justity it. Leecannon11 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did this even exist before his assassination? If not, I think sustaining this sidebar would be a case of us ignoring our rules because we got swept up (along with the public) because of a massive event, which really should not affect how we document events. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Also: This seems like a reaction to the recent news event and not how an impartial encyclopaedia would represent this organisation otherwise. Which means it's at best, problematic, and at worst, political. The sidebar doesn't even seem accurate by itself: It includes entities like Students for Trump that (when examined closely) really only have superficial ties to Kirk. So yes, delete.WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree with above 140.141.4.65 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym & PickleG13.
~eticangaaa (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox professional wrestler

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox professional wrestler with Template:Infobox amateur wrestler.
Seems like these have enough in common that they could easily be merged to {{Infobox wrestler}} (currently a redirect). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This has been proposed before and the overwhelming consensus was to keep them separate because they're nothing alike. There is zero overlap in parameters, as one is a character performance akin to theater, and one is a legitimate competition. Prefall 06:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same. Aiden4Real (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two completly different fields. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though both disciplines share a 'common ancestor', one is a legitimate sport and the other is a spectacle. The only parameters they have in common are those that both templates share with Template:Infobox person. MordecaiXLII (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Professional wrestling is very different from amateur wrestling. Stables, ring names, billed from, ect. it'd create a bigger problem, it's best they are kept seperate. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per prior consensus and obvious difference in subject matter. 2600:2B00:9641:A400:642F:93CB:D7C9:405B (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - two completely different forms of entertainment. "Amature" or freestyle wrestling is an Olympic-level combat sport. Professional wrestling is highly athletic theatre where participants "work" to entertain an audience. A merging of these infoboxes would imply that they are anything alike, which would violate relevant P&Gs about false information. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 02:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox boxer (amateur)

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox boxer (amateur) with Template:Infobox boxer.
I see no reason these can be easily merged. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The amateur boxer template includes the boxer's club and coach as well as the medalstemplate all of which is relevant to amateur boxing but not professional boxing. The template infox boxer has the boxing record which is not relevant to amateur boxers as they have so many bouts and there is no comprehensive record of these to ensure accuracy. They should be kept separate. Shrug02 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as @Shrug02 has stated. -PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old discussions

[edit]

September 11

Template:Collapse top

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Collapse top with Template:Hidden archive top.
The distinction between these templates is unclear, and the only practical difference seems to be in their colour; and the names of parameters (which, if they are not merged, should be standardised).

Having multiple templates for the same or similar functions is an unnecessary burden on editors and a barrier to involvement for newcomers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One says not to modify the contents, the other doesn't. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. One is a benign template used for collapsing all sorts of things, while the other is specifically used for discussions which go off-topic, among other things. (Hence also the color difference). TucanHolmes (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Both templates are widely used on their own, so a lot of pages would be affected by this merge. I see no reason whatsoever why a merge would be beneficial here. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:A4A0:C638:A0B9:A4A (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Template:Hidden archive top is specifically used for general shenanigans related to talk pages, while Template:Collapse top can be used for collapsing other things. As the person above said, this would affect many pages. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: They serve different purposes as stated by others above. {{cot}} is useful for general collapsing tasks, like keeping a talk page comment tidy when posting a large table, quote, suggested edit, etc, especially when using the indent parameter to match discussion indentation. {{hat}} is useful specifically for closing and hiding certain discussions. hat discourages further interaction, cot does not. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou and Foshan Metro exit table templates

[edit]

In English wiki, any form of railway station exit table is unacceptable, so these templates are meaningless. Benteds (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the English Wikipedia, there are many instances of acceptable uses of station exit tables, and as stated in your own example (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC) given on User talk:GMB205#Some suggestions about Guangzhou Metro, the editor who made the discussion stated that according the the head-count of !votes, the consensus should've been “No general policy”, and that he was bringing this up only because he was seeing people citing this RfC as a reason for removal. Furthermore, these exit tables provide valuable information about the surrounding area, especially the public transit interchanges. %FJ% (talk | contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconfirmed with 2019 RFC, and the deletion of the exit table is indeed a consensus in the bottom part. What has not reached consensus is the station layout. You mentioned that there are still many cases using exit table. I am only familiar with Beijing Subway, MTR, Taipei Metro and New York Subway, all of which do not use exit table. I would appreciate it if you could provide examples where the exit table is still alive. Benteds (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reason shown above ObbanautYT (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Template:Rose Tyler stories

[edit]

The sheer number of Doctor Who navboxes is a little excessive. See Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. Do we really need a navbox for every subset of character appearances? Shouldn't this be dealt with at the article? --woodensuperman 11:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major character within the series. "There's too much" is the opposite of a reason for deletion. Please try citing a guideline or policy to have a substantial deletion request. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOXCREEP covers the issue. There are NINETEEN navboxes on The Day of the Doctor. --woodensuperman 06:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per NAVBOXCREEP, it details how navboxes can increase the visual size of the article far out of proportion to the importance of the information they provide - for your given example, this is an extremely important topic within its project. It then details how we can use state=collapsed to minimize these templates, which is exactly what your given article does. This is not a reason to delete the relevant content and templates. Is there an exact part of the NAVBOXCREEP essay you'd like to quote? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try the section "Do we really need this template at all" which points out how editors can overestimate the importance of the topic. This seems to be what is happening here, especially as you mention that this is important within the Doctor Who project, but it isn't to the encyclopedia at large. We do not need this many navboxes related to Doctor Who stories, this isn't tardis.wikia.com. --woodensuperman 06:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I mentioned the article The Day of the Doctor, kindly read my posts before assuming you understand what I'm talking about or putting words in my mouth (a common experience). No actual guideline or policy has been cited as to why this template should be deleted, besides one lone article you've pulled from the template, and it helps with nevigation between articles featuring a major character of the series. It "isn't to the encyclopedia at large"? Welcome to 95% of articles on Wikipedia - every article and template is specific to its own project. What a ridiculous argument. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox American football team

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox American football team with Template:Infobox indoor American football team.
Seems like a pretty reasonable pair of templates that can be merged to one. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is deleting indoor American football team and replacing them with the American football team infobox an option? Rename Template:Infobox American football team to Template:Infobox gridiron football team while we are at it.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any reason we couldn’t rename the infobox… — Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Template:Outer planet moons

[edit]

Unused chart. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still unused after more than a week. Gonnym (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if reworked. This chart was originally on Moons of Saturn and the equivalent pages for the other three gas giants. It was removed on June 30, 2025 ([[1]]) for being off-topic.
As the user who updated the chart through 2024, I found it useful in those articles for demonstrating the rapid pace of discovery from the 2000s forward, and it's newsworthy whenever Jupiter or Saturn takes the crown for most moons. ([[2]], [[3]], [[4]]).
However, in its current form the graph is definitely unhelpful - all of the discoveries at the end are squished together. I think that the diagram could be salvaged if others would find it helpful. StewartIM (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest Pacific typhoons unadjusted for inflation

[edit]

Unused and only major edit was creation back in April. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already moved it to its new title (adjusted and unadjusted for inflation/nominal), reflecting the changes. I was initially thinking that this could be redirected to the costliest Pacific typhoons template but I eventually decided to transpose/transfer the table seen in the Western Pacific section of the costliest TCs article to this template. Vida0007 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But now it is single-use. All other charts on the article are part of the article, this can be easily place within the article outside of template transclusion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Single use tables should not be in templates. Gonnym (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox British conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate

[edit]

Unused Campaignbox templates. If added to articles, I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Less than or equal to

[edit]

The character could be:

  • copied
  • or pasted with "Emoji & Symbols"

instead, though it would make it less easy to type, but is unused regardless. BodhiHarp 15:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nominator does not make a compelling case for deletion. There is an entire category of similar typing-aid templates, so it's not clear why this one is being singled out. The lack of usage may just indicate that people are substing it. And, as I get tired of having to repeat, as WP:TFD#3 states in bold for emphasis, being unused is not a reason for deletion unless there is also no likelihood of being used. The use case for this typing aid is perfectly plausible. Sdkb talk 15:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt people are substing a template that has no indication whatsoever that it is meant to be subst. What's more likely, is that this just isn't used at all. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Template:Articles lacking sources chart

[edit]

Template using the graph extension (with one token usage). See related discussion here. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well group these templates into one TfD if possible. These were all created to support User:MusikBot/CategoryCounter, which generated a graph showing how the size of selected categories changed over time. Task was approved at 2021 BRFA but derailed by the long outage of the Graph extension. MusikAnimal has expressed interest in reviving it but I'm not sure what his timeline would look like, or indeed if these templates would be necessary in a future iteration of the task that uses mw:Extension:Chart. My personal opinion is that it's fine if these are deleted as unused – when/if MusikAnimal gets around to reviving the task, (re)creating any necessary infrastructure will be trivial. If he wants to pull the JSON data from each chart's "data" subpage he's an admin and can view it without problem (if a non-admin wants to revive this task, I can pull the data from deleted pages for you). Best, Ajpolino (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been growing interest in reviving CategoryCounter. Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely that mw:Extension:JsonConfig will get enabled here for this purpose per phab:T372447, so if the bot is revived, it would need to be on Commons. That then means I should probably make it a global bot task (a bot operating solely for enwiki on Commons seems a bit odd…), which then necessitates a good chunk of work for scalability. So, it's likely going to be "a while" if the bot is ever revived, I'm afraid :( — MusikAnimal talk 00:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subjsec

[edit]

Almost a duplicate of Template:Section link that saves a few more characters. These templates aren't used so intensely that an editor can't write the page name when needed. However, this does add an additional maintenance burden, as can be seen by the fact that almost a year later, there is still no documentation (just to be clear, I'd propose deletion even if there was documentation). Usages should be replaced with Template:Section link. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with both {{article link}} and {{part section link}}. Note that {{article link}} and {{part section link}} do not preserve links after discussion archiving, whereas {{subjsec}} does, eg. at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 56 § Remove citation tools from this page. Daask (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you wrote after discussion archiving, did you mean after a talk page discussion linked to with this template gets archived? If so, how exactly? I don't see anything in your code that handles archiving. Or did you mean after the discussion which uses this template gets archived. If so, that isn't an issue with {{Section link}} as you give it the article name, not a relative name. If you think Section link can be improved with any feature, suggest it there. I oppose any backdoor merger via this TfD, without showing any actual issue with the base template that this solves. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: By "After discussion archiving", I mean after the discussion invoking this template is moved from a page like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to a page like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 56. It does this by using {{ROOTPAGENAME}} by default rather than {{PAGENAME}}, as these other templates do. Daask (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National flags

[edit]

Shitty navbox. It might be useful if redesigned to include many more individual links to flags of nations. Links to lists of multiple nations aren't helpful. Plantdrew (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that links to lists of multiple nations isn't helpful. If the article exists, then the link is valid. However, this might duplicate links in Template:Lists of flags and if so, is redundant. Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science portalbar

[edit]

Template not used in article space Plantdrew (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biology nav

[edit]

Hopelessly broad topic for a navbox, with an essentially random inclusion of a handful of articles relevant to the topic, and not even transcluded in all of those articles. Plantdrew (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split, some individual sections (like branches of biology as a research field) could be useful as individual navboxes, but the current one is way too unfocused. It has very generic links such as Scientific theory and Scientific law that would fit better in a scientific method navbox, and very specific links about individual plant and animal systems, meaning it isn't especially helpful for a navigation purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Standard gauge

[edit]

Deprecated with no transclusions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This template acts as soft redirect to Template:Standard gauge. Can {{Always substitute}} be added to redirects (and the bot continue to work) if this is converted to one? Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonesey95. Useddenim (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Template:History of Tatarstan

[edit]

This template violates WP:SIDEBAR #1, #2, #3; WP:NAV-WITHIN; WP:NAV-RELATED #1, #2, #3, #4; WP:LINKBACK; WP:BRINT; and in some cases WP:LEADSIDEBAR. I would argue it also violates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and should therefore be deleted per WP:TG #8 and WP:TFD#REASONS #4.

To give you an idea about how poorly designed and used this sidebar is:

Articles the template links to: Articles which transclude the template: Match?
History of Tatarstan History of Tatarstan Yes
Old Great Bulgaria ("Great Bulgaria") missing No
Turco-Mongols (redirects to Turco-Mongol tradition) missing No
Great Tartary (redirects to Tartary) missing No
Volga Bulgaria missing No
Kipchaks missing No
Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria ("Mongol invasion") Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria Yes
Golden Horde missing No
Khanate of Kazan Khanate of Kazan Yes
Principality of Moscow ("Muscovy"; redirects to Grand Principality of Moscow) missing No
Kazan Governorate Kazan Governorate Yes
Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic ("Tatar ASSR") Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic Yes
Tatarstan ("Republic of Tatarstan") Tatarstan Yes
missing Idel-Ural State No
missing Cumans No
missing Zilant No
missing Timeline of Kazan No
missing 1992 Tatarstani sovereignty referendum No
missing Bulgarian epigraphic monuments No
missing Kazan Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Republic No

As you can see, there is almost no match between how the sidebar is designed and how it is used, many of the linked or transcluded articles never mention 'Tatarstan' at all, and are just associated with the history of the Tatars or Tatarstan on arbitrary geographic, linguistic or ethnic grounds. This is just a bunch of original research that should not be permitted. In addition, this sidebar takes up unnecessary space and messes up the layout in many articles in practice. (Similar issues have been identified in related sidebars such as Template:History of Udmurtia and especially Template:History of Chuvashia; these may be nominated as follow-ups). NLeeuw (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Hey, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 3#Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests, you implied that you found this sidebar Template:History of Tatarstan (and the Template:History of Udmurtia and Template:History of Chuvashia) more "obnoxious" and more "objectionable" than Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests. Well then, I've examined the first of these three, and decided to nominated it for deletion as well. Thanks for the suggestion; I'm curious what you think. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think sidebars like this are mostly useless. You can't fit the history of a region in a neat little box, which is why three boxes are required at Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree. So, delete all three it is, then (starting with this one)? NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec? NLeeuw (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete those three. Srnec (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RomanConvert

[edit]

Duplicate of Module:ConvertNumeric#L-215. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Template:Iraqi presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Iraqi presidential elections with Template:Iraqi elections.
Both templates are small. No need to have a separate one for presidental elections. Most of them are red links anyway. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seem to be already discussed here. I'm for the proposal, but I think the matter should be settled first in the linked discussion. If not, this will just be reverted for inconsistency later on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I wasn't aware of that discussion. That's good to know. TheBritinator (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just delete it and list the elections on Template:Presidents of Iraq; the mess made of the Salvadoran elections template by a similar merge to that proposed shows it isn't a good idea (and why these separate templates existed in the first place). Number 57 16:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not include them on both? It would be odd to have a template about Iraqi elections that does not have the presidential ones (even if they are indirect). TheBritinator (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's giving equivalency between a public election and a vote in parliament. Number 57 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is equivalency between an election of a head of state by a vote of the population and an election of one by a vote of an electoral college. Both are presidential elections, and called as such by sources.--Aréat (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree in cases where an Electoral College has been elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, but not when it is a vote by a parliament elected for the wider purpose of running the country. Number 57 15:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. The exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect is striking. We've got all the above calling it a presidential election and it's on the template, then suddenly five years later there's still all of them calling it a presidential election, but because it's indirect it vanish from the template. I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on templates when elected, whatever the mean, since the sources do think they are. --Aréat (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, the elections to the presidency and to the houses of parliament should all be included in these sort of templates, regardless of their directness. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as long as these templates only list direct elections they should stay separate. Glide08 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's add these indirect elections then, considering we agree it's better.--Aréat (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't see that much of an issue with the post-merger Salvadoran elections template, the symbols help with navigation just fine. If we must do a merger at all, it shouldn't be redirected to a head of state template - in my opinion the presidential template should be one solely for the individuals serving in the position, and not the elections for the position.
    (For the closer, my vote is a weak keep.) Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 06:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

Template:IPA nasal vowels

[edit]

Redundant copy of Template:IPA vowels with nasalized diacritic added to each vowel symbol, which creates unattested vowels and has no historical precedence of being represented this way. All symbols in the chart link to the same page, nasal vowel, making it even further redundant. Oklopfer (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multi-Doctor stories

[edit]

A navbox for a concept that lacks an article. A general user will not be familiar with what this concept is given it is not discussed anywhere on-wiki and uses fan-terminology to define it, making it confusing for anyone not familiar with the series. Its navigational use for anyone but fans is minimal. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware of the requirement that a navbox requires a main article? This template helps in navigating between episodes with the same theme. I'm also not seeing any fan-terminology, and the statement that it is not discussed anywhere on-wiki is false given the entire section of The Doctor#Multi-Doctor stories exists. Please consider nominating a guideline or policy for a solid deletion nomination. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TEMPLATECREEP and WP:FANCRUFT. It seems that there has been a drive among the Doctor Who fanbase here to create navboxes for multiple subsets of episodes, whether by type, by villain, or by character, etc. This is simply overkill and unnecessary. The Name of the Doctor has 17 navboxes, "The Day of the Doctor" has 19. How does this navbox clutter aid navigation? We're better off using category navigation in place of most of the navboxes in Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. --woodensuperman 15:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of which can have a quote applied from them to this particular situation. There are dozens of articles linked in these particular navboxes - why the choice on those two articles? Both of those articles completely conform with TEMPLATECREEP in its suggestions. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:NAVBOX states that "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". I do not see a separate article here even if it is mentioned as a subsection elsewhere. Additionally, "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject" is not followed here since the navbox is unclear on what counts as a "multi-Doctor story". Some see it as being episodes only where Doctors portrayed by different Doctors interact, others consider it when multiple Doctors interact even if they're the same actor, and some consider it when they interact with duplicates or fakes. There is no one coherent subject that handily covers all of these types of stories, falling afoul of the guideline. Additionally, "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article"; many of the articles in question do not mention nor discuss the concept of a "Multi-Doctor story" as if it as a recurring episode type; in fact, The Day of the Doctor is currently the only one to actually discuss prior multi-Doctor episodes, and the only section to actually discuss this as a concept is riddled with WP:OR. Could you hypothetically stretch this? Yes, but this template is so riddled with verification and content problems, on top of just being CRUFT, that frankly I do not see why this should be retained. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests into Template:Mongol Empire, specifically the "Campaigns & Battles" section, of which it is pretty much a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, placed inappropriately as a WP:LEADSIDEBAR without a good excuse. Reason: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I recommend reading User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#1 war rule as a further rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion per all "Oppose" votes. Beluga732 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merging from

[edit]

This template and {{Being merged}} do exactly the same thing. From a quick look, it appears {{Being merged}}:

  • has a much more solid code and is more flexible,
  • has more parameters,
  • has better documentation and templatedata, and
  • handles its params more gracefully in case they are not provided. (in comparison, {{Merging from}} contradicts itself if the target is not given)

Also, its codebase is similar to that of {{Being split}}, which, unlike merging, is the only template that can be used for splitting after consensus. I don't see why we'd need two of these.

Oh, and here are the WLH stats:

FaviFake (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FaviFake have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better. If you are merging there is always a target article. This template is designed to go on the target article. The other is generic. :Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}} (currently a redirect).
These correspond to the {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} templates. The direction of the merge is important.
If you want to mess about you could construct a common template, or nice slow lua module as a back end. But the semantics of template names are important.
Next time why not talk to me first? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better
Could you mention in which specific cases it's better? It doesn't even link to the instructions for merging… Besides, we can always add a param to change the text, but, again, I don't understand in which cases it'd be more useful as a separate template.
If you are merging there is always a target article.
Not necessarily. Oftentimes, the target is discussed within the discussion, and {{Being merged}} does an excellent job at accomodating that possibily. Instead, {{Merging from}} doesn't even allow you to specify it's just one article that's going to be merged, if the target is unknown.
Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}
Again, {{Being merged}} already does that with the |direction=to/from parameter. Please see Template:Being_merged/testcases. We definitely don't need three templates doing the same thing.
The direction of the merge is important.
I agree!!
But the semantics of template names are important.
I don't understand what you mean. What's important and for what?
I guess the question I'm asking is: What does this template do that the others don't, exactly? The others already support direction of merge, lack of target or direction, etc. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source - we are all human, and a label when we are working is a good reminder.
{{Being merged}} does not accommodate multiple source pages. It requires more typing. (This is actually a classic, you can combine any number of templates by adding new named arguments. People always want to combine but it's not necessarily a good idea, it's for example relatively easy to remember "merge from" → "merging from" and "merge to" → "merging to", but remembering the names and values of parameters is harder.)
{{Being merged}} doesn't make the source page(s) clear.
As for "instructions" (we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?) for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Also, as I said above you could maintain the semantic advantage and make one a wrapper of the other. This will please people who think we are going to be constantly updating these templates, by reducing the mythical "maintenance load".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
Not always and not necessarily. See the mess at placeholder name, for example
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source.
Yeah but that doesn't mean that the underlying code and the text displayed should be completely different and incompatible...
we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?
yes we do?????
As for "instructions" for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Or you could just... use the existing template, which already does that? Why would we add a new parameter to mimick another template that is used in the same way for the same purpose?
Your argument seems to be: if someone is editing the page, and they are editing it using the source editor (VE doesn't have these problems), then in that case it is apparently easier for them to type a template that is different from the template that they will inevitably also have to type on the source page.
Personally, it seems like a weak argument for maintaining two very different templates that, again, do the same thing. FaviFake (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd for someone who barely edits articles and more on the Project space to make any such argument because redundancy helps out in the end. WP:NOTBROKE is a very basic guideline. You keep on messing around in the Project space not understanding the 20 years of this project. – The Grid (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "Do not fix links to redirects that are not broken" has to do with a TfD deletion discussion. You may be looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but I don't see how this is apparently a perfect situation.
Also, could you elaborate on the need of this "20-year project" to have two different codebases for two templates that fulfill the same purpose? This is not redundancy, this is a duplication of efforts and, in my opinion, a waste of template editors' time. FaviFake (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what to point at, how about you literally stop editing on ANYTHING with the Project space. You are flat out disruptive with your edits. WP:CIR applies at every new edit you make on the Project space. – The Grid (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, now that the AN/I thread has been closed!
Now, do you want to keep talking about your fascination with my edits or partecipate in the consensus-building process? FaviFake (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, but make some stuff simpler and clearer, and maybe introduce a new template.
Both templates say that there was a discussion and the discussion has come to an end. In that case it should be pretty clear which pages are being merged into which pages, and the templates should clearly communicate that.
{{Merging from}} does a good job in that respect, but {{Being merged}} seems rather undecided. {{Merging to}} is a redirect to {{Being merged}}, so I thought that the template should only be used on a page that is the source of a merge and will soon become a redirect. But {{Being merged}} has a "dir" parameter, and it defaults to "with". The word "with" doesn't really tell us what's happening. Is content being added or removed on a page where {{Being merged}} appears?
Maybe we should make {{Merging to}} a template instead of a redirect. Currently, when I use {{Merging to|Foo}}, it says "... merge this page with Foo ...". Confusing. I have to use {{Merging to|Foo|dir=to}} to make it say "... merge this page into Foo ...". That's not what I expect from a template called {{Merging to}}. Why do I have to use the word "to" twice?
Once {{Merging to}} is a template on its own with a clear message, we can relegate {{Being merged}} to the cases where the discussion hasn't reached a clear decision, or where the decision was "let's start the merge, and along the way we'll figure out which pages we'll keep and which will become a redirect". (Doesn't sound like a good decision to me, but maybe it happens.)
Sure, having three similar templates is a bit redundant, but as @Rich Farmbrough said, template names are important. If the templates were named {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And these templates are being used all the time, but edited much less often. If some edits have to be made in three templates, that's no big deal.
They are being used by editors who don't spend much time reading the instructions. For example, if I place {{Merging to|Foo}} on a page, I expect it to say "merge to". I don't want to spend time figuring out why it isn't working. A bit of redundancy makes life a bit harder for a few template editors, but makes life much easier for many template users.
— Chrisahn (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar discussion, three years ago: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Template:Merging from. The proposal was to turn {{Merging from}} into an alias for {{Being merged}} with the dir=from parameter. The result was "no consensus". — Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some of the pages where {{Being merged}} is used directly, e.g. Humour and Caustic humour. Obviously, the messages would be much clearer if {{Merging from}} and (a better version of) {{Merging to}} were used instead. Same for Range of a projectile and Projectile motion – one is merged into the other, but the templates don't tell us which is the target. We have to click the discussion link to find out.
In a nutshell: Users are lazy. They don't know how to use these templates correctly. And that's OK - they shouldn't have to know. We should make life easier for them by having two prominent templates for two different merge directions: {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}. (And unclear templates like {{Being merged}} can be hidden somewhere in a dark corner.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane "related" templates

[edit]

Adding on to the ones already nominated by User:Jonesey95 and User:WikiCleanerMan: None of these are necessary. They don't provide any functionality that could not otherwise be implemented easily, since many of them are just plain text--no styling or anything else. Most also have very few or no transclusions, nor documentations. element 15:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. These are necessary for high-impact storms that have multiple sub-articles written about or related to them with multiple impacts across many regions (such as Sandy, Irma, etc). Most users don’t have to scroll all the way down just to find the specific section. Many of these remained for several years so I do not see why it is all of a sudden an issue now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. A majority of these very notable tropical cyclones do have extensive articles (mostly impact-related/effects-related and meteorological history-related but also including tornado outbreaks and other related responses, incidents and events) that necessitate the use of this template. They are there for a reason: to help the reader easily see and read the essential information regarding the history and effects of the TC in question. And in these cases, there are just too many relevant paragraphs that are too long to be put in a single article, hence the use of the TC related template. Note that I did support the deletion of the Typhoon Mangkhut related template but that is because its meteorological history and impacts are short enough to be put in the main article. However, that situation is not applicable to most, if not all of the templates listed here. Vida0007 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These "see also" links do not belong in infoboxes and they should be moved to bottom navigation templates. Template:Hurricane Sandy related for example has already Template:Hurricane Sandy series. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. All of these links can be easily linked from the main article and vice versa. Very inappropriate way of navigation just to include in a infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful "see also"-style links in infobox, which contrary to the statement from Gonnym, actually do belong in the infobox. Numerous other non-weather articles do similar processes, including ones like Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has three separate "see also"/"related" infoboxes for the large number of child articles. To go further, 2024 United States presidential election contains the Template:US 2024 presidential elections series directly under the infobox, which also provides dozens of child-article links/see also links. This is a common practice on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why weather articles should be the exception to this common practice. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken about the template you cite. That sidebar is below and that is true. These templates are not following the proper template format for navigation. These templates are added within the infobox. See the template structure below from Hurricane Isabel article in the related section. Plus, these templates are just linking articles in bullet points. These do not follow proper navigational structure for templates.
    {{Infobox weather event
    | image = Isabel 2003-09-11 1720Z.jpg
    | caption = Isabel at peak intensity, northeast of the Leeward Islands, on September 11
    | alt = Satellite image of Hurricane Isabel at peak intensity, while maintaining a clear eye.
    | formed = September 6, 2003
    | extratropical = September 19, 2003
    | dissipated = September 20, 2003
    }}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
    | winds = 145
    | pressure = 915
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
    | year = 2003
    | fatalities = 52 (17 direct, 35 indirect)
    | damage = 3600000000
    | areas = Lesser Antilles, Greater Antilles, Lucayan Archipelago, Eastern United States, Atlantic Canada
    | refs =
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
    | season = 2003 Atlantic hurricane season
    | related = {{Hurricane Isabel related}}
    }}
    }} WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all clear violations of WP:TG: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.- this is exactly what is being done here. Just because people have done it on loads of other templates, that doesn't make it correct to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could these template at least be converted into navboxes? (e.g. Template:Hurricane Sandy series) Columbia719 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more than four links. Most only have at least two. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not three or four links? Columbia719 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – per above FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why not convert the ones with many subpages to that of Template:Katrina? It would be a much cleaner then the current format and would be outside the infobox anyway. High-profile storms such as Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Dorian, Ida, Ian, Helene and Milton definitely deserve them as they had widespread and long-lasting impacts too. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my vote above. Lack of enough links. Most have two or three. The Katrina template is a sidebar and if there are less than five links on a subject outside the subject's article, they are brought tot Tfd and it is not enough for navigation and same applies to navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Functionality needs to be kept, templates don't, whether a series for each hurricane is made or it is simply converted into plaintext, the functionality should stay. However, these templates do not necessarily need to exist. I would like to note that converting to plaintext may not be preferably as each template can be used in several infoboxes depending on how many articles the hurricanes have. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

German title templates

[edit]

Propose merging Template:German title Edle and Template:German title Edler with Template:German rank.

Propose merging Template:German title Freifrau, Template:German title Freiherr, Template:German title Freiin, Template:German title Fürst, Template:German title Fürstin, Template:German title Graf, Template:German title Gräfin, Template:German title Herzog, Template:German title Herzogin, Template:German title Prinz, Template:German title Prinzessin, Template:German title Reichsfreiherr, Template:German title Reichsfürst, Template:German title Reichsgraf and Template:German title Ritter with Template:German title.
Having all of these templates is simply unnecessary. While some of them have 10 or so transclusions, others have none. All existing transclusions should be replacecd with the corresponding template. There's also Template:German title von and Category:German noble templates, which I'm not sure exactly what should be done with them. Template:German rank and Template:German title might also be combinable. element 21:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth merging to Template:Family name explanation. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{German title Herzogin}}, {{German title Prinzessin}}, {{German title Reichsfürst}}, {{German title Edle}} are unused and should not be merged and just deleted. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac pinging you (as the creator and maintainer) for input here if you think these should go in the family one, or be their own thing. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{German title}} isn't a hatnote, but wouldn't be an unreasonable target, since from the random checks I did found the templates mostly used in footnotes. That being said, the text is short enough that it wouldn't be unreasonable to merge them into the {{fne}} for use with {{fnf}} as a straight-up footnote. In other words, I think it could go either way. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Template:Cleanup federal judge bio

[edit]

Ambox that has a very specific purpose and which today is totally unused in the mainspace. {{cleanup}} with a custom rationale should be sufficient now (or possibly some {{clean imported article}} or similar). Izno (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't know whether this has fallen unused because all the cleanup has been done, or because it has just been removed from FJC bio articles in favor of other cleanup templates. BD2412 T 03:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with reservation simply because I wish we could keep for historical interest. What a peculiar and oddly specific template! Satisfying, fascinating to think someone spent the time to customise it so eloquently with a logo just for this specific purpose! waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Module:Higher education task force test2

[edit]

Unused stale tests. This also isn't how tests should be made. If you are testing something, use Module:Higher education task force/testcases. If you are working on a sandbox, use Module:Higher education task force/sandbox. There is hardly a valid reason for the same person to work on 3 different sandboxes at the same time. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each version was an iterative version which was being presented to people at the same time, but I wasn't aware of /testcases as being an option, and agree that would be better. Is there any reference page I can look at for future issues like this? No one pointed me in the right direction. Thanks. Is it ok if I move these pages to the appropriate place myself? Tduk (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. It should find a place before we have a close on this nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Template:Use Antiguan and Barbudan English

[edit]

Propose deletion of this template which encourages the use of terms which are not suitable for use on Wikipedia in line with MOS:COMMONALITY. The Antiguan and Barbudan English#Vocabulary article is extremely limited and the primary difference with British English appears to be 'traveler' instead of 'traveller'. However, the reference for this is the word's use in a local news article and would appear more likely to be a simple spelling error. It also seems that the use of some Creole terms might create something called Antiguan and Barbudan English but these terms would not be suitable for use on Wikipedia. This template therefore serves no purpose and may actually be harmful. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I added to the vocabulary section. It should be noted that Creole is distinct from Antiguan and Barbudan English– in addition to nearly all Creole terms having a different spelling standard, Antiguan and Barbudan English is also explicitly taught in schools and is the only standard used by the Antiguan and Barbudan government. Terms like whitewood, bilbush, and bay can be easily understood by international English speakers, and more technical terms relating to daily life can also be easily understood. I am expanding the article at the moment and I will include more sourcing. CROIXtalk 23:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Croix. You might want to add 'keep' in bold to make your vote clear. I must say though, several of the terms that you have added to the article just now might actually undermine your point. They highlight differences with American English, not British English. Terms like 'chips' and 'holiday' are British terms. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder. And yes, there are some similarities between American-English differences, but many of the terms listed are unique to Antiguan and Barbudan English. I will expand the vocabulary section with more formal vocabulary shortly. I am currently searching for more educational style guides on the dialect. It should also be noted that Antiguan and Barbudan English is distinct from acrolectal Antiguan and Barbudan Creole, the most similar form of Creole to English– the terms listed in the vocabulary section are used in print media, state media, and legislation. CROIXtalk 23:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ENGVAR was established to stop battles between spelling such color/colour. It is not practical to expect every known English dialect to be used when editing a corresponding article. Nor would it be helpful since articles should be written in commonly used English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are spelling differences in Antiguan and Barbudan English and British English, for example spellings ending in -se and -ze. There are also minor differences in vocabulary that are normal between major English dialects. These Antigua-specific differences are not present in other Caribbean English dialects such as Trinidadian English or Jamaican English, that for the most part have identical spelling to British English according to their respective articles. Are these differences too subtle to justify a separate template? CROIXtalk 09:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lack of sources for these claims, which is half the trouble. But I've just looked at an AB Government document to see if they use '-se' or '-ze'. They use 'analyse', 'analysed' or 'analyses' 9 times. Whereas 'analyze' only appears once. Likewise, 'amortisation' as opposed to 'amortization'. I'm not convinced that any American spellings aren't simply spelling errors.
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf Dgp4004 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article is properly sourced with two local dictionaries, -ze spellings can be seen in legislation:
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2013-9.pdf
  • American words such as "license" being used in favour of "licence" in the same document (76 times) and legislation:
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2015-3.pdf
  • And spellings like "authorize" being preferred by state-controlled media:
https://abstvradio.com/cbh-issues-reminder-to-business-operators-on-protocols/ CROIXtalk 21:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Antiguan Standard English isn't an attempt to write British English if that is what you are trying to say. The academic writing style of everyday Antiguan English speakers is reflected the cited dictionaries and considering British English is not taught in Antigua and Barbuda in any form, why expect editors using this variety to have to adopt it on the articles they write about Antigua and Barbuda (MOS:TIES) – I presume British English is the variety you wish for the Antigua and Barbuda article and others to be written with. And yes, you will see various forms of English being used in certain documents as a very large number people are educated abroad. Antigua and Barbuda also has no official language and thus there is no one correct variety– at the end of the day the Antiguan government isn't investing too much into style guides in official publications. A third of the country’s population are also immigrants from other English speaking countries further increasing diversity in the variety of English used in official documents. I also recommend you check out the very recently created Template:Use Caribbean English which could replace this template while still allowing editors to use MOS-compliant local vocabulary and spelling. CROIXtalk 01:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template is an attempt to establish a new "variety" of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used. It also creates an unacceptable burden for the majority of editors, who have no reasonable way of determining what the characteristics of the variety are. —Quondum 21:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly explains Antiguan English spelling. I also imagine we may want to include other Caribbean English (and many other) templates in this discussion as they were also created without an ENGVAR discussion, which is a reasonable point. Templates such as Template:Use Belizean English were reasonably but unilaterally created in the last few days (additionally see Template talk:Use Caribbean English and the proposed policy linked in the main comment on that page). A centralized discussion on these templates would be more than useful and would hopefully allow for a consensus on what to do with Caribbean English-related topics. CROIXtalk 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A centralized discussion about a guideline prohibiting addition of ENGVAR templates is sorely needed, but it in no way obviates the need for dealing with this one here, now. And just because others exists does not justify this one. The existence of ENGVAR diversity is unfortunate: the creation of this creeping perceived free-for-all for every dialect on the planet is an inevitable consequence. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ping @Asdfjrjjj: as this mention of their recently created template may be of interest. CROIXtalk 01:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: This is the first time I've ever come across this guidance, and I have been through a whoooooole lot of these TfDs and ENGVAR-related discussions. If this is policy/guidance/consensus, would you mind linking to it (as it actually is relevant to some templates I just created)? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. A MOS is precisely to keep style uniformity, and its scope includes this. ENVAR did not arise without discussion. I think that it recognizes any distinct varieties is antithetical to a MOS, but surely you are not going to claim that acceptance of the two dominant ENGVAR varieties occurred without discussion? As I've said, IMO these discussions do not belong under TfD. You are not making yourself sound serious through the sarcasm implied by your emphasis. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: I apologise I really didn't mean to imply sarcasm (would've tagged [sarcasm] in that case) - was honestly just surprised and tired last night, given how much time and effort I put into finding previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates. To be quite clear though (especially since Dgp4004 seems to possibly share this stance), the only policy/guidance/consensus backing the stance "first gain recognition at MOS for a variant as an ENGVAR variant that may be used" is that (i) there was a MOS discussion to establish AmE and BrE as ENGVAR variants that may be used on Wikipedia, and so (ii) any new variants seeking to be used on Wikipedia must first gain recognition at MOS, like AmE and BrE did. Does that represent the position accurately? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that I'm being overreactive, so I owe you an apology in turn. Your summary seems a close summary of my stance, with the caveat that this is given the current ENGVAR (I personally do not think that the ENGVAR policy makes sense, but that ship has sailed). My "stance" is in fact not based on historical discussion, just on the common-sense-based perception that without some constraint, a few nation-proud editors can create chaos with the freedom to sidestep a proper discussion around acceptance of each new variety. —Quondum 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editors Quondum and Dgp4004: this is actually reasonable imo (if only a bit at odds with ENGVAR, possibly), and I'm sorry for not thinking of this (had thought the UBE discussion would do)! There's actually a MOS discussion atm that's very relevant to this, so I'll note this stance over there, and wait for the outcome of that discussion, then TfD nom the {{Use X English}} templates I created, and then prolly do as suggested here for the relevant dialects (but would definitely cite this discussion re propriety of even opening such a discussion on MOS talk).
    As regards this template though, vote remains keep (for same reasons), pending aforementioned MOS discussion. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quondum WP:ENGVAR literally says "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." There is no requirement for certain national varieties to undergo a MOS discussion before being used. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reading an orthogonal permission into something that was in no way addressing the idea of introducing new varieties, simply from an absence of a statement addressing your claim? —Quondum
  • Comment: To debunk the notion that ABE is too heavily influenced by Creole, here is a fictional illustrative passage I made to show the differences between Antiguan and Barbudan English and ABC, both examples following style guidelines on the respective dialect/language's article.
Antiguan and Barbudan Creole:
  • De X unu wan dutë pät Wilikë ë pan wie naigaändem lub fu um gudgud vyüändem de Deb'lbrij unu bigbig libtingändem gwän dai sün. Pan 2022, wan grüp owsaiting lublubändem së pan de bush an täk fätë fu wan-ändred de änim'ländem kud hab dey yäd gwän-wei.
Antiguan and Barbudan English:
  • X is a dirt path in Willikies, known for its scenic views of Devil's Bridge and a large number of endangered species. In 2022, a group of researchers analyzed the surrounding bushland, finding that forty percent of wildlife in the area was at risk of habitat loss.
Following the guidelines on the article, ABE is perfectly suitable to be used on Wikipedia under the Manual of Style– and is clearly very distinct from ABC. Even though the above passage contains two distinct Antiguan terms and more importantly, plenty of spelling conventions that differ from both British and American English, it is perfectly readable to an international English speaker. CROIXtalk 09:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strongly disagree with every single thing nom said, and with all but Quondum's delete votes (in case that's actual guidance or consensus). As an aside to nom and deletionists: pls, pls, plssssss do group TfDs for any unwanted {{Use X English}} templates, I beeeg. This piecemeal nomination campaign since the EngvarB saga is sooo, sooooooo tiresome and confusing. Nom's rationale applies to more than one current {{Use X English}} template - plsss just be consistent and nominate all applicable templates! (Reasons for my strong disagreement are the same as in my 5 Aug vote in the recent UCamE TfD - amended to add that I'd consider voting delete if this template were merged/passed to {{UCarE}} with all tracking categories preserved [ie {{UCarE}} code updated accordingly], but only in a group TfD b/c honestly that template's destined for TfD soon-ish from the looks of it.) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might send the same request back to you: please stop creating language templates without consensus. You know it's controversial but quietly proceed anyway. We have to discuss each in turn because some have much less merit than others.
    This is the first I have heard of this Use Carribbean English template. I have no doubt we will be discussing the merits of that one in a separate discussion so I don't want to get sidetracked onto that now. But I don't understand what you and Croix are suggesting. You want both individual English templates for each small island or island group because each variety is so unique, and you also want a pan-Carribbean template because they're so similar? You want to keep both? Dgp4004 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or are you each changing your votes to 'merge' into Use Carribbean English? In which case, we can always suspend this discussion until we've examined the merits of that one. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a read of the template. I must say, I can't see any merit in merging into that one. Rather than simplify, it appears to be an attempt to introduce a dozen different uncodified 'varieties' of English. Has there been a consensus I have missed to create that? I cannot understand why you would proceed knowing how controversial it would be. And without even discussing it here on a template it is designed to replace. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Dgp4004: I didn't really appreciate this, if I'm being honest, as imo I only created {{UCarE}} and {{UBelE}} after extensive discussion and readings of previous relevant discussions. Those were the result of a UBE discussion, where I tried my best to find previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates, and I likewise tried my best in creating the templates to meet everyone's diverging requirements/wishes (see UCarE talk). So we can for sure discuss the templates' merits/demerits in a group TfD for them (a consistent grouping though, with no illogical exclusions pls), but the charge that they were created carelessly, inappropriately, or underhandedly I'll not accept, given I know that a lot of time, effort, and thought went into their quite public creation (ofc they might still be TfD-worthy, but for other reasons, not this one imo).
    And for the record re this stance ("stop creating language templates without consensus"), this is not guidance/consensus I encountered before (else ofc I wouldn't have breached it!), and as I commented to Quondum above, I would actually appreciate seeing any relevant policy/guideline/consensus establishing this stance, and would ofc support deletion of any templates (regardless of author) which breached policy/guideline/consensus! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. There is nothing stopping you from churning out another eighty odd of these templates. The only way to combat what I consider this harmful trend is through the TfD process, which you deem a 'piecemeal nomination campaign' that is 'sooo, sooooooo tiresome'. I can absolutely assure you, I do not enjoy these discussions any more than you do. But if you won't discuss them beforehand, we have to discuss them after their creation. I'm sorry if that causes distress, but as I said above - you must have known what you were doing would be controversial and would trigger more TfDs, especially as you have read so extensively. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we haven't even got to yours yet! I would much rather we focus on the matter at hand: this template designed to protect such unique terms as 'holiday', 'upper house' and 'African'. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgp4004 @CROIX @Johnuniq @Quondum Just a note to alert all participants to the extremely relevant discussion currently ongoing at the MOS talk page. Please come and weigh in there if you want to. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (non-admin closure)
This deletion discussion is very much intertwined with the concurrent MOS discussion, and as far as is concerned there exists no consensus right now (2 !votes each for delete and keep respectively).
The question here now is, do we want to wait for a consensus at the MOS before deciding on this template's fate, or come to a local consensus first?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 17:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with an above sentiment. These language templates should only be created after a consensus has been achieved. Some of the recent language templates had no written word difference, some have word difference that make it much harder for the casual reader to understand the text. The fact that this didn't exist until a few months ago and everything worked, shows that this isn't necessary. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mostly per Gonnym, and this doesn't seem important enough to warrant a template. FaviFake (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Template:Authority control (arts)

[edit]

Unnecessary wrapper for Template:Authority control. Can be replaced with {{Authority control|show=arts}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Template:LDRGB

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in June 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep both, as creator I created these templates to assist with light and dark mode colors using inline CSS. Otherwise it would be a pain to make colors work in light and dark mode. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful templates that can be used in portals when the time cost of converting to TemplateStyles is too high —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 10:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Format link with Template:Format linkr.
They do exactly the same thing, except Format linkr is better. I propose redirecting Format linkr and moving it to Format link, which uses an inferior code. There are no differences between the two other than the fact that Format linkr works better. See this taken from the /doc:

{{format link}} {{format linkr}}
{{format link|Some_Page_With_Underscores}} {{format linkr|Some_Page_With_Underscores}}
Some_Page_With_Underscores Some Page With Underscores
{{format linkr|Template talk:T#%7B%7Bu%7D%7D}} {{format linkr|Template talk:T#%7B%7Bu%7D%7D}}
Template talk:T § %7B%7Bu%7D%7D Template talk:T § {{u}}
{{format link|%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96}} {{format linkr|%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96}}
[[:%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96]] 人的教化
{{format link|Page_With&UnderBar;HTML5_Entities}} {{format linkr|Page_With&UnderBar;HTML5_Entities}}
Page_With_HTML5_Entities Page With_HTML5 Entities

Thanks. --FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: When I created {{format linkr}} I wrote on its doc subpage:

This template […] is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, because of the changes it makes to {{format link}}'s output that could create ambiguity if automatically replaced.

I no longer feel so strongly that {{format linkr}} is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, but I think FaviFake, as merge proposer, should do a review of uses of {{format link}} which contain underscores and see if ambiguity would be introduced by using {{format linkr}} instead. It would certainly strengthen his case. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I ckecked the first 30 or so transclusions, but the template is being used exactly as {{section link}}. How would I look for of uses of {{format link}} which contain underscores?
I'm not sure why anyone would use {{format link}} to preserve the underscores instead of removing them. Wouldn't it be better to just keep the raw link? I don't think there's too much to worry about here. Also, {{format link}} has only ~300 transclusions, while {{format linkr}} has 6k+. The latter is definitely more popuar, and if someone wants to check all 300, it's not a ton compared to other similar TfDs. FaviFake (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm……that does seem reasonable. I'm not sure I knew what I was talking about when I wrote that into the /doc, then. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until y'all can nominate something at TFD without it breaking other templates in spectacular fashion. See {{Please see}} and how it's unusable right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and a technical reason not to right from {{format linkr}}'s "Usage" notes: This template is intended to lower editor workload when copying links from the URL bar and is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, because of the changes it makes to {{format link}}'s output that could create ambiguity if automatically replaced.. Thus I propose a Speedy close with no action taken to prevent further damage to the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's broken; the notification does exactly what it's supposed to render.
What you mentioned was already discussed in the very first replies here. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at {{Please see}}, you're required to notify users and maintainers of Twinkle at WT:TWINK prior to nomination for breaking changes. This is a breaking change (inserting the TFD nomination). This is actively disrupting the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole This was a mistake. The template doc shouldn't have mentioned "This template should NOT be substituted", or the folks that built {{Please see}} shouldn't have substituted it, or the template shouldn't have been safesubst-ed, or someone should've checked the code before nominating it. This is no one's fault and the mistake has no relevancy in thiis discussion. FaviFake (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't placing blame with anyone. However, the relevancy was that at the time I wrote that, certain functions of the project were broken because of this nomination. As you can see, I've struck my oppose and now oppose for a different (and valid) reason. Unsure why you're replying to this. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposing the merger because the template... wasn't tagged for deletion properly?
@Aaron Liu Locke talked about it at Template talk:Format link § Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2025, you might want to take a look. FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. I'm not familiar with TfD templates but I'll see what I can do, if anything. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know either, but I do know there are a lot of details on how to apply the tag at WP:TFD, in the yellow/orange table. FaviFake (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like {{Please see}} is no longer broken by the TFD notification. I think someone added noinclude tags in a couple spots. Anyway, that's not really a valid reason to oppose (or support) merging, since poorly coded TFD notifications is a different issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Template:Undertale

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Undertale with Template:Toby Fox.
There is significant overlap between the Undertale and Toby Fox templates. I attempted to BOLDly merge the Undertale one into Toby Fox, but the merge was undone by another user, so I am opening this discussion. The only links that would be brought over are the characters. Everything else in the Undertale template either already exists in the Toby Fox template, or doesn't belong as not on-topic per WP:NAV-RELATED (e.g. Mother). TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.  novov talk edits 01:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Heavy overlap, and I see no need for both to be separate. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which way to merge, Undertale to Toby Fox, or Toby Fox to Undertale?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ringtail Raider: @Pokelego999: If you can, please indicate which direction you want to merge. Thank you TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Undertale template into the Toby Fox one. The reason for merging in that direction is that, while you can argue that some of the non-Undertale/Deltarune links on the Toby Fox navbox are too tangential to be included, he is strongly connected to at the very least Music of Homestuck.--AlexandraIDV 11:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole list of characters from the Undertale franchise would not belong in an individual's navbox. Nor would Undertale Yellow, of which he had no involvement. --woodensuperman 12:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far 2 are in support of merging to Toby Fox (novov, Alexandra) and 4 are in support of merging to Undertale (myself, woodensuperman, 1isall, you know her) with 2 ambiguous votes (pokelego, ringtail raider). I kinda feel bad about making this nomination such a mess by switching my opinion half-way, but I really think Undertale/Deltarune is the better subject to link under and would like to explain why. Almost all the topics involved (the games, the music, the characters) could theoretically be placed under either navigational umbrella, but I think the U/D box provides a more cohesive scope than a Toby Fox one. With U/D, we can include Undertale Yellow which Toby Fox had nothing to do with. Linking fictional characters also makes more sense in a U/D box as well than in a Fox navbox. Using a Toby Fox navbox only expands the scope within the realm of real world stuff, which right now would only mean including Music of Homestuck. The way I see it, navigating there from one of the U/D articles is too tangential, and certainly not worth forgoing the opportunity to link Undertale Yellow. In fact, most discussion about Fox's contributions to Homestuck are on his own page, not at the Music of Homestuck article. I've also noticed other editors trying to add Fox's other musical contributions to his template like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet, which barely mention Fox and are so tangential to U/D stuff that its difficult to see who would be navigating between those articles. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was in favor of merging to Toby Fox (implied with per nom though sorry that was vague), but I agree with all your points, plus since then someone has stripped all non-Undertale links from Toby's template. So I'm switching my vote to merge into Undertale. Ringtail Raider (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Undertale per above. Listing the Undertale characters in the Toby Fox navbox would seem a bit awkward. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox general election

[edit]

Per WP:TFD, this template is redundant to a better-designed template - {{Infobox election}}, which is longstanding and less bulky than this newer template. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this template should be deleted due to redundancy. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim that {{Infobox election}} is 'less bulky' is demonstrably wrong, as anyone can check by comparing the two. Number 57 22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They take up essentially the same height while getting rid of the seats before and seat change. And it's only the same height because the candidate photos are larger on the commonly used one. Plus this new template creates bars which are unecessary as the percentage is already given so it just takes up extra space. The existing one is as compact as it can be, except for the image sizes. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing one is nowhere near being as compact as it could be – there is a huge amount of wasted/redundant space in it. Number 57 23:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a way higher percent of wasted space in this new template, which also is less informative and again has these unnecessary bars which take up more space for something that could simply be represented by a percentage. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The seat change not being there was a bug, this has now been fixed. The elimination of seats before was solely taken for the article's sake, the parameter can still be displayed but was removed in the article as I saw it as irrelevant DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't show the original seats. People shouldn't be having to do math when they go on a Wikipedia page to see how many seats there were beforehand. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not showing the original seats was also a bug which has now been fixed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That correction makes the template even taller and leaves even more white space. Compared to the commonly used one yours has a way higher percentage of white space and the percent bars are completely unnecessary. This is still an extremely horrible template with egregious errors. Orca🐋 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry you feel that way but one’s aesthetic choices shouldn’t warrant deletion, you can always choose to not use it in your articles if you do believe its aesthetic isn’t to your liking DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an aesthetic choice, it's a waste of space. You could have easily just done the percentage on one of the many lines with empty white space but you decided to create these bars which increase the height of the infobox by 50%. This is a direct violation of MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE which states "As with navigation templates, the purpose of infoboxes is to facilitate convenient access to specific information; they should not prioritize a decorative appearance." Orca🐋 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don’t believe that small criticisms of the infobox design warrant deletion. If you’d like, you’re more than welcome to suggest changes on the review section DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules of Wikipedia disagree with you. You aren't above the rules. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask which rule you believe this template to violate? As you say, they should not prioritise decorative appearance, and I don’t believe this does that. It’s a functional template that displays the given information. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally said "aesthetic choices shouldn’t warrant deletion." Prioritizing aesthetic choices over convenient access to specific information is a direct violation of MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE as stated above. Orca🐋 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aesthetic choice of one editor shouldn’t warrant deletion. You have said it looks horrible and you seem to have no argument beyond that. The infobox does not prioritise aesthetic design over access to information. It can be used to display the same information as {{Infobox election}}, choosing a completely vertical layout over a horizontal and vertical combined configuration. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does so while creating an egregious amount of whitespace and creating unnecessary bars which take up more space. We can keep going in circles about this but just because you choose to ignore MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE and pretend like it's not applicable doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course infobox style is a relevant policy, but I don’t think having a greater amount of whitespace or composition bars than you’d like counts the template as unnecessarily decorative and therefore merits deletion. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does when there is a better version that already exists. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as template creator. I don't believe deletion satisfies any of the criteria listed in WP:TFD – the template certainatly meets the NPOV and template namespace guidelines, and it is used and has a likelehood of being used – there are lots of election articles on Wikipedia. What I believe is being argued is redundancy to a better-designed template, to which I also disagree; Template:Infobox election serves a similar but distinct purpose to this template and this template is intended to exist alongside it and Template:Infobox legislative election, not to be a replacement or a redundant copy. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep/dratify but don't use on actual articles). This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Looking for infobox reviews! because the current options, {{Infobox election}} (TIE) and {{Infobox legislative election}} (TILE) are both to found lacking and basically this has created Twitter drama some weeks ago. (On Orca's argument, all three election templates have mostly "has the same parameters and displays the same information".) This TFD was created as a result of that discussion, and now there are two discussions. I suppose the creation of this template was a result of a discussion I initiated earlier this year. I suppose also that the creation of this template may have too soon and there should have been a more thorough discussion before it is used on a live article. With that being said, I dunno if there's a draft system for templates, but I would suggest that, and prevent deletion of this template until it has been determined elsewhere (not on this TFD) on what to do with it, but prevent it usage from live articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck There isn't a draft system for templates (or if there is, it's certainly been kept hidden from me rather well...), I don't think that would work namespace-wise: the best match for what you're talking about is template ratings – {{Infobox general election}} is rated as Alpha, which on the template says It is ready for third party input, and may be used on a few pages to see if problems arise, but should be watched. Outside of this, I'm not aware of anything regarding the development/introduction of templates (e.g. does it need consensus by the wikiproject to introduce?) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is governed by WP:BRD, but considering WP:WPE&R has essentially been 57's show until the TIE vs TILE Twitter storm, considering there are indeed already at least 2 templates serving the same purpose (albeit with most people clearly divided on which between the two to be used universally), and since elections are of general scope, while I would say it does not need a WikiProject's consensus for creation, at least permission has to be sought before it used on actual articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good idea. It's easy enough to just add TIE back to the one live article where TIGE is used whilst it's still in development DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Template:PZLA

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in May 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just added it to a few pages. Has potential for widespread use in external link sections and in references --Habst (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete if not added to many more pages. Please add it to more than 2. A citation or external link template should be created if it has usage in many pages. If you, the creator, can't find those usages, then it isn't as useful as you think. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, there are many more than 2, see Special:Search/insource:"https://statystyka.pzla.pl/personal.php?page=profile" for lots more usages. Also see this same template's use on the Polish Wikipedia where it has over 700 transclusions. I just added it to a few more, can you consider changing your !vote with the new results? --Habst (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about how many potential usages can be. When an editor creates a template, they should create it because they want to use it. If the creator of the template doesn't even care to use it, then it should be deleted. I'm fine with the minimum amount of usages you've added and fine with it being kept. Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, thank you. I did create it because I want to use it; the only reason I didn't yet was because of competing interests. --Habst (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Website builders

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has pages that it could be used on, but I'm in an opinion that if the creator of a navigation template didn't take the time to add it to articles, there is no reason to attempt to save it. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonbar/exists

[edit]

Unused sub template. Can't find usages with insoruce also. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 11 August 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=1307605044"