Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

"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? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	93	18	111
TfD	0	2	28	3	33
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	9	1	10
RfD	0	0	32	5	37
AfD	0	0	0	10	10

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

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

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

Stub templates

Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.

Userboxes

Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.

Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.

Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.

Template redirects

List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.

Moving and renaming a template

Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Step	Instructions
Step 1 Tag the template	Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page: For deletion: {{subst:Tfd}} For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:Tfd|type=sidebar}} For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}} and don't add a newline after the notice. For merging: {{subst:Tfm|name of other template}} For merging an inline template: {{subst:Tfm|type=inline|name of other template to be merged}} and don't add a newline after the notice. To delete a module or a different type of template, see Template:Template for discussion § Display on articles 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_December_9#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

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

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

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

December 9

Template:If then verbatim else error

• Template:If then verbatim else error (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another unused error template. Just use parser functions. No need for this and just because you make something substitutable doesn't mean it should be substituted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 8

Template:I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again

• Template:I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've nominated all pages linked in the template for deletion for fanmade WP:INDISCRIMINATE and no sources, which would this template completely empty aside from the title of the source show Shredlordsupreme (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Technically, User:Shredlordsupreme should wait until those pages are deleted before nominating the template as it currently is a valid navbox. But having looked at the pages linked to by the template, they are doomed. I see no harm in deleting this template at the same time. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Can con

• Template:Can con (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Based on its related pages, this template is intended to be an instruction to use Canadian English spelling. It is redundant to {{Use Canadian English}} and is also a terribly unclear title for any template. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete I need a decoder ring to figure out what this is for... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete I created this as a user-space helper with a broader Canadian content and cultural-sensitivity intent. It doesn’t belong in Template space, and I’m fine with deletion. Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Use Jamaican English

• Template:Use Jamaican English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with several former 'Use X English' templates, this template is redundant to Use British English. As stated on the template page, it is an instruction to use 'Jamaican English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.' Dgp4004 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete & Replace with {{Use British English}} the template/doc itself states that it is the same as {{Use British English}}... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete These templates have no purpose and carry an implausible suggestion that an editor has to study Jamaican English before editing an affected article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Path

• Module:Path (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the deletion of {{relative link}} (TFD) & {{relative link implicit}} (TFD), this module no longer serves any purpose as it was exclusively used by those templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The {{relative link}} template was regularly used in Module:Params/doc. That allowed to display, let's say

  {{./examples/four cells per row table}}

when one visited the Module:Params page, but to display

{{../examples/four cells per row table}}

when one visited the Module:Params/doc page. Now that that template is gone, it is still possible to obtain the same result by directly transcluding the module. The module appears currently unused because whoever removed {{relative link}} from the page did not do a good job at avoiding regressions. In general, we need the functionality offered by this module whenever a transcluded page displays relative paths (so that these appear differently depending on the transcluding page) – for instance, if page a/b/c displays a relative path to a/b/c/d, this should appear as ./d when visiting a/b/c, but should appear as ../c/d when visiting a/b/e. --Grufo (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

We have already litigate this at 2 seprate TFDs linked to above. This has already been deemed an unhelpful, overly complicated and generally useless template. No reason to keep the module that exclusively was implemented by 2 templates that have been deleted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This module does not implement templates. The templates that were removed added a further layer and a functionality to this module: that of creating links. --Grufo (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a code repository. Please find a problem, then implement a solution, not the other way around. Yes, I have read the above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq I am not sure you followed through. There is a problem and this module was the solution (see above), until the solution was recently removed and the problem restored. --Grufo (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  To show one self-explanatory case, the internal template /doc/sandboxes before this regression would show, when transcluded in Module:Params/testcases,

  There are a few sandbox subpages that you can freely use to experiment with new testcases for {{#invoke:params}} at ./sandbox, ./sandbox2, ./sandbox3, ./sandbox4 and ./sandbox5. In order to avoid possible conflicts with other editors, we suggest you use the one with the oldest last edit, which currently is ./sandbox2 ().

  whereas, when transcluded in—let's say—Module:Params/doc, it would show:

  There are a few sandbox subpages that you can freely use to experiment with new testcases for {{#invoke:params}} at ../testcases/sandbox, ../testcases/sandbox2, ../testcases/sandbox3, ../testcases/sandbox4 and ../testcases/sandbox5. In order to avoid possible conflicts with other editors, we suggest you use the one with the oldest last edit, which currently is ../testcases/sandbox2 ().

  Now instead, after the regression, the template shows no links at all (no matter where it is transcluded):

  There are a few sandbox subpages that you can freely use to experiment with new testcases for {{#invoke:params}}. In order to avoid possible conflicts with other editors, we suggest you use the one with the oldest last edit, which currently is Module:Params/testcases/sandbox2 ().

  The links can be manually restored, of course, but without this module they cannot be in short format. They will need to be something like this other example:

  There are a few sandbox subpages that you can freely use to experiment with new testcases for {{#invoke:params}} at

  • Module:Params/testcases/sandbox
  • Module:Params/testcases/sandbox2
  • Module:Params/testcases/sandbox3
  • Module:Params/testcases/sandbox4
  • Module:Params/testcases/sandbox5

  In order to avoid possible conflicts with other editors, we suggest you use the one with the oldest last edit, which currently is Module:Params/testcases/sandbox2 ().

  The same goes for all relative links currently displayed at Module:Params. And the page is already huge. --Grufo (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  Grufo you really should take some time to read in depth Don't bludgeon the process. A few key points:

  • In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.
  • It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.

  You have consistently responded to EVERY !vote to delete your code and have been very critical of those who take a different view than you do. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pageant

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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox pageant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox beauty pageant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox pageant with Template:Infobox beauty pageant.
This seems like it was just an oversight by the creator... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment One is for a pageant series in general rather than by edition. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Rename instead: Template:Infobox pageant is for pageant organizations themselves, while Template:Infobox beauty pageant is for individual editions of pageants, much like the difference between Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season. As they serve different purposes and exist for different reasons, a merge would not be helpful and one should simply be renamed instead to more clearly explain the difference. So I would simply rename Template:Infobox beauty pageant to Template:Infobox pageant edition. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: if you can update the documentation with some kind of explination that these are different, why and how... I will withdraw the nomination and rename it per Jjj1238's suggestion. Sound fair? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I added the explanation on top. We could rename the template I created to maybe "Infobox beauty pageant organization" for more clarity as well? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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:NSplaces

• Template:NSplaces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The reason it has no transclusions is because I removed the last of them yesterday... I'm still trying to figure out if this can be used. This book is cited on nearly 1000 articles (see here - doesn't catch all of them). It would have been nice if you reached out before nominating this... I might look into having a bot transform the citations to this book into this template. I can add a bunch of transclusions right now if you really want me to. MediaKyle (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle so is this meant to be orphaned or not? I didn't quite understand from your comment. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed the transclusions of this template because I wasn't sure how to fix it. Eventually, I figured out how to fix it, and now I'm trying to determine whether I can have a bot replace the ~1000 citations to this book with this template, so if and when the Nova Scotia Archives changes the URL again, we won't have all those citations turn to deadlinks. I was going to add some transclusions to this after I saw it posted here but it adds the "this template is under discussion" banner to the references section so I don't want to do that until this is done. MediaKyle (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've now put forward a property proposal on Wikidata for a Nova Scotia Place Names ID, and it looks like it's going to go through -- kindly keep this template for now while I work things out. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep as it seems MediaKyle is planning un reusing it. @MediaKyle I suggest you ask in WP:BOTREQUEST for help in replacing the manual usages with the template. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, but please rename the template before you use it. "NSplaces" does not even remotely help identify what that is. See WP:TPN. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep FOR NOW as it appears MediaKyle is actively working on it. MediaKyle please add {{Under construction}} to prevent re-nomination for being unused. Please also follow Gonnym's advice and rename this so it is clear what it is for. You can certainly keep {{NSplaces}} as a shortcut to it if you wish. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Purnagiri JS Express Route

• Template:Purnagiri JS Express Route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and no main article for use due to main article not meeting basic GNG requirements. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep: now included in an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Country data Gilgit-Baltistan

• Template:Country data Gilgit-Baltistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Country data templates create data for flag templates to draw from, but Gilgit-Baltistan does not have a flag (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Gilgit–Baltistan), so this template serves no purpose. Yue🌙 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, but use File:Blank flag.svg, as is done with other entities that have no flag. The template is useful and used in articles such as List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and List of telephone country codes, where entities are listed with flag icons next to their names, and vertical alignment of the names is useful. If this place ever gets a flag, it can be added to the template without having to edit all of the articles that already transclude this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Campeonato Pernambucano

• Template:Campeonato Pernambucano (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are only a few seasons available, it doesn't seem really necessary. Svartner (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - navigates between enough articles. GiantSnowman 19:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - There are 13 seasons there. If it was 13/13 seasons, that would be kept, no doubt. Then there's the navigation between clubs. The existence of historical seasons that nobody has been able to/bothered to archive yet doesn't mean we get rid of the template Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Do not create article

• Template:Do not create article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is pointless - if a redirect is being disrputively expanded into an article then the solution is page protection, not this sort of plea which is unlikely to be any more useful than the evil bit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the redirects I had in mind had already been deleted in a discussion, and the attempts to create it were in good faith, but still unusable. Anyway, noted, thanks. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It could be modified so that text can be added into it. That way, the editor who adds it can include an explanation for why an article shouldn't be created at the redirect it's placed on and link to relevant deletion discussions if there are any that pertain to a given non-notable subject. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom this is a job for page protection, not a notice that will simply be ignored. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Protection is useful and important, but let's say in the case of a refined redirect, and the target name has change E.G., protection might make it harder. E.G. Having to request an admin. Honestly think the rationale is quality, but I feel like it would be good for redirects that should obviously not become articles. E.G. Redirects from a Non Notable Child to a notable parent. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:B-Bahn

• Template:B-Bahn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:B-Kreuz- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:B-Kreuz2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:B-Ort-Ende (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:B-Plan-AZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BAB-Alternative (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BAB-Kreis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:StSn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Became unused after the deletion of the templates that used them here. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:German rank

• Template:German rank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Template:German title is the template that should be used. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox swimming venue

• Template:Infobox swimming venue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox venue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox swimming venue with Template:Infobox venue.
Very limited use by this Infobox. The only info would be lost at the moment is the specific measurements of the different pools in the complex. I do not think this information needs to be in the infobox at all (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Put it in a chart in the article if it is noteworthy. That can be placed in |dimensions= and a new param |dimension_label= created to override the default of "Field Size" to say "Pool Size" (or something else) when appropriate. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I very much disagree that the dimensions don't belong in the infobox; other sporting venues have their playing area dimensions in their infobox, as it's a defining characteristic of the venue. Otherwise I support the merge. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: That is totally valid. I have amended my proposal above. Thoughts? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I support the merge in principle. The amendments alleviate my concerns. oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox building

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Either inappropriate or disruptive nomination by a vandal. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox casino (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox building with Template:Infobox casino.
This template needs to be merged with Template:Infobox casino. ~2025-39215-88 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Improper, drive by nomination with no notices placed in templates or talk pages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we can close this, this is trolling and they're vandalising WP right now. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: joke nomination. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Coin image box 2 singles

• Template:Coin image box 2 singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting Template:Coin image box 2 singles: redundant to template:multiple image. sapphaline (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment there are at least 2 other templates to consider in this "series": {{coin image box 1 double}} & {{coin image box 8 singles}} Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

December 7

Template:Wdtable row/regicide

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row/regicide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused other than in an old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Wdtable row/person4

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row/person4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Wdtable row/lighthouse4

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row/lighthouse4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused other than in an old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Wdtable row/lighthouse

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row/lighthouse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused other than in an old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Wdtable row/bridge4

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row/bridge4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused other than in an old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Attached KML/Missouri Route M (Jefferson County)

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Attached KML/Missouri Route M (Jefferson County) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Missouri Route M (Jefferson County) was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Canon RF-lenses

• Template:Canon RF-lenses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table. It's also not useable in its current form as we don't support this kind of wikidata usage in articles. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The idea ist to use it at the lema Canon RF lens mount instead of the Table Canon RF-mount lenses. Advatage: if a new Lens is added to WD, it is automaticalley put to the leama. Similar Template is used in german Wikipedia for the lema RF-Bajonett. I have just fixed recently last bugs. So I vote for keeping it. BR GodeNehler (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Chengdu–Panzhihua section RDT

• Template:Chengdu–Panzhihua section RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Yuanmou–Kunming section RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after being removed with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Not likely to be used in any future free-standing articles.--Grahame (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/type check

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 T5 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/type check (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - SHOULD be a simple case of WP:T5 -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Muzaffarpur–Hadapsar (Pune) AC Express Route

• Template:Muzaffarpur–Hadapsar (Pune) AC Express Route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template after being removed with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Flag football women's national team flag right

• Template:Flag football women's national team flag right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports flag template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Flag football women's national team flag

• Template:Flag football women's national team flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports flag template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Flag football men's national team flag

• Template:Flag football men's national team flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports flag template. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Fbwu17

• Template:Fbwu17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports flag template. Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Engelberger Aa route

• Template:Engelberger Aa route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Engelberger Aa was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Db-selfuser

• Template:Db-selfuser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Just pick one of the other two speedy criteria, it really does not matter. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Zamindars of Chaugachha

• Template:Zamindars of Chaugachha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used and the title of the navbox redirects to the template in question. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

December 6

Template:Peruvian political crisis short

• Template:Peruvian political crisis short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created by a sockpuppet and subject is better covered by a navbox. We don't need a sidebar for everything per WP:Leadsidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Infoboxes are more appealing to people and always more visually clearer the boring navboxes, (plus, It's one of my favourite template D:) GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Mario Draghi sidebar

• Template:Mario Draghi sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the main navbox. Not everyone or everything needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. 2 usages so clearly the community prefers the bottom navbox. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• delete, redundant navigation to Template:Mario Draghi. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Baltic Pipeline System-II full

• Template:Baltic Pipeline System-II full (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template. Subst onto only article used either in the infobox or elsewhere and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Subst per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Field hockey at the 2010 Asian Games

• Template:Field hockey at the 2010 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• keep it's 3 actually, (one of them wasn't linked mistakenly until now) and this template was nominated once before 3 or 4 years ago with no consensus. Sports2021 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Title links don't count. It still fails NENAN. All links can be found through the category and previous noms don't factor considering the lack of five links for the template. This has no other usage outside of those three. It still fails navigation. Not everything needs a template for it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Title links do count, but 3 is still on the low size. I'm thinking maybe those links can be added to Template:Infobox sports competition event and reformat the Medalists section. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete only 2 distinct links to consider; there should be at least 5 links needed to justify the need. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Kart racing results legend

• Template:Kart racing results legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused results chart. The links to this template on articles from the what links here page appear to be from the format of Template:Motorsport result using the abbrivated transclusion format of msrslt. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not unused at all—it is used on several racing driver biographies as a legend for karting results; see Charles Leclerc, Lando Norris, Oscar Piastri, Kimi Antonelli, etc. The legend is different to the standard motorsport one as points systems are not universal in kart racing and change race-by-race. In the process of its usage being expanded and standardised. MB2437 16:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Transclude on articles. Templates are not pages users should be sent to read content. Templates are also not searchable by default, so they are hidden pages for most readers. Legends should be transcluded near their tables. If multiple pages on the same page use a legend, then transclude it once at the top of the section or page. This is how every single other topic does this. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles to address via this route. It is a topic-wide standard that primarily applies to Template:Motorsport driver results legend. MB2437 20:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Politics, media and other sports do this in basically all of the articles. This isn't something new. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:MARINERS

• Template:MARINERS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and a similar embedded box is used on the project page instead. Can be moved on project space for preservation. But project is defunct so there may not be a need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The project uses a different navigation template. We should stop moving things no one wants to pages no one looks at. Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Gonnym. Vestrian24Bio 12:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Gonnym.--Fanblade81 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:MergedMapGetPushPin

• Template:MergedMapGetPushPin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map and very hard to see. Don't know where this can be used. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan Hi, this template and its basis module is a component of Template:MergedMap. This template is very helpful for testing its parent template and also when only we want one pushpin map. Such modules and templates are helpful for good design of Wikipedia and makes reusable components for well design. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see these quality factors:

1. Maintainability
2. Modularity
3. Extensibility

of software, which are products of good design. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Leaning delete based on unused; undocumented; unreadable; tests in the wrong space. Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Gonnym. Vestrian24Bio 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Dingdong Dantes

• Template:Dingdong Dantes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created but still fails navigational requirements. Only four articles of relevance to the subject. Same as navbox below. If the other text in navbox is to be created, we can userfy until ready for mainspace use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Leaning keep. 4 core links and 1 spouse link. Seems enough for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete don't think this add any use for navigation. Vestrian24Bio 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I created it with several crucial links. --Fanblade81 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Marian Rivera

• Template:Marian Rivera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created but still fails navigational requirements. Only three articles of relevance to the subject. If the other two articles are going to be created we can userfy this until it is ready for mainspace use. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Fanblade81 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hebrew name 1

• Template:Hebrew name 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Language template which should be replace with {{Langx|he}}. Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Construction industry by country

• Template:Construction industry by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Construction overview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Construction industry by country with Template:Construction overview.
Template:Construction industry by country is redundant; the same 7 countries are already linked to in the "By country" line in Template:Construction overview. We should merge them.

• Alternately, we could just delete both Template:Construction industry by country and the "By country" line in Template:Construction overview, because all they do is duplicate the Category:Construction industry by country tree. Per WP:TG no. #6: Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function. Evidently, Category:Construction industry by country already performs the same function. NLeeuw (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete the per-country material. The Template:Construction overview navbox is important and useful, and needs to be retained more-or-less as it is. The Template:Construction industry by country navbox is clearly redundant with the "list of countries" in the Overview navbox. At a minimum, the small By Country navbox should deleted (and merged into Overview); but better - as User:Nederlandse Leeuw says - is to delete the By Country navbox and the country list in the Overview navbox. Noleander (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Road data/strings/SAD

• Module:Road data/strings/SAD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub module. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Road data/strings/GGY

• Module:Road data/strings/GGY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub module. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Sports color/majorette

• Module:Sports color/majorette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub module. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Sports table/Stv1

• Module:Sports table/Stv1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub module. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Sports roster/NBA

• Module:Sports roster/NBA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Sports roster/NHL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused data modules. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

December 5

Template:Graph:Most Expensive Cars

• Template:Graph:Most Expensive Cars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template using the disabled graph extension. If it can be converted to the new Chart extension then convert. If it can't, then delete template. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Graph:Most Expensive Paintings

• Template:Graph:Most Expensive Paintings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template using the disabled graph extension. If it can be converted to the new Chart extension then convert. If it can't, then delete template. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Overwatch (video game)/PlayerGrowth

• Template:Overwatch (video game)/PlayerGrowth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template using the disabled graph extension. Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:CCI statistics

• Template:CCI statistics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:CCI stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template using the disabled graph extension. If it can be converted to the new Chart extension then convert. If it can't, then delete template. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It might be convertible to the Chart extension using some mw:Extension:Chart/Transforms, but I have no idea how to make that happen. @Chlod (module creator) or Ahecht (person who I know does both Lua and Chart stuff), do you have any insights? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Should be possible to convert, but without any documentation of what it even does I can't say for sure. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Backrooms Levels

• Template:Backrooms Levels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Survival Difficulty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Some sort of fancruft related to The Backrooms. None of these articles exist on Wikipedia and are unlikely to exist in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Can-arpt-wx

• Template:Can-arpt-wx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is no longer useful. I created this template some years ago when Wikipedia was being spammed by mash-up sites promoting weather reports and advertising. At the time it was used on over 1,000 articles and today is used on less than 200. Nav Canada have changed their site and the current link for any use of the template goes to https://spaces.navcanada.ca/workspace/flightplanning/ but should go to https://plan.navcanada.ca/wxrecall/ and give the weather for a particular station but no longer does. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Anarchism cleanup issue graph

• Template:WikiProject Anarchism cleanup issue graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template other than 3 old archives. The template is currently unusable as it uses the disable graph extension. Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's unused because the graph extension was out of commission for so long. It can be updated and brought back. czar 04:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Czar If you are planning on updating it then great. I'll withdraw then. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  but the template being unused is sufficient regardless of the Graph extension – The Grid (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:GameStop stock price graph

• Template:GameStop stock price graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. The template was created at the end of January 2021 when GameStop's stocks exploded. A static image can be made of its stock history. – The Grid (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with static image per The Grid. The graph template this relies on is being deleted, and the graph extension has never really recovered since the security vulnerability a few years ago. An image is just as good and mostly future proof now that the price doesn't need to be updated periodically. — Wug·a·po·des 17:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:STV election graph

• Template:STV election graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template using the disabled graph extension. If it can be converted to the new Chart extension then convert. If it can't, then delete template. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hasn't been converted yet" is not a good reason to delete the template. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: useless since the graph extension is not working anymore. Vestrian24Bio 12:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2025 MPBL season by team

• Template:2025 MPBL season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only 3 valid blue links. Vestrian24Bio 10:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Cricket batting averages (10 innings)

• Template:Cricket batting averages (10 innings) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content on template space violating Wikipedia:Template namespace. Used on one article. Subst and delete. Template deals in stats that belongs within article space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: can be LST-ed where needed. Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Best Test career bowling averages

• Template:Best Test career bowling averages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content on template space violating Wikipedia:Template namespace. Subst on articles used and delete. Template deals in stats that belongs within article space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: can be LST-ed where needed. Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• As the person who created this template (16 years ago! Where has the time gone?), I think I know what this means (although "LST-ed" is new to me). If I understand this right, you would replace this template on each page with a statement like "Nash's Test career bowling average of 12.60 is the fourth lowest of anyone with at least ten Test wickets, behind only Charles Marriott, with an average of 8.72, Frederick Martin (10.07) and George Lohmann (10.75)." This seems a longwinded and less complete way of showing the information on the template; less complete because you now do not know who is else is in the top 15 and their respective averages. Indeed, templates like this one were created to give readers a better, more concise understanding of the topic. However, if the rules are now to delete templates like this, so be it, I guess. --Roisterer (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Knight Riders Group

• Template:Knight Riders Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sidebar used only on one article. Sidebar is not supported by a main article or information other than a redirect to a section on the main KKR team article. Also, all articles linked are covered by respective navboxes. This is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 10:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Convert to bottom navbox or delete. A navbox can be created with the 5 team links. That's a valid navbox. It's not appropriate to put for example {{Kolkata Knight Riders}} on Los Angeles Knight Riders (even though it currently has a link to it). But this template can and will follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Season sidebar

• Template:Season sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary sidebar used on sporting event articles that takes up space. For the vast majority of articles, all of the links used on respective international sporting events are covered by their respective navboxes or are linked already on either the main tournament article or the respective yearly tournament articles. This sidebar is redundant and is not doing anything that navboxes or the articles aren't doing. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure this functionality can be incorporated into Template:Infobox cricket tournament main, Template:Infobox football tournament, and any other tournament-related infoboxes very easily. – The Grid (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete after making sure the bottom navigation template has the links. To The Grid, when the amount of links is few in numbers, that could work. When you have dozens, then it doesn't. Because consistency should be given extra weight here, both for editors who try and mimic other pages, and for readers who expect to find certain links in specific places, then either all scenarios or none should have it. Those links are much better suited in the bottom navigation template which most if not all of these translusions have. Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete after incorporating into infoboxes per The Grid's suggestion. Vestrian24Bio 12:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:UK general election navigation

• Template:UK general election navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obtrusive template which does not help to navigate articles on national UK elections. Better left to templates. Nothing more than a sidebar taking up space. For instance, on the 1802 United Kingdom general election article it appears next to the election infobox but in the middle in the top part of the article. And it appears like that for many articles. Navigation for election articles is best left for templates like navboxes. Plus, not everything needs a sidebar. We have already Template:United Kingdom elections that covers the purpose of this sidebar already. Navboxes are doing the job well and sidebars like these are redundant Also, in terms of finding a way to click a link to these articles, one alternative is to click the link to the preceding or succeeding election articles from the infoboxes on these articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; don't see any need for this kind of a sidebar. Vestrian24Bio 10:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:UK general election opinion polling

• Template:UK general election opinion polling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant sidebar-type template as the navbox Template:Opinion polling for United Kingdom elections is better served for navigation to articles about polls for UK elections. Plus, not everything needs a sidebar. Several UK general elections have their own navboxes that include links to opinion polling articles already. Navboxes are doing the job well and sidebars like these are redundant. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 10:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

December 4

Template:Use Liberian English

• Template:Use Liberian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Liberian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not usable. The article at Liberian English does not provide any guidance about vocabulary or spelling, so there is no way that this template can be useful to a Wikipedia editor who seeks to use the correct English variant for an article transcluding this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 10:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – The existence of an independent, written standard of 'Liberian English' has not been demonstrated. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete It doesn't sound like there's any changes in Liberian English from other English-es, so doesn't sound like there's any reason for it to exist Billious Bobulous the III (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:ACVoting

• Template:ACVoting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used by ArbCom (see insource search), and the only transclusion is at a list of ArbCom templates. Delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tarcoola–Darwin railway line

• Template:Tarcoola–Darwin railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Question: Seemingly was transcluded in this revision of Adelaide–Darwin railway line, not sure when or why it was removed after that. Can someone figure out why it was removed, and possibly consider re-transcluding it back in? Fork99 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: now restored to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Sydney–Melbourne rail corridor

• Template:Sydney–Melbourne rail corridor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It was removed in error and not properly restored. I've re-added it. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per Mackensen Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep for reason noted above. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:WPNICK assessment cat

• Template:WPNICK assessment cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPNICK assessment importance level (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPANIMATION assessment importance work group level (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after being replaced with {{Task force assessment category}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Spud

• Template:Spud (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates between a novel and the derivative film series with only three entries. WP:NENAN. Οἶδα (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep. 4 entries seems fine here. Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that 4 entries seems fine, and they are all based on the same series.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: NENAN - only 4 entries. Vestrian24Bio 11:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• keep, sufficient number of links. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

• Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the main ISIS navbox. All these links can be covered by the navbox. If any links are missing, then they should be added. For as large as the navbox is already. A sidebar of this type does not aid in navigation and not everything needs a sidebar. Plus, there is really one article related to the history of ISIS, it is the main article. The rest are general topics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as merge and not deletion, a lot of these topics are not in the bottom navbar. JaxsonR (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge any missing links and delete. Editors who create this duplicate system don't realize that it makes maintaining these twice the work. Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the average editor definitely uses the sidebars more though, they are easier to find and eye-catching JaxsonR (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to the navbox. Vestrian24Bio 11:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:TemplateDataGenerator

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 withdrawn. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Module:TemplateDataGenerator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Please note: this is a subst-only module. Those modules and templates are by definition always unused.

{{subst:#invoke:TemplateDataGenerator|f}}

The methodology is of 2013; at that time no other tools were present. Meanwhile there are some JavaScript based available.

However, it still works and collects simply variable names from any source code anywhere and creates a TemplateData JSON skeleton.

Greetings – PerfektesChaos (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I have no issue to withdraw for now and come back to this at a later date to see if this is actually being used (maybe with adding a hidden comment to the subst?). Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Show SVG

• Template:Show SVG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template that has been mass created on multiple wiki projects. (Note the same user has created this same template on the Latin Wiki and Commons). There is no need to have animated SVGs directly animated in an article. If you need to view an SVG animation you can open the file. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is not limited to animated SVGs, but allows to create SVGs with variable properties that depend on template parameters (as in {{My SVG|red|145px}}). It also follows the news/suggestions introduced by Wikipedia:Tech news#Tech News: 2025-45. P.S. Creating templates on multiple projects is not an issue, not sure why it is mentioned. --Grufo (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  I mention you creating templates on multiple projects because it is a pattern of behavior. Taking code that you think works on one wiki and pushing it on other projects without any discussion or attempts to reach consensus on your changes. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  This template was created on the projects I contribute to. On English Wikipedia first, to be precise, and then elsewhere (but even if it had been first created elsewhere, it would not be a problem). --Grufo (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Not following the nominator's logic here. Why not include animate SVGs in articles? We've included animated GIFs in articles for years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery: can you link me to an example of that? I always thought we just included the standard file in articles and then to animate it you must click to open it. I've never come across a GIF that is animated in the article. If you can link me to an example and/or the template we use to animate GIFs, this might be one that I have to withdraw... To be clear, I'm don't mean to imply you are lying! I just want to see for myself what you are describing before I withdraw this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  Random example I remembered offhand: Year 2038 problem. Unfortunately there's no way to search for these easily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  Appreciate you finding an example. So yea, this is exactly what I was thinking it was. Yes we support using Gifs in articles but you do so using the standard method of calling an image:

  [[File:FileName.gif|thumb|Caption...]]

  We don't create a massive convoluted set of code for each gif and then wrap that in a template to insert the gif into an article (see Template:Zamboni's pendulum.svg).

  If you could do [[File:FileName.svg|thumb|Caption...]] and have that animate, I would have no objection to the fact that the image moves in an article... What I object to is the way that this is implemented. It is not tenable or helpful.

  FWIW insource:/File\:\w+\.gif/i gave me a few other examples. Obviously not all are MOVING gifs, but did find a few. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you that including the SVG source code in a template is unideal (I said as much down there), but right now it's technically impossible to do it any other way so our choice is this or nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would argue use a tool like this, convert it to a gif and use regular wiki markup. I agree with you that it would be ideal to insert an animated svg directly in the article but I just think this is a nightmare of a way to get around the lack of svg support. We've lasted this long without it... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  We already have SVG support. We just got it recently. But I think we're at the point where it's clear neither of us will convince the other one of our position so I'll leave it at that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  “Convert it to a gif”: A quick reminder that although it can also display animations, this template can do things no GIF can do (and neither can reading SVGs from Commons): constructing images “on the fly”, based on template parameters. The latter can change the colors, the texts shown, the sizes, and so on – which I believe is the main reason this approach was recently promoted upstream. --Grufo (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Seems almost all usages are from Template:Chemical reaction/arrow. If that is the only way or best way or show this arrow, then keep. If not, then replace usages with the better option. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

December 3

Template:2017 Hockey India League table

• Template:2017 Hockey India League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This table was being used in only two articles, so I merged it with 2017 Hockey India League and transcluded that section into 2017 Ranchi Rays season. Frietjes (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 Hockey India League table

• Template:2024 Hockey India League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was only being used in one page, 2024–25 Hockey India League, so I merged it there with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Chery Tiggo EV Crossovers roster

• Template:Chery Tiggo EV Crossovers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. If restored to article, it should be subst there anyways. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Attached KML/Filyovskaya Line

• Template:Attached KML/Filyovskaya Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Filyovskaya line was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Adana Demirspor squad

• Template:Adana Demirspor squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with no links. Gonnym (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Unnecessary template. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 UP Warriorz season

• Template:2024 UP Warriorz season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 Royal Challengers Bengaluru (WPL) season

• Template:2024 Royal Challengers Bengaluru (WPL) season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 Mumbai Indians (WPL) season

• Template:2024 Mumbai Indians (WPL) season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 Delhi Capitals (WPL) season

• Template:2024 Delhi Capitals (WPL) season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:2024 Gujarat Giants (WPL) season

• Template:2024 Gujarat Giants (WPL) season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Vestrian24Bio 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hugh Jackman

• Template:Hugh Jackman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:FILMNAV because Jackman is not the primary creator of the films and TV shows listed; rather, he is only an executive producer among many others on the shows and a producer on the Wolverine film, but not even a producer on the Robin Hood film he stars in. That leaves his concert tours, which are not what he is primarily known for, two film soundtracks on which he is featured but not the primary creator of, and related links to his production company and his two spouses. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Barely used, fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, but trim - He is not the primary creator of the films, so these should all be removed per WP:FILMNAV. However, the concert tours, and the company he founded are valid entries. --woodensuperman 13:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  "What links here" and Category:Hugh Jackman both suffice for anyone looking for those. WP:Not everything needs a navbox. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Simple link

• Template:Simple link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created for and exclusively used by Template:Template journal (which is at TFD below). No transclusions that aren't from that template (see this search). No reason to not just use a basic wiki link. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Zinnober9 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Template journal inline

• Template:Template journal inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{tlx}} and/or {{para}}. The related Template:Template journal parameter (tfd) and Template:Template journal named parameter (tfd) have already been deleted. Only uses are because creator inserted it into Template:Semantic markup templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. As I've stated in the other TfD, if changes are needed, propose them at Template talk:Template link general instead of creating another set of templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we could amend {{Template link general}} too in order to match the same standard colors, but that template cannot be amended so that it meets those who prefer a colon over an escaped equals sign. --Grufo (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

And for those people I'll say, c'est la vie. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

So the reason for this template is because it uses a colon over an escaped equals sign? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. No reasons for deletion. Massively used and pairs well with {{Tj}}. --Grufo (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  102 uses (mostly by you, the creator) in two and a half years is far from massive. Additionally it's supposedly high use doesn't change the fact that it is redundant to existing templates. We regularly delete/merge/redirect templates with tens of thousands of uses... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep (Non-administrator comment). I agree with Grufo, there's no reason for deletion, and I use this template quite a lot myself on talk pages. I like that it provides syntax highlighting with a monospaced font, and speaking as a programmer, it feels very natural to use it when talking about or mentioning templates on talk pages. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Its uses can be covered by other templates, and <syntaxhighlight inline> where needed. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom and Gonnym. Vestrian24Bio 11:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Template journal

• Template:Template journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{tlx}} and/or {{para}}. The related Template:Template journal parameter (tfd) and Template:Template journal named parameter (tfd) have already been deleted. Only uses are because creator inserted it into Template:Semantic markup templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. We have no alternative template-link template for vertical format (“block style”). The template is also well used in various documentation pages (e.g. Template:Speciesbox/doc, Template:Cite IUCN/doc, etc.) --Grufo (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Grufo that is what <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> is for... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's not a template-link template though, is it? --Grufo (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  You are making things so much more complicated. Now people have to start using : as a deliminator. You cannot simply copy and paste it, you have to manually replace every equals sign with a colon in order for you code to work. There is no reason to use a template. The ONLY thing that your code provides that syntaxhighlight does not is that the name of the template is linked. That is the ONLY benefit. Every example you have pointed to it being used is on the doc page for the very template being shown. What do you need the link for? You are already on that page... And for the benefit of a link you need to learn an entirely different syntax that is used nowhere else in wikimarkup. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  What's more, with cases like this one you can't even use regular code, you have to escape the characters, making it even MORE difficult to maintain and edit. All this for the benefit of a link to the very page you are on? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  That is because you keep comparing it with <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>, but you should compare it with {{Template link}} instead, because—once again—this is a template-link template. “You cannot simply copy and paste”: Exactly like you cannot simply copy and paste arbitrary wikitext inside {{Template link}} but you have to escape all equals characters. --Grufo (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. There are alternatives for all uses, including block style (just use <syntaxhighlight>). Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Zackmann08's (first) Dec 4th comment. I cannot support any template that is ripe for user misuse, and having to manually go back to fiddle with it to add an unexpected, nonstandard, deliminator? No thank you, especially since there's already equivalent options that work in an expected manner. Zinnober9 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. Vestrian24Bio 11:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Unique coins

• Template:Unique coins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, categories, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in October 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Appears to be related to Template:Coins which was deleted at TFD. I'm guessing this was used by that template? Not sure but in any event, not used and not needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Honduran post-coup polls

• Template:Honduran post-coup polls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates Wikipedia:Template namespace. Subst on the three articles it is used on and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:WikiCleanerMan what specifically does it violate? Not disagreeing! But which provision does it violate? Help me out... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader.

• Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as navigation aids, formatting, or warnings that content is sub-standard.

WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WikiCleanerMan - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Indoor hockey at the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games

• Template:Indoor hockey at the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this template at the moment, it connects just one page. 2021 event got cancelled and Indoor Hockey won't be on the 2026 AIMAG program. we can recreate this template if/when they include this sport in the Games once again. Sports2021 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2

Template:China National Games Wushu

• Template:China National Games Wushu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two links. One is a redirect and no main article. Articles first, then a navbox. No navigation is met. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:US TV sidebar

• Template:US TV sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all of the pages using this sidebar are also now using {{Television in the United States}}. any links in this sidebar that aren't already in {{Television in the United States}} could simply be added there, making this redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sidebars take precious space at the top of the page and are often failing transcluding guidelines like WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep I don't fully agree that they take precious space, they can somewhat, but I would argue that having a sidebar makes it easier to find and navigate to than navigating all the way to the bottom, in which some articles are long, and may contain very important information that is not worth trimming. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per all the above reasons. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:IrelandRMArchive

• Template:IrelandRMArchive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused talk page notice template. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and add to the talk pages. While I remember somewhere there was objection to adding it to the talk pages I can't find it though there was discussion with User:Scolaire at Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 21#Ireland naming discussions where they suggested using Template:Ireland naming discussions but that template only gives those that tool place at Ireland Collaboration and not the others and it doesn't give specific links to each discussion along with the result so if anything I'd get rid of that template instead. If there is consensus not to do this then it could be moved to something like Talk:Ireland/naming but otherwise given how controversial this was and the requirement for discussions to take place in a different place than the article talk pages I think this template should be kept and added to the talk pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  If you feel it should be added, then as the creator of the template, add it. If it gets reverted, then you have your answer. Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping since it is now being used. Template:Ireland naming discussions will probably take its place in an upcoming TfD. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I have removed it from all pages, as no consensus was sought for adding it. See Talk:Republic of Ireland#Naming discussions template. --Scolaire (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. To any admins, please do not close this discussion until the one linked above ends so we know if it should be kept and added or not. Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Victorian government

• Template:Infobox Victorian government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now in use at Allan government after IP edit was reverted. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep this is similar to {{Template:Infobox Australian government}}. The only difference is that articles about each Victorian government have not been made yet. There is use for this template and, now that it is used on Allan government, the nomination reason isn't true anymore. Ultraodan (T, C) 04:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why is that template used and not Template:Infobox government cabinet? Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Still delete. We still don't need a separate infobox for each provincial/state government. Replace with Template:Infobox government. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC) WikiCleanerMan's comment above. Vestrian24Bio 12:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Debug

• Template:Debug (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no scenario in which this template can be useful or used in any way... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I keep using it, and probably other people too, but we will never find out, because it is normally used in page previews only and it is not supposed to be transcluded in a page. --Grufo (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I'm pretty sure I saw another similar template. Hopefully I'll remember to find it and link it here. Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Any news on this? --Grufo (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete This was created over a year ago. If it had a use, it should have been documented by now. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Documented how? It is a debug template, mostly used in preview pages, and in case someone transcludes it, they will remove it shortly afterwards. And if they don't remove it, an admin will, because the template is designed not to be permanently transcluded. --Grufo (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Grufo the documentation for the template fails to clearly explain any use case for this. Furthermore, if it is for use in previews, why is it designed to be substituted? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  “The documentation for the template fails”: Then improve it. I always try to do my best. Sometimes that might not be enough. “If it is for use in previews, why is it designed to be substituted?”: After all this time you still don't know how substitution works? If a substitution template has this problematic call {{safesubst:<noinclude />Foobar|...}}, the {{Debug}} template will need to support substitution too if you want to replace the wikitext above with {{safesubst:<noinclude />Debug|...}}. During your tests the {{Debug}} template will be substituted too. If it is an edit preview and you want to keep it that way, you will see the results of your tests by clicking on “Show changes” (not “Show preview”). --Grufo (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note. What this template does is explained in the documentation

  This is a debug template that echoes the arguments it was called with. You can easily spot errors in your code by temporarily replacing the name of a called template with debug.

  Ideally there should not be pages that permanently transclude this template.

  This means that if there is, let's say, a problematic call to a {{FooBar}} template that generates errors, one must temporarily replace

  {{FooBar
  	| one = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| two = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| three = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| etc = etc
  }}
  

  with

  {{Debug
  	| one = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| two = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| three = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| etc = etc
  }}
  

  Once the errors are solved, the {{Debug}} template can be removed. A naif workaround that does not require this template is that of temporarily replacing curly brackets with round brackets:

  ((FooBar
  	| one = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| two = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| three = {{SOME COMPLICATE CODE HERE}
  	| etc = etc
  ))
  

  This however is less powerfull, because {{Debug}} takes care of escaping HTML entities and doing other quirks. As explained in the documentation, the template is not designed to have permanent transclusions. We cannot know how many users find it useful, because we have no way to know how much it is used. --Grufo (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Grufo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy per Grufo. Templates that have no useful documentation for what it does, how it works or why it should exist should not be in template space as they are not useful to the public. Anything made for the public should be self-explanatory to use, or clearly documented. This is neither. Zinnober9 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Zinnober9: Please check if you find the documentation adequate now. --Grufo (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Module function link

• Template:Module function link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template imported from another wiki that is not needed or helpful. This is redundant to Template:Mlx. The added "link to documentation" functionality is not needed or helpful. The only reason this template has any transclusions is because the creator inserted it into Template:Template-linking templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, not sure what other wiki you believe this template has been imported from. --Grufo (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Often modules have large documentation pages, and this template offers the possibility of linking only the required documentation section. --Grufo (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Grufo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Sporting fiascos

• Template:Sporting fiascos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly a subset of Category:Sports riots with no clear inclusion criteria. Seems to be a "you might also like..." suggestion box rather than a coherent set of articles. "Fiasco" is an inappropriate and inaccurate label. Some of the entries do not transclude the template. jnestorius^(talk) 15:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Fiascos is a more broad term than Riots. Why is the term inaccurate and inappropriate? If entries do not incorporate the template that's fixable by editing rather than deletion. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: there's not even a primary article, this doesn't even seem to be a suitable topic for a navbox. Vestrian24Bio 13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Cite correspondence

• Template:Cite correspondence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant, with only three transclusions. We already have Template:Cite letter. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, you are right. Thank you for correcting this oversight and for your patience (I’m still new to Wikipedia editing but I’m learning!) Thetransitguru (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

DeleteAs well as being a duplicate of {{Cite letter}} the documentation says it's for letter that are not publicly available, but all sources used for referencing must be available to the public (WP:PUBLISHED). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom and above. Vestrian24Bio 12:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Wagner Moura

• Template:Wagner Moura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two credits, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --Οἶδα (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Timeline of Hamburg

• Template:Timeline of Hamburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Stargate Infinity timeline

• Template:Stargate Infinity timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Siddhabali JS Express Route

• Template:Siddhabali JS Express Route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Grading scheme/doc/table

• Template:Grading scheme/doc/table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table which isn't used in the doc page. Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• I removed it in June, and no one has objected so I guess this is okay to delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per Martin. Vestrian24Bio 12:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Brighton & Hove Bus Route 29

• Template:Brighton & Hove Bus Route 29 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Was used for the page Brighton & Hove Regency Route but that was redirected to Brighton & Hove (Bus Company)#The Regency Route as i nominated it for deletion. Now that the template has been added to the appropriate section of Brighton & Hove (Bus Company) i think we should Keep it. DAmik001 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Added to suitable article. Useddenim (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ahmedabad Metro map

• Template:Ahmedabad Metro map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route map. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:ClassesAt2008VintageYachtingGames

• Template:ClassesAt2008VintageYachtingGames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ClassesAt2012VintageYachtingGames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ClassesAt2018VintageYachtingGames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as the articles were all redirected following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Vintage Yachting Games – Dragon. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Former Saturday Night Live cast members

• Template:Former Saturday Night Live cast members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 12:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Current Saturday Night Live cast members

• Template:Current Saturday Night Live cast members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 12:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Would be much better to name these after specific seasons rather than "Current". Like current? I don't think it is generally a very encyclopaedic term, especially for a title. Especially considering unlikes some office lists with the title current, these are not officially current. E.G. Governors of a United States state are Governors at the time and cannot do any Gubernatorial actions out of office, whereas a season of a TV show can be viewed at anytime. Current basically is just the seasons and presenters of the season that is currently being broadcasted on media channels.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment Already voted deleted, but the more I think about it, I am open to merging to a new template called {{Saturday Night live cast members}} which would not be current/former specific and just for one in general. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Have you read WP:PERFNAV? We do not include cast members in navboxes, full stop. --woodensuperman 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Woodensuperman I guess not. Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Think I just assumed it meant something else. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Vice Premier of the People's Republic of China

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Vice Premier of the People's Republic of China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only on two articles. Violates Wikipedia:Template namespace. Subst on those two articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: subst per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Mon alphabet

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Mon alphabet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. All of its links are either red or redirects. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Battle for Dream Island

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Battle for Dream Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very few articles listed for this series template, only main article, a list of the series's episodes, and an asteroid named after one of the series's creators. ExcitedA (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Premature, nothing that "see also" or in-body internal links cannot currently handle better, delete. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, premature right now. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The "related" section isn't actually directly related to the subject. --woodensuperman 11:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Preferwiki (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  How is this helpful? You haven't provided any reason. ExcitedA (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, The only list that is relevant to Battle for Dream Island is the List of Battle for Dream Island episodes, all the other pages are either slightly related to the show (Cary Huang) or entirely unrelated (The Scale of the Universe). rave (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete We don't have much BFDI articles, so this navbox is pointless. I don't see many more BFDI/object shows becoming articles in the future as well, given the borderline sourcing for the main article itself and the nonexistent sourcing for others. HurricaneZeta^C 17:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The two "related" links don't actually meet the WP:NAVBOX guidelines, which require that "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent"; they may be appropriate for a navbox about the Huangs, but the Huangs don't yet have an article. Excluding these two links, the navbox has only two links directly related to BFDI, rendering it unnecessary at the moment. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The template is simply not needed as of now. There needs to be more series-relevant articles first.

Jude Halley (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Premature, unnecessary. This is not a large topic area but rather two or three closely related articles. Most everything in the template is directly linked in the article bodies and anything that's not be handled in the 'See also' section. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I think you can infer the reason. Maybe when BFDI has a few more articles. Even then a "Huang Twins" template would be much for fitting Ekrpat-co-x.yy.p (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Battle for Dream Island as a series, although it is notable, is not notable enough for its own navbox. All three articles in the box could easily be put in the main article’s See also section. A navbox is nice to have, but in this case is completely unnecessary.

Tekoy9x, Techy9x but he forgot he set up 2FA (also the talk page) 17:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Look as a BFDI fan myself, this navbox is pointless. Theres only 2 articles, 1 redirect and 1 unrelated article. Like bruh. Overall get rid of it man Wikiman2230 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not enough other notable subjects to make an infobox with, and the others aren't that related to the series as much as they are to the creators. UppercutPawnch (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per rationale of nominator. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think the template will be useful much since its link just list of episode, other work of Huang brothers and a minor planet. JustRandomThai (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete This has to be the most baron template made on Wikipedia with only 3 pages delete per nom. hi! (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kreamymate: What do you mean by baron? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Empty. hi! (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy they probably mispelled barren. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SNOW, per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom; NENAN. Vestrian24Bio 11:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:SNOW delete per everyone else here. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This should probably be closed this is unanimous. hi! (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Not anymore, but still an undeniable SNOW delete. Hopefully Wikipedia spontaneously generates an admin soon so that this discussion is finally closed. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete dang didn't even know this got an article recently, that's pretty cool. Anyways, a template with three pages, and 2 of them being merely related to the creators of the series, is completely pointless.Gaismagorm (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete When I was browsing the Wikipedia main page, I suddenly found a line at the "Did you know" section that links to the BFDI Wikipedia article. I am not sure if the article itself would get deleted anytime soon. I guess the battle has over... for now.User:VoitieVelocity (User talk:VoitieVelocity) 05:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep, I say this now because of the recent creation of Huang brothers being accepted from a page reviewer and being added to the template. ConeKota (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• If kept, move to Template:Cary and Michael Huang so that non-BFDI-related topics like Scale of the Universe and the redirect 10003 Caryhuang can be included. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  This one will most likely be deleted but you can create Template:Cary and Michael Huang if you want. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which would probably also get deleted as it would not meet the threshold for WP:NENAN. Note that 10003 Caryhuang is not an article so cannot be included there either. --woodensuperman 14:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I've never seen a navbox that unpopulated before other than the Authority Control navbox, and I don't think the format is necessary for this amount of links. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 06:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Even if this is moved to Template:Huang twins or whatever, there would still be very few articles, nothing to warrant a template. ExcitedA (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

December 1

Template:NASCAR on Speed

• Template:NASCAR on Speed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NASCAR on Fox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:NASCAR on Speed with Template:NASCAR on Fox.
I propose Template:NASCAR on Speed is merged into Template:NASCAR on Fox, for the same reasons I'm proposing their respective articles to be merged in the same fashion. The two programs might as well be one and the same, given the common ownership and similarities in coverage they both had. JHD0919 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the same no matter common ownership. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Then why were NHL on Versus and Template:NHL on Versus merged into NHL on NBC and Template:NHL on NBC, respectively? JHD0919 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, the discussion for both of those happened here and here, respectively. JHD0919 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Versus is now NBCSN. Speed is still a separate channel. Both navboxes are not the same in terms of scope. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:Graph

• Module:Graph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another graph template which should be deleted once uses are converted to Charts. Most transclusions are actually of {{Graph:Chart}}, which is already being deleted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Οἶδα (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:LDS Temple

• Template:LDS Temple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LDS Temple/ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:LDS Temple with Template:LDS Temple/.
Not seeking to delete. But I notice there's dozens of single usage sub-page templates inside of of the category:

• Template:LDS_Temple/

Each one is a single religious location's unique infobox. So it's like each LDS church has a unique infobox only for it's church article. Is there not an easier way to merge these all? Or does each article really need its own customized infobox template? CaribDigita (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge - Tried to do this before and it was rejected. You should not have separate subtemplates for each transclusion. This is absurd use of templates. The argument for it is that it also populates data in tables but there is no other template that does this bizarre syntax style. This is akin to having a separate subtemplate for every instance of {{Infobox building}} so you don't have to manually update pages like List of tallest buildings. strongly support converting this to a standard infobox like all the others where the data is stored on the related articles and not in custom subtemplates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I'm trying to go down this rabbit hole. So Newport Beach California Temple#See also uses Template:LDS Temple Map Group Los Angeles which uses Template:LDS Temple Map Los Angeles which uses Template:LDS Temple/Los Angeles California Temple with |format=LDSmap. Template:LDSmap then uses only |status= from Template:LDS Temple/Los Angeles California Temple to pick an image. Seems Template:Template parameter value could handle that instead. So unless I'm missing something, these stand-alone templates should be subst into their main articles and then deleted, with other usages fetching the parameter. Another option which might be less costly, is to just have template with the status of the temples. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep until there is a real plan to deal with the complex use of this family of templates. Look at the previous TFDs (some number of these templates are nominated every couple of years by people who have not delved into the complexity). Come up with a plan first, then demonstrate that it will work with all of the pages that use this family of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Jonesey95 and Gonnym: So the thing I still don't get is why a template is needed to store this information for use in multiple places. As I said above, this is like having hundreds of instances of {{Infobox building/SomeBuilding}} to maintain those articles AND the List of tallest buildings. The values that are repeated in multiple locations, do not change.

  Here is a specific example, Template:LDS Temple/Los Angeles California Temple populates the Infobox on Los Angeles California Temple and the table on List of temples in the United States (LDS Church). That table has 5 columns:

  1. A map - here the GPS coordinates have to be manually put into the table already, they do NOT use the seprate infoboxes to get the coords
  2. An image/link to temple's article - These tiny images really don't need to be there, but setting that aside, no need to pull them from another template. Just put regular wiki-markup and use the image. Obviously you can just use a regular wikilink for the Temple's name
  3. Location - This is never going to change. No need to pull from another template.
  4. Dedication date/Status - This is the only field that might need occasional updating
  5. Floor area - This won't change unless a temple undergoes MAJOR renovations.

  So what I am seeing is we have to maintain nearly 100 templates and the ONLY benefit is that in the event that a temple closes for renovation, or is finished being built, we only have to update 1 page instead of 2 (possibly 3 in rare cases). I just think the overhead maintenance and the violation of the spirit of the template namespace dramatically outweigh this tiny benefit.

  I will also point out that Category:Pages using infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameters (0) is FULL of pages because of how poorly maintained these templates are. The nature of how they are implemented, with <pre>...</pre> tags all over the place, makes it virtually impossible to check for duplicate params or unknown params.

  I feel very strongly these should be converted to traditional infoboxes where the actual data is store on the article pages, not in the template namespace. For all the above reasons, but also usability. If I want to change the president of Columbus Ohio Temple, that change is done in the Template NS?? That makes very little sense to me... Also it doesn't work with tools like Template Data Editor. Just so many problems for so little reward.

  FWIW, if you concern is about how to make the transition, let that be a concern for the holding cell. You know we've done harder things than this before. Plus, I'm more than happy to take it on and ensure there is no loss of information. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  The Los Angeles template that you mention is transcluded in 20+ pages, not just two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Also, one of the reasons that the unknown parameter category is was so big is that Zackmann08 accidentally removed valid parameters from the parameter check. This is what I'm talking about; this is a complex set of templates that requires research and understanding before even nominating it for discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Jonesey95: Thank you for correcting my mistake. Egg on my face for sure. I guess your point that this is a complex set of templates ... is exactly my point. This is overly complicated with very little reward. The fact that something that claims to be an Infobox is transcluded in 20+ places makes no sense to me. There is a reason that this sort of thing is not done anywhere else.

  Now obviously I'm not infallible, but the fact that undocumented and unused params need to be included in the unknown params check for {{Infobox LDS Temple}} because a different template calls it and therefore they kind of are valid parameters is just overly confusing. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  First, these template pages do not claim to be infoboxes. Template subpages like Template:LDS Temple/Los Angeles California Temple are used in 20+ pages; they state at the top that they are "Data for lists and infobox", which is very different. And yes, the infobox parameter check situation, and this whole clever set of templates and data tables, is quite confusing, thus a reason to consider any merge proposal and design very carefully, well before the templates are put in the holding cell. There might be a better way to prevent this sort of accidental parameter check deletion in the future, such as hiding parameters used in another template in a noinclude section or a display:none section of the infobox template. I'm happy to discuss those possibilities on the infobox template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok that's fair. You are correct, they don't claim to be infoboxes. That is an inaccurate statement on my part and I retract it. I guess my point is that the fact that this is all so confusing is a reason for it to be changed, not a reason to keep it. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/merge this confusion with some prejudice. Izno (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• comment, I could see merging this into a main module with a data submodule, similar to what is done with Module:Solar eclipse. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can 100% get behind Frietjes' idea... Would be a major improvement. Jonesey95 what do you think of that idea? I think this accomplishes both our concerns:

  • My desires to get this data out of the template namespace and increase readability/understanding
  • Your concern that the data needs to stay centralized such that it can be used in multiple locations.

  Happy to make this happen if this is a plan people can get behind.

  The more I think about this the more I like it. Much like Module:Solar eclipse has different submodules per century, we can have different submodules for each country where LDS temples are to keep data better organized. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think that would be the only reasonable way to do it. Module:Adjacent stations also comes to mind. I am not a programmer, so I don't know which sort of structure would work better for this project. One nice thing about the proposal is that it could be developed in parallel with the existing pages and templates, and demonstrated in a series of tests until it matches the existing system. I caution against closing this TFD as "merge" or "delete" without a replacement being built and demonstrated first. It's probably best to close it as "no consensus". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would say we could close it as merge with a clear note saying reliant on a working Module replacement. There is precedent here with {{Infobox ship}} which has been in the holding cell for 3 and a half years... At least then it makes clear we are working towards a better solution. In any event, I def support this new approach! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

November 30

Template:Progressivism US

• Template:Progressivism US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created recently by a now blocked sock puppet. This template is highly duplicative of the more generalised template Progressivism. Although there is a specific page for progressivism in the United States, it is not clear why this needs to be curated in a duplicate structure when the key players are all already covered in the broader template. The sidebars are intrusive and many articles were given two such sidebars, which does not serve the reader well. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep I agree that its creation from the blocked sock puppet is unfortunate, and that it was rather duplicative of the original Template:Progressivism. However, Template:Progressivism itself had (and arguably still has) an excessive U.S.-focus, so I think there is a good reason for keeping this Template:Progressivism US as a regional template, and then cleaning-up the original Template:Progressivism to be more internationally representative/less U.S.-focused (un-skewing it). I think Template:Progressivism US can still serve a purpose, especially now that the sock puppet account isn't gatekeeping it/ignorning pointers from other editors about disruptive editing. Aunger67 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Aunger67. Ideally the Progressivism template would be modified to be less US-focused. Tenpop421 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete this template is a visual nightmare and massively intrusive, and only grows longer by the day as people add every single person to it who may be considered even tangentially related. It is already out of compliance with the guidelines at WP:SIDEBAR and will simply never be made into compliance with it. The scope is too broad for a sidebar which are, per the guidelines, for a small, tightly related set of items, not an entire political ideology. These broad political templates are impossible to maintain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see your points, but what you’re saying seems to apply to all political ideology templates, yes? If so, why aren’t we also suggesting deleting Template:Liberalism US, Template:Conservatism US, Template:Socialism US, Template:Libertarianism US? If sidebars as you say are only for “tightly related set of items, not an entire political ideology,” the logic follows we should also delete all of the aforementioned ideological templates and then some. Thanks for the perspective you gave, and just engaging with you to further discussion here for the eventual consensus.

Having said that, I want to clarify for the thread that I still am of the mind that these specific ideological templates are worth keeping and narrow enough to fit within the WP guidelines. I agree that some editors get fussy and clutter them, but I think they can be cleaned-up and shortened. I have already started working-on trying to simplify and shorten some (and will continue my efforts in the coming days), and I think this can become easier if these templates are all subject to more protection. For instance, I recently put in a request for extra protection of the Template:Liberalism US due to this whole sockpuppet fiasco. Aunger67 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Aunger67. As said above, a deletion of this template would imply a deletion of all other US ideology sidebars. Also agreed that more work should go into Template:Progressivism to make it less US-centric. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Per several arguments above. Next, I feel like there have been enough contributions besides the sock puppet. Second thought, this is a very notable topic. Especially considering the Progressive revolution that took place with young Democrats challenging established members of their party. An example of this, although not in congress anymore is Cori Bush who primaried a man who succeeded his own father, so did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. If anything, the Template:Progressivism should be improved to be less United States centric and have other notable progressives. Unless progressivism isn't as left wing as say Jeremy Corbyn is? Then is there any reason he shouldn't be on that template? Very notable progressive. Or does he qualify for the socialist template? Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep/Split modern US progressivism should be better separated from late 19th century progressivism, which have little in common when it comes to policy (like supporting Eugenics, which someone recently removed from this template). They should probably be split in two. — jonas (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I see your points. Just want to note that the Progressivism in the United States article does point out the difference between these movements (as well as their significant overlap in economic policy). It's also worth noting that the sidebar itself distinguishes between the old and contemp. movements. I'm of the mind that creating yet another sidebar for just the contemporary movement would be overkill/cluttersome. Aunger67 (talk) Aunger67 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nomination Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Many good points have been added here, and I agree with them all, especially the ones made by Aunger67. Billious Bobulous the III (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment In general, sidebars are comparable to navboxes, but more conspicuous and intrusive. For biographies of U.S. Presidents, navboxes are much more appropriate than sidebars. As a rule, when someone visits Theodore Roosevelt, they are only peripherally interested, if at all, in Progressivism, Conservatism, and American Nationalism, all of which currently have sidebars in that article. So these sidebars are distractions and nuisances, and I am hoping that navbox versions of them can be created, so that I can use navboxes in that article instead.

There is a precedent for having parallel navbox and sidebar versions of the same navigational aid. For example, look at {{Liberalism US}} and {{Liberalism US footer}}. The latter is used in, for example, Thomas Jefferson. I suspect that, if there were a navbox version of {{Progressivism US}}, much of the complaining I see in the !votes above would subside, and people could get back to arguing about the fun stuff, such as what people and ideas really belong here. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Correction. In Thomas Jefferson, we are using {{Liberalism}}, which is the navbox version of {{Liberalism sidebar}}. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Transliterate

• Template:Transliterate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Keep. We virtually have no alternative ways to do the same on English Wikipedia. The only other theoretical possibility is Module:MultiReplace, however that is the perfect example of what not to do in order to accomplish what this template has been designed for – for instance, create a {{Unicode italic}} template with the following content:

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

  The use case as a substitution template is that of a meta-substitution (i.e. templates for substitution that use this template need to be able to use it as a substitution template). More in general, this template is the way to go when we want two map two different alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - yeah - you could use it, in fact. If you want to transliterate text from, say, Greek to English. But per nom., it is just too much work, and doesn't have any clear benefit over just doing it yourself. That is presumably why it is unused. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You really don't want to write manually

  {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘱𝘴𝘶𝘮 is a lovely sentence}}
  

  You'd rather write:

  {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|{{subst:uitalic|Lorem ipsum}} is a lovely sentence}}
  

  We have no other way to show italicized text or similar things inside the popup message of templates like {{Abbr}}. Italic characters are one example. Then we have monospace characters, then we have bold characters, and then we have—especially in math formulas—fraktur characters, and so on. --Grufo (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Once again Grufo has found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your point of view. I really do. But try to transcend yourself, and think that a person even less skilled than you will tell you one day “We don't need these two apostrophes here you keep using to write italic characters. We don't need to write italic characters. I never needed to write italic characters in a page in my life.” --Grufo (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a reason we cannot just use <em>Lorem ipsum</em> etc.? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yup. It simply won't work. --Grufo (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, you mean in the tooltip. Well, okay, what you suggest would work, so I'll strike my delete. Not moving to a keep, though, as no one has seen fit to actually use this for such purposes, and as other solutions exist to insert the unicode in such very limited cases (and as tooltips can't be displayed in main text, it is all a bit meta), I'm unconvinced, but neither is it doing any harm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  There are really many nice use cases for this template, especially in math and languages. For instance, imagine you have the uitalic template above and a template named usup with the following content:

  {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
  	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
  	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-−=()
  	| 3 = ᴬᴮᶜᴰᴱᶠᴳᴴᴵᴶᴷᴸᴹᴺᴼᴾꟴᴿˢᵀᵁⱽᵂˣʸᶻᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖ𐞥ʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁺⁻⁻⁼⁽⁾
  }}
  

  Then you will be able to write,

  {{abbr|{{mvar|G}}|{{subst:uitalic|G}} is the gravitational constant, i.e. 6.6743 × 10{{subst:usup|-11}} m{{subst:usup|3}} kg{{subst:usup|-1}} s{{subst:usup|-2}}}}
  

  which will generate

  G

  Of course we can already do that by hand. But do we really want to do it by hand? Then if we move to languages the use cases will go beyond the {{Abbr}} template (i.e. transliterating alphabets, removing/adding diacritics, and so on). --Grufo (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "by hand"? We usually write 6.6743 × 10<sup>-11</sup> m<sup>3</sup> kg<sup>-1</sup> s<sup>-2</sup> to get 6.6743 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2. (P.S.: And we could write {{times}} to get  × .) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Chrisahn: In the specific example in question it is not possible. It will not work. --Grufo (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I got it now. I hadn't understood the main point of your example. {{abbr}} copies the text into the HTML attribute title="...", and HTML tags like <sup> don't work in HTML attributes: {{abbr|Sqm|m<sup>2</sup>}} produces the HTML <abbr title="m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;">Sqm</abbr>, which renders as Sqm, whose mouse hover text is almost as ugly as the attribute content. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  We're going to need a MOS-compliant example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts says not to use these characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Jonesey95: I totally agree with the MOS, but I also think that the MOS does not go as far as forbidding the only way to express something in specific situations. Also, as explained earlier, this template is not limited to the superscript Unicode characters and the italic Unicode characters shown above. For instance, I am quite persuaded that the MOS has nothing against the fraktur characters used in math, or against other types of transliterations or alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

This allows writing

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

which generates:

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

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

Template:HTML comment

• Template:HTML comment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No use case I can conceive of where you can't just use the HTML markup to insert a comment. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. If a substitution template wants to leave the following comment,

  <!-- This is Template:Foobar, according to revision {{subst:REVISIONID:Template:Foobar}} -->Lorem ipsum ...
  

  there are no other ways but using {{HTML comment}} if we want {{subst:REVISIONID:Template:Foobar}} to be expanded. --Grufo (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  And when has/would that ever be needed? Yet another of your solutions without a problem. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  {{subst:REVISIONID}} doesn't work anyway. mw:Help:Magic words says: "May be disabled in miser mode (used on all WMF wikis) returning - instead when not in preview" and "Warning: This variable cannot be substituted". — Chrisahn (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Chrisahn: I took the liberty of welcoming you on Latin Wikipedia. If you look at the wikitext generated, {{la:subst:salve}} did exactly that (i.e. substituting {{REVISIONID}}):

  <!-- Substitutio formulae {{Salve}} (secundum recensionem 3920599) hic incipit -->
  

  The reason it worked is that the problem you mention applies only to the revision id of the current page, not to that of a third page. --Grufo (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Took me a while to find out that the relevant part is neither in la:Formula:Salve nor in la:Formula:Substitutio signata, but in la:Formula:Substitutio signata/encyclopaedica. I'll have to take a closer look at how these three templates interact. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Subst templates have always been able to leave comments. See Template:Uw-vandalism1 for example. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Gonnym to be fair to Grufo, what their template allows is to insert the Revision ID into the comment (as described above). That behavior is not currently supported. That being said, I see zero use for this. Why would you ever need the revision ID in a comment? If for some reason you need to see when exactly a comment was inserted, use the history of the page... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So this template is only for a specific type of hidden comment? Then Grufo, please give specific examples and valid use-cases of where this template would be used. Regarding the above example, that seems like text I'd like to see in the actual page and not hidden. How would an editor know that the template you linked to is from a specific version? With the new discussion tools I almost never go into the edit screen anymore. Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is used by {{AIC status}}, {{Shortdesc there}} and countless other places across Wikipedia. But you cannot see it from the transclusion count, because it is a substitution template. --Grufo (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those examples require your code... Just write a straight HTML comment... It will be transcluded as Gonnym showed with {{uw-vandalism1}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? Try to rewrite {{Shortdesc there}} without {{HTML comment}}. --Grufo (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

See Special:PermaLink/1325498943. Tricks like <<noinclude />!-- ... --> also work for other examples. {{HTML comment}} doesn't really seem to be necessary. It might make the code more readable in some cases, but I'm not sure about the cost-benefit ratio. Every template we add has to be maintained. Is it worth it in this case? — Chrisahn (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If we simply go by the number of characters saved (not a great way to measure code quality, but a rough indicator nonetheless): Template:HTML comment has 547 characters, Template:HTML comment/doc has 1894 characters, the sum is 2441. <<noinclude />!-- ... --> has 25 characters, {{HTML comment| ... }} has 22, that's 3 characters less. The template would have to be used 814 times to carry its weight. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: We can (almost) always avoid using a template by pasting its source code directly in a page. But we don't go by characters saved, do we? If we remove this template we are asking template creators to know a very niche wikitext quirk. Nobody will know how to do that. But, most importantly, what reason would we have to ask them as much? --Grufo (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"a very niche wikitext quirk" – I don't find it any more quirky than all these other <noinclude/> and <includeonly> hacks we use all the time. I think it's easier to understand than some of these. Could easily be explained in one sentence on Help:Template or Help:Substitution. Regarding the reason: See above. Every template we add has to be maintained. Is it worth it in this case? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Even most people in this discussion don't know how all these <noinclude /> work, let alone a normal user who wants to create a simple substitution template. It is definitely very niche. Some templates require maintenance, others don't. I would say that this template belongs to the second group. Moreover, if people start inserting comments directly the way you have in your example, if any maintanence will be required one day for managing substituted comments, with custom solutions sparse across Wikipedia that maintenance work will just multiply. --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Grufo. I don't see the problem with this - it's not fundamentally different from any of the other templates that wrap HTML like Template:Em. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Grufo. Clearly has a valid use case that cannot be satisfied by other methods as elegantly, or without making life difficult for some people for no reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

November 29

Module:User:Od1n/If empty (enwiki Lua)

• Module:User:Od1n/If empty (enwiki Lua) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:User:Od1n/If empty (simple Lua) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused modules in the public module namespace. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The nomination is incorrect that this is "the public module namespace". The prefix Module:User: is an extension of userspace, as modules cannot be subpages within the User namespace, and has been used as such since Scribunto was introduced in 2013. Gonnym is well aware of this, but persists in this sort of misrepresentation as they prefer the (sandbox-only) Module:Sandbox/ prefix instead. Anomie⚔ 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Module:User is a module of its own. The above two modules are not sub pages of that module. That's just pure facts. Whether other users care that's a different issue. In any rate, the above two are unused modules. If the user wants them, they can request to keep them. If they do, the moduels should be moved to the true user sandbox, which is Module:Sandbox (and notice the huge difference in numbers). Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Subpages are indicated by a /, not a :. A subpage of Module:User would begin with Module:User/, not Module:User:. We don't normally police user subpages (which these effectively are due to restrictions on the location of modules) merely for being "unused". Nor is Module:Sandbox "the true user sandbox", as both Module:Sandbox and Module:User: are used for this purpose. I don't find the difference in numbers very convincing either, considering the WP:FAITACCOMPLI you and others attempted in the past and the fact that Module:User: wasn't mentioned in various instructional pages until fairly recently. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong preference either way. Both stances are arguably reasonable. However, I would like to keep these files for now, so please move them instead of deleting. Od1n (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep Until and unless some policy is written that this is not allowed, I too have followed this convention with my own module that I use every day... Module:User:Zackmann08/unknown links. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm not indifferent to your concern/preference for Module:Sandbox/... however, I would direct you to:

• Wikipedia:User pages which says Since Lua modules must be located in the Module namespace, Module:User: is used as a pseudo-namespace for user-specific modules.
• Wikipedia:Lua which has
  • Module:Sandbox provides a pseudo-namespace for experimenting with Lua modules
  • Module:User: is used as a pseudo-namespace for modules specific to a user's userspace

I think Anomie has a valid point here... If you disagree with the pages I linked to above, I would recommend an RFC to change the policy and documentation.

To me, personally, I see these as 2 different things.

• Module:Sandbox/Zackmann08 is my (used loosely) sandbox for testing code that I may implement in another module, just like my User:Zackmann08/sandbox.
• On the other hand I see Module:User:Zackmann08/unknown links as a functioning module that I use everyday. It isn't a "sandbox", it is a functioning, working module for use by me (obviously others are free to use as well) just like User:Zackmann08/cc is a functioning template that I use but doesn't really have a purpose in the Template namespace. The difference is that I can write a template is my namespace, I cannot do that with a module (without using the seldom talked about Special:ChangeContentModel, but that is a whole different can of wormsI was wrong, that doesn't work).

Just a few thoughts. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Even Special:ChangeContentModel won't let you create a module outside of the Module namespace. Also of note, Wikipedia talk:Lua/Archive 8#Requested move 27 December 2018 seems to be the only real past discussion, closed as "consensus not to move". Then Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#Module:User:Anomie/deepToString brought to my attention that some had been trying to quietly do it anyway. Anomie⚔ 20:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Anomie thanks for bringing that to my attention. Struck that part of my comment. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Move per Gonnym. Even in a world where Anomie's view is dominant (it's not, despite their protestation), these are clearly sandboxes and should be named as such. The objective with them is to benchmark etc., not to have a final "personal" implementation nor public one either. Izno (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Sandboxes are allowed in userspace, and they don't all have to be named like "/sandbox". This is no different. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I also don't think you're going to be convinced by anything anyone says in this discussion, so, you can say whatever you like I guess. Izno (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be convinced by good arguments. But so far all non-keep arguments have been based on the faulty premises that Module:User: is invalid and Module:Sandbox/ is the only allowed place for module-userspace. Neither of those are true, no matter how much you insinuate otherwise. Anomie⚔ 21:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

November 28

Template:Saskatchewan communities

• Template:Saskatchewan communities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is basically an outline for an article, not a proper use of a template. If a user or project wants to make this page and use it to create articles that is one thing, but this def doesn't belong in the template namespace. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#c-Pppery-20251120220900-Zackmann08-20251120071700. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will restate some of what I said at the other TFD that Pppery linked to:

  This opens the door to literally thousands of article outline templates that are not appropriate uses of templates. Why just Saskatchewan communities? Next one for each province in Canada? {{Infobox settlement}} alone has 31 wrappers (see Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement (30)). If this template exists, why not create one for each of those places? What about settlements in general? Then the 2,200+ different infoboxes we have on wikipedia (see intitle:/Infobox/i -intitle:/\//).

  There is nothing stopping WikiProject Canada from creating this template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article template... You could then do {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article template}} or just copy the code. But this really is not an appropriate use of a template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will further point out that the body of the template has not been updated since 2018 and means you are inserting stale reference and in multiple cases broken links into new articles if you use this template. If this is going to exist in ANY form (as a template, or a wikiproject page) it needs to be maintained, which it clearly is not being.

  I would hazard a guess that this was created by SriMesh back in 2007 to help with setting up new articles about communities in Saskatchewan... Is anyone else using it? SriMesh hasn't edited in multiple years... I doubt this template is even in use. Additionally, how often are new communities in Saskatchewan popping up? At this point I would imagine there is pretty universal coverage on Wikipedia (certainly more so than there was in 2007 when this was created). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

See also the precedent of Template:Brazil municipality which was the exact same type of template and was just deleted at this TFD Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: do we have any information on this template. Has this been used? Is this still being used? Has the template been updated to keep up with MoS and template changes or does it contain outdated stuff? My problem with these article templates is that if they get outdated, we end up with bad articles we need to fix, and if they are not used, we end up with a huge maintenance burden for no value. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep or transform it into a preaload page. This should definitely not be a template but a preload page for generating new pages (and as such it should be used, with a few adjustments, in conjunction with an <inputbox> where to type the name of the new pages to create). It seems however that most people are not familiar with preload pages on English Wikipedia, so a substitution template can work fine as a workaround. In both cases the template namespace is the correct namespace. In English “article outline” is basically a synonym of “template”, so I don't see where the problem is on that front. --Grufo (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• delete or move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Οἶδα (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

November 27

Template:Pagination

• Template:Pagination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Pagination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only transclusions are in the author's userspace (User:Codemini/Pagination, User:Codemini/Lua Tutorial/Getting started, and User:Codemini/Lua Tutorial/Accessing parameters from wikitext). This template has unreadable colors and its usages are better replaced by two transclusions of {{Clickable button}} (i.e. what Template:Intro to does).

The template and the corresponding Module:Pagination were created in May 2025. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• I actually think maybe WP:NOT is the better reason to delete these as the primary reason for their existence appears to be a tutorial for arbitrary other wikis. Izno (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:IDRConvert

• Template:IDRConvert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in September 2025, with no edits since then. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 thanks for the nomination. it is meant to be a wrapper for {{FXConvert}} for the IDR currency. Should have continued working on it but it slipped away. Don't mind if I restart on this and get ready? I remember I was stuck at some data collation. – robertsky (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if you start using it somewhere, and I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. Unused templates are typically deleted, but if a use can be shown for them, they almost always get to stay around. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Pagelist/sandbox/benchmark

• Template:Pagelist/sandbox/benchmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pagelist/benchmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused subpage with no incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, for now. These were created to benchmark different implementations of Template:Pagelist. See Template talk:Pagelist#Switching to Module:Params. There are still a few things we need to change in that template, and the benchmarks might still be useful. See Template talk:Pagelist#Why does Module:Pagelist call mw.title.new(). That discussion has been dormant for a while, but it hasn't come to a conclusion. I'll try to revive it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Strategic force

• Template:Strategic force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Was gonna add this template to Template:Country showdata earlier but so far no response to my edit request Belarus101 (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To editor Belarus101: your edits have been [sandboxed], and just as I prepared to go live at Template:Country showdata, I came across this TfD. (See also: {{Country data North Korea/sandbox}}.) Help me out editors Jonesey95 and WikiCleanerMan → is this a useful, needed meta template for the Country showdata and Country data templates, or not? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits. Given that Korean People's Army Strategic Force exists and the flag template is easy to display, it seems that someone might want to use this flag. It is straightforward enough to make {{flag icon|North Korea/sandbox|strategic force}} work with a |var= parameter, however, and there are hardly any strategic forces with flags listed at Category:Strategic forces, so I don't think a new {{Strategic force}} template is necessary. I hope this makes sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If I only had a nickel for everything on WP that isn't necessary. I don't know, editor Belarus101, is this going to grow like the space force? or is it a dud that goes no farther. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

there are currently four countries that have established strategic rocket forces as independent branches (China, NK, Russia and Saudi Arabia), each with its own flag, which are actually more than the number of existing independent space forces, hence I see no reason why it's unnecessary if the one for space forces is.

Lots of strategic rocket forces were established pretty recently, such as the Chinese one which was separated from the army less than 10 years ago. I am personally optimistic about a potential future growth. Belarus101 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

So then, like the space forces, the strategic forces are new and growing things. When I think of a strategic force, I think of SAC, which is a major command in the USAF. In light of your words my opinion is to keep this template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and allow its usage in country data templates. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

November 25

Template:Wikispore-inline

• Template:Wikispore-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused interwiki link template. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Also conisider Template:Wikispore which has some transclusions but none of the links currently work anyway. -- Reconrabbit 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep as this was in used until recently at List of community gardens in New York City, there is currently a tech issue at Wikispore (also affecting other pages) that we are in the process of fixing now.--Pharos (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now used in one article. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

With the recent bug fix for Wikispore, it has been restored at List of community gardens in New York City and will likely be used multiple times there and elsewhere. We have been using this for our edit-a-thon series focused on this and other hyperlocal topics, most recently with Event:Kelly Street Garden Edit-A-Thon (Community Garden Series). Pharos (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no issues with keeping it now, but please actually use it as one single usage isn't enough to for a template to exist. Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: if this is only used a single time, then I'm still for deletion. We don't need a template for that. Gonnym (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• delete, only used one time in one article, and not something we need a template to accomplish in this one case. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

November 24

Template:Iraqi coups

• Template:Iraqi coups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Protests in Iraq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Iraqi coups with Template:Protests in Iraq.
Recommend merging the nearly unused, and somewhat sparse, and newer {{Iraqi coups}} navbox into the more comprehensive and more widely used {{Protests in Iraq}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Note that Template:Protests in Iraq navbox title is actually "Protests and coups in Iraq" so the nomination is even more correct (the template should be moved to match the title after this TfD). Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Coups are not protests. It's the protests navbox that needs a cleanup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge while WikiCleanerMan is correct that coups are not protests, the two are (at least in Iraq) closely related. Given the navbox title of {{Protests in Iraq}} merging the two would seem reasonable. Wouldn't be opposed to merging both to a new {{Protests and Coups in Iraq}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the entries in Protests in Iraq are not protests. Uprisings and rebellions are not coups nor protests. The coup navbox is more accurate to what it is about and contains all links of relevance. All articles on rebillions and uprising should be moved to their own navbox and remove coup articles from it as well. And there is plenty of protests in Iraq articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are not the same thing so why should they be merged together? More generally, there is an antipattern of navboxes growing in size and scope until they're uselessly large. A small, focused navbox is a good thing, not a bad thing, and there's a lot of navboxes that should be split. SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Some sort of merge is probably merited. There's a strong overlap in the links each of these are navigating, and depriving users of the other links in each template that don't have an overlap is a bad thing, not a good thing, as it were. The topics appear to be joined at the hip and should have a navbox that represents that fact. Izno (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  @WikiCleanerMan: in light of Izno's comments, what do you think about merging the two to a new {{Protests and Coups in Iraq}}. Each would have their own section to make clear what is a protest and what is a coup... But I think they are closely enough related to warrant a unified navbox but we also keep them separate enough to make it clear protest ≠ coup. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  While there's currently overlap, it can be solved better by moving Protests in Iraq to "Revolts in Iraq" or the like and separating out the coup-content. Take the 1936 Iraqi coup d'état - this was not a popular protest or rebellion, this was a conspiracy by a very small number of officers. It's not really the same thing. (Also not sure why that's listed as an "Attempted coup" in the coups template, but that's a side issue, it definitely was more than "attempted".) SnowFire (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

November 22

Template:Uw-softerblock/preload

• Template:Uw-softerblock/preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Comment it was a template that I created evidently in 2020 and found some use in at the time, but I do have a question @Gonnym:. That search you linked...wouldn't the template never show up as it was substituted? Outside of my test just now which has it because it was used after the nomination, there is no reference to "preload" at all in the page text as it is essentially a shortcut for a rather prolifically used substituted template. I don't necessarily object to this deletion (and had forgotten the template existed), but just wanted to flag that the validation method for its use might be flawed unless I am misunderstanding something. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor Usually when a template is a preload template it appears in other template code. See for example Template:RMassist/preload insource results. Since this template has no regular incoming links, no hidden usages found with an insource search, and no documentation, it seems that this template is hidden from everywhere and everyone which more than likely means it isn't used by anyone. I of course can't be 100% sure about this, which is why this TfD is open to present facts that disprove the above. Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  You are correct that I was probably the only user, but that does make sense why you came here with it. I wasn't aware of {{Preloaded template}} until just now so that explains why it wasn't tagged with that etc. either. I think Preload was just what I came up with as a name independently since it was preloading text when I was dropping the template at the time, not thinking that there was a wider thing actually called a preload. That makes things a little clearer for me, thank you. I am indifferent to its fate in this case. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War

• Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• a general Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War (comparable to the general campaignbox Template:Campaignbox Hundred Years' War), with only links to:
  • the main article Eighty Years' War;
  • the period articles (including Origins, Aftermath, and Historiography), and
  • the list of battles;
• period-specific campaignboxes: separate campaignboxes per period, with links to actual battles (comparable to the Template:Campaignbox Caroline War as a campaignbox specifically for the 1369–1389 period of the Hundred Years' War: Hundred Years' War, 1369–1389, a.k.a. the Caroline War or Caroline Phase):
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1566–1572
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1572–1576
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1576–1579
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1579–1588
  • Template:Ten Years (Eighty Years' War) (1588–1598)
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1599–1609
  • Template:Eighty Years' War, 1621–1648

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

PS: Note that the nl:Tien jaren (Tachtigjarige Oorlog) article already has a period-specific sidebar (zijbalk) listing only the battles occurring in the 1588—1598 period. (The Ten Years (Eighty Years' War) was a sort of "Mauritian phase"). NLeeuw (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @RobertJohnson35 and Benjitheijneb: you two engaged with me the most during the May 2025 TfDs on overgrown campaignboxes. I think you'll be interested in discussing this proposal as well (originally suggested by RobertJohnson35). NLeeuw (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but convert to navbox - I think it is useful to keep these links all together, but there is WAY too much going on here for a sidebar. This would be much better suited as a {{navbox}}. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Zackmann08 That seems a viable alternative. But would you recommend the same for the Hundred Years' War campaignboxes? Or is there a reason to treat them differently? NLeeuw (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I might add that, arguably, the List of battles of the Eighty Years' War will always be better at "keeping all the links together" than any navigation template. NLeeuw (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: I'm less worried about the campaignboxes in Category:Hundred Years' War navigational boxes as they are MUCH smaller, but I certainly wouldn't object to them being navboxes. Full disclosure, I am generally of the opinion that sidebars suck and should almost always be converted to a navbox... That is just my personal viewpoint. I can expand on why if you want, but I don't think that is really helpful to this discussion. IMHO Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War is massive and really not helpful in its current form. I do see the value in having a navigation box to link these related articles, but I think it should be in the form of a navbox, not a sidebar. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Zackmann08 Oh I largely agree with that perspective, but certain sidebars are useful if concise and practical. I'm curious what you think of my essay User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes? I'm trying to make clearer and stricter rules for campaignboxes, to make them either useful or to get rid of them. Navboxification, as you are proposing, is often indeed a better option. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: I'll be honest, I'm not really eager to read another essay right now... lol. I applaud your efforts and hope you continue but I've got other projects I'm working on and are pulling my attention at the moment. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Zackmann08 That's fine haha! Should you have anything to add or suggest, you could always say so on its talk page. I'm happy to receive feedback. :) NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Convert to navbox. Too many war sidebars exists. Navboxes are better for such a large amount of links more or less. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep but convert to navbox. Similar reason with Zackmann08 above Simple non combat (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Kommunizm

• Template:Kommunizm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly links to the Russian Wikipedia. Outside band members - only one link is to an album on this Wikipedia. The rest are text or links to related articles that have too little connection. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails basic needs of a navbox. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:R to diacritic/Explanation

• Template:R to diacritic/Explanation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I would decline a T5 for this case given how the links point to it. Izno (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: educate me... Why is it not a T5? It is n unused sub template... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a T5able case, but that I would decline a T5. My reason is as above. Just because something qualifies for a criterion doesn't mean it should be deleted for such. Izno (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Move to Help: namespace. Useddenim (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Germany by state category navigation

• Template:Germany by state category navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While this at first glance may seem like a good idea, in the end it will only lead to have all sibling categories from all parent categories listed at the category pages themselves as well, creating lots of unnecessary content at the top and pushing the actual category contents down.

As an example, this template is used on Category:Artists from Hamburg, and largely matches the subcats of Category:German artists by state. But there seems to be no reason why we couldn't have the same template for the other two parent cats, i.e. one with the 49 subcats of Category:German artists by populated place, and one with the 16 subcats of Category:People from Hamburg by occupation. On Category:Artists from Berlin you could have the same three, and a fourth one, with the parent Category:Arts in Berlin. The possibilities are endless, which is basically the issue. A category doesn't need boxes repeating the parent categories, that's what the parent categories are there for. Fram (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is pushing content much further than similar established templates such as {{navseasoncats}}. The basis of the template/module only works for a limited pre-defined set of search teams – it wouldn't be possible to imagine all populated places in Germany or all possible occupations to put in the base module. The possibilities are therefore not endless. The question is then whether to have templates that may repeat content from the parent category, such as this one and {{navseasoncats}}, or not, where I would say these two examples are helpful. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  The possibilities are endless though (well, not endless, but as described), there is no requirement that these get autopopulated and they could just as well be hardcoded. And it seems weird that we have one for the other states, but not for e.g. the other occupations, as if one is more important than the other.

  As for pushing contents, perhaps I should have bundled this with worse actual examples, as e.g. shown on Category:Footballers from Puy-de-Dôme, where the actual categories are a screen down thanks to the nav template. Fram (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the France-by-department template became too big in that aspect (browsing on phone) but for the ones that are couple of rows, I wouldn't say they are problematic. While I don't understand the argument that this may legitimate the creation of any bulky template as a limited number of entries is a key component, is usage with a Foo from Foo category different from others as “occupations” is a conflicting grouping: is Category:Artists from Hamburg a worse application than Category:Cabinets of Lower Saxony, Category:21st century in Hesse, or Category:Buildings and structures in Saarland by city? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, facilitates navigation between a limited number of interlinked categories without taking too much of space (some larger sibling templates may be discussed separately or become hidden for mobile like navboxes). Also helpful in category maintenance such as finding poorly categorised categories and stray categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

  One problem is that it seems technically impossible at the moment to put these at the bottom of category pages (similar to where navboxes are placed in articles), even though that would seem a possible compromise (still there for maintenance and for who really wants it, but not taking the place of what the page is really about, the categories themselves). Fram (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've added nomobile to this template/module and the one used in the category listed above, Category:Footballers from Puy-de-Dôme. In the latter case I've also made it collapsed. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I didn't find this helpful when I came across it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, Compared to the corresponding templates with maps in French and Chinese Wikipedia, this template facilitates a limited number of interlinked categories without taking too much of space --Htmlzycq (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, I have found templates like this to be very helpful and time-saving when working with categories. These 16 states don't take up much space. I don't think this template's existence is suggesting we use this scheme in cases with very large numbers of members, but 16 is a very reasonable number. DB1729^talk 12:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. As well-intended as this template is, this is not Commons. Over there it makes more sense, but if an issue exists like finding poor categorization of caategories or stray cats, it will be found. It's not as if CFD does not have a shortage of such renaming or merge nominations. But the cats that are part of this template's navigation scope can be found without it as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Most populous cities in Yunnan

• Template:Most populous cities in Yunnan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being used at the bottom of the article as a navigational template but isn't designed to be so. Therefore, I'm not sure what purpose this template fulfills. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as used. This template is used just fine in many articles, including Xuanwei. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NAVBOX says "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". This format doesn't facilitate navigation. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This template is part of a well-established family of dozens of templates (see, for example, Category:Largest cities of Asia templates) that have been created using {{Largest cities}}. Deleting just one of them makes no sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It's actually part of Category:Largest cities of China templates. This should be considered a test case. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

November 16

Template:Crisis in Venezuela sidebar

• Template:Crisis in Venezuela sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Crisis in Venezuela short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Crisis in Venezuela sidebar with Template:Crisis in Venezuela short.
These two templates effectively duplicate each other's information. I'm suggesting we merge the longer one (CiV sidebar) into the short one so that we can cut down on the height of article sidebars, potentially by making the former redirect to the latter. Newbzy (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the longer bar should be merged to the short one, and the longer one redirected to the shorter one (which I created because the longer bar is so obstructive). Sidebars that need to be that long belong in horizontal bars at the bottom of the article so they don't interfere with content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. However, per MOS:DONTHIDE, it should go to the large one. If the large one is too annoying, and that isn't at all surprising, then both should be deleted and Template:Crisis in Venezuela used instead. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

(For the CiV short sidebar) What about if, for each article, we expand only the section relevant to it? This is like what's done for Trump's articles, where his sidebar is opened only to the section where the article's name appears (check out Business career of Donald Trump for example). Newbzy (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Which would also apply to the larger one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That one doesn't collapse tho. Newbzy (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My preference is to keep the short one and delete the long one, which is a duplicate of the navbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Due to the complexity and large number of articles, I chose the layout that collapses more effectively. I also added a few missing articles. I applied a similar change on the Portuguese Wikipedia as well Wilfredor (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

DONTHIDE basically gets a pass for all navboxes. Not sure why it's being mentioned here. Izno (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Both templates. We have a navbox. And yes, it is quite large, but I don't see a need for a sidebar when the navbox can do the same thing and has most if not all the same links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete both redundant to {{Crisis in Venezuela}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

November 14

Template:Adjacent place

• Template:Adjacent place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

@Gonnym and Gadfium: seems to me this could be easily rectified with |bodystyle=width: 300px; float: right;

Look at this test on my sandbox using this version of {{Adjacent communities/sandbox}}. Quick and dirty proof of concept. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. If it won't cause problems with the various skins in use, or with mobile views, then I'll withdraw my oppose in favour of this.-Gadfium (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment the only place this is used is within {{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} where it is marked as deprecated... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Adjacent communities currently serves a different need and works poorly in the middle of existing articles. I would withdraw the oppose if Adjacent communities can be made to work within existing text. At present, if used below an infobox, it occupies the full width of the screen and the lead is pushed below it (unless there is another floating element trying to occupy the same space, which seems to improve its behaviour). Adding "|width=auto" displays it side by side with the infobox but at the top of the article.
I think there are no remaining examples of Infobox New Zealand suburb using Adjacent place, but most articles which use Infobox New Zealand suburb use Adjacent place immediately below, and in many cases they are bracketed together with {{stack begin}} and {{stack end}}. See the discussion at Template talk:Infobox New Zealand suburb#Adjacent place template
The only way I think existing articles could be acceptably converted to Adjacent communities without the latter being improved is to move it to the bottom of each article, and I think that would reduce the quality of the articles per User:Gonnym's comment above.-Gadfium (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gadfium: what makes New Zealand different from every other country and community on wikipedia? Why is it that ONLY {{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} gets its own custom adjacent places template? (Which by the way is marked as deprecated in the documentation. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

{{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} no longer uses adjacent place. It just hasn't been removed from the template. However, articles on NZ suburbs use the adjacent place extensively. Before that was available, the infobox had its own custom fields. I was not aware until now (or perhaps have forgotten) that adjacent place appears to have been written specifically for use with NZ suburbs. It does provide greater flexibility than having the functionality in the infobox. If adjacent place is deleted, the script to do so should return the content to the infobox rather than replace it with adjacent communities, unless as I said before, adjacent communities can be improved to not wreck article layout.-Gadfium (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Adjacent communities does not serve the same function as this template. I'd elaborate, but it's 3:30 AM. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 14:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Piperium: Can you explain now? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Adjacent communities is for external countries and takes up a large amount of space in the middle of the page; adjacent place is used primarily for New Zealand places and takes up a small amount of place on the side of the page, and is often described by the text.

so they're pretty similar from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 09:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Piperium {{Adjacent communities}} is NOT for external countries.... It is, as the name clearly states, for communities that are adjacent. How is this any different than adjacent place? Additionally, the params are marked as deprecated... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

My fliggly diggle, I meant {{Adjacent communities}} is for places outside of New Zealand, whereas the other template is primarily used in New Zealand[1] from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 00:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Piperium and why on earth does New Zealand need their own custom version while the rest of the world can use {{Adjacent communities}}? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Because I said so from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Because ours is better from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 08:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Piperium your sarcastic comments are not helpful. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support not having a standalone template for NZ articles. There is no reason why New Zealand requires a separate template. I don't think it matters much which template is used but having two templates that serve the same purpose is unnecessary. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: I largely agree with what Gadfium has said. I also personally find the argument that "why should New Zealand have a separate template" to be quite weak. Both of the templates display in a different manner and therefore have different use cases as of now, and simply deleting Adjacent place without any changes to Adjacent communities on the basis of "why should New Zealand have a separate template" would be a poor decision. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Carolina2k22 So based on that argument every nation on the planet should have their own template like this... I would point you to {{Infobox settlement}} as an example of Infobox consolidation where every nation on the planet uses the same code. No nation gets their own custom layout (except for the UK but that's a whole different battle). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08 I appreciate your concern with this, but I believe you misread my point. My point was that deleting it for the sake of "why should New Zealand have a separate template" is a weak argument on its own. However, I would gladly switch my oppose to a support if the functionality of this template could be merged into the existing template. I do not think this is an unreasonable position. Infobox consolidation is fine, but deleting this template without consolidating it into an existing template would be absurd. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Integralism

• Template:Integralism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

• Comment The nom. makes a good case for why most WP:SIDEBAR templates are rife for abuse. Editors collate articles based on their views, without any reference to sourcing, and there is perhaps a larger discussion as to whether they should all just be deprecated, because they are visually intrusive and I have seen pages with four or five such sidebars jammed into them! But that is not for here. Enforcing the principle of WP:BIDIRECTIONALity should be sufficient. If the watchers on a page determine the page should not be part of a series (by removing the template or not adding it in the first place) it can be removed from the "grab bag". Is there any policy reason to delete this though? What about policy to retain? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  To add: I have removed non bi-directional entries, but the nom. has a point here about the utility of this very long series. The template has been added to many pages without being tightly integrated to the pages. Readers following the template (which may be few, since it is so big) would be taken to pages that may leave them scratching their heads as to relevance. I removed a couple of egregious examples but if this is ever to be a useful series, more work is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Mishustin sidebar

• Template:Mishustin sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sobyanin sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Yavlinsky sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Just clutters the article. No need. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Zhirinovsky sidebar

• Template:Zhirinovsky sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Zyuganov sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Just clutters the article. No need. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

November 6

Culture sidebars part 11

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh into Template:Andhra Pradesh, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Andhra Pradesh topics into Template:Andhra Pradesh, and leave a redirect
  

(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh AND Template:Andhra Pradesh topics should be merged into Template:Andhra Pradesh).

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Assam into Template:Assam, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Bihar into Template:Bihar, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:State of Bihar into Template:Bihar, and leave a redirect
  

(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Bihar AND Template:State of Bihar should be merged into Template:Bihar).

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Karnataka into Template:Karnataka topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Maharashtra into Template:Maharashtra, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Nagas (51 blue links, 24 red links, only 29 transclusions) into Template:Nagaland (60 links, 30 transclusions), and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:State of Odisha (Template:Culture of Odisha redirects here) into Template:Odisha, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Life in Tamil Nadu into Template:Tamil Nadu, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Tamil Nadu topics into Template:Tamil Nadu, and leave a redirect
  

(Clarification: Both Template:Life in Tamil Nadu AND Template:Tamil Nadu topics should be merged into Template:Tamil Nadu).

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Telangana into Template:Telangana, and leave a redirect
  

Note: The other states and union territories of India do not have culture sidebars.

Note: Template:Odia culture (footer navbox) should perhaps be renamed Template:Culture of Odisha (currently a redirect to sidebar Template:State of Odisha) after main article Culture of Odisha, but otherwise I would keep it separate from Template:Odisha (footer navbox). I'm excluding this issue from the current nomination, but for the sake of completeness I'm mentioning it.

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

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

• Hi Moxy! You've got my attention now. :) I admit that I hadn't paid close attention to the sheer amount of links the resulting merged footer navbox would have; the target navbox often already has close to or over 50 links. Let's try and work out some alternatives. Template:Andhra Pradesh seems to be heavily focused on geography/topography. Template:Andhra Pradesh topics is much more about culture, society, socio-economics. Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh completely overlaps with Template:Andhra Pradesh topics, except that the latter does not have Tholu bommalata and Telugu literature yet. If we just add those two, we could make Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh a redirect to Template:Andhra Pradesh topics, and leave Template:Andhra Pradesh out of the whole merger entirely. The precise demarcation of scope between the latter two can be worked out without TfD discussion. Does this seem a good example? We could probably apply a similar approach to all other nominees in this proposal. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge per prev noms —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• merge as proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Culture sidebars part 10

Former countries

• Propose merging Template:Byzantine culture into Template:Byzantine Empire topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Ottoman Empire sidebar into Template:Ottoman Empire topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Soviet Union into Template:Soviet Union topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Sasanian Empire sidebar into Template:Sasanian Empire, and leave a redirect
  

Subnational divisions

• Propose merging Template:Culture of England into Template:England topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Wales into Template:Wales topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Scotland into Template:Scotland topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Northern Ireland into Template:Northern Ireland topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of California into Template:California topic, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Louisiana into Template:Louisiana, and leave a redirect
  

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

PS: I don't think courtesy pings will be necessary for this one. I notified everyone 3x yesterday, I don't want to overdo it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussions (though I wasn't involved in those). I've only edited the Ottoman culture sidebar, but likewise I generally don't see the advantage of a sidebar with an overly-broad scope when a similar navbox (with just a slightly larger scope) will do. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. " Moxy🍁 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

    • I've manually fixed Template:Byzantine Empire topics already. All transclusions of Template:Byzantine culture can now be removed, and the templated redirected, or we could Just-delete it now. NLeeuw (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Template:Culture of the Ottoman Empire sidebar can be Just-deleted too. All 7 transclusions are in Template:Ottoman Empire topics already, except Papadic Octoechos, which isn't linked to (but we could always add it to Template:Ottoman Empire topics later). NLeeuw (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    • I've manually fixed Template:Soviet Union topics already. All transclusions of Template:Culture of the Soviet Union can now be removed, and the templated redirected, or we could Just-delete it now. NLeeuw (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Template:Culture of Sasanian Empire sidebar can be Just-deleted too. The only transclusion, Sasanian architecture. is in Template:Sasanian Empire already. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    • On Louisiana things are not clear-cut: Template:Culture of Louisiana has only 6 transclusions, 1 of which (Music of Louisiana) is already in Template:Louisiana. It might be worth transferring Jazz and Zydeco after it between brackets, and I would recommend transferring Louisiana literature as well. Creole architecture in the United States is important to Louisiana, but not just Louisiana; I think it would be okay to transfer. Culture of New Orleans is not linked to in Template:Culture of Louisiana itself, but we could transfer and transclude it anyway, or not. I recommend not to transfer any of the articles that Template:Culture of Louisiana links to, but do not transclude the sidebar. Agreed? NLeeuw (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Template:California topic is so clearly restricted to plain geography/topography that, taking Moxy's objections into account, it might not be a good idea to merge Template:Culture of California into it. The latter links to about 77 pages, but only has 15 transclusions. A better idea might be to start a new footer navbox from scratch based on those 15 transclusions, and then Just-delete the Template:Culture of California sidebar. NLeeuw (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

      @Nederlandse Leeuw I share Moxy's concerns for this template and have boldly created a navbox for Culture of California which can currently be found at Template:Culture of California/Navbox. Open to workshopping it as this is my first time making a navbox. mdm.bla 02:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

      @Mdm.Bla Looks good! I would support that conversion as an alternative to merging.

      While you're at it, you might want to read User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#Sidebars. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Culture of England only has 16 transclusions. 10 of them are already transcluded by merge target Template:England topics as well:

bla

• • • • Culture of England
      • English art
      • English cuisine
      • English folklore
      • English language in England
      • English people
      • List of English inventions and discoveries
      • National anthem of England
      • Religion in England
      • Sport in England

• So the question, really, is whether the other 6 are also worth transcluding, and thus transferring to Template:England topics:

1. National symbols of England: Well, we've already got National anthem of England and English national identity in Template:England topics, so this seems like a good addition. Advice: yes.
2. Tourism in England: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
3. English folk music: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
4. Glossary of country dance terms: Well, country dance originated in England, and English country dance redirects to country dance. But, I think Template:English folk music better serves navigation on all (English) country dance and English folk music already, and if we're already transferring English folk music, they could find it easily. I think this is too specific and niche for the Template:England topics. Advice: no.
5. Garland dance: well this quite a small article about a very specific English folk dance. This is a relatively niche topic, which is also already transcluded by Template:English folk music. Advice: no.
6. Sport in Bedfordshire: With all due respect for Bedfordshire, I don't think it is representative of England as a whole, in sport or otherwise. Sport in England is relevant, but we're not gonna link to every county. Advice: no.

So, if we just transfer articles 1, 2, and 3, I think we can Just-delete Template:Culture of England as well. Although Template:England topics already has 61 transclusions, I don't think adding 3 more is much of an issue. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Wales topics has 138 links (!), and 282 transclusions (!!). I think this is wayyy too much to begin with, even before we ask the question whether we should merge Template:Culture of Wales into it or not. The fact that it has almost double the number transclusions to the number of links suggests that people are dumping the footer Template:Wales topics under lots of articles that they think are of general importance to "Wales", regardless of whether those articles are actually mentioned in the footer itself. That is a sign of poor editing practices. More importantly, 138 links is really overdoing it. Take the grouping "Religion". It has links to:

bla

• Christianity
• Anglicanism
• Catholicism
• Mormonism
• Presbyterianism
• Non-Christian belief systems
• Bahá'ís
• Buddhism
• Hinduism
• Islam
• Judaism
• Druidry
• Sikhism
• History
• Saint David
• Welsh Methodist revival
• 1904–1905 Welsh revival
• Welsh Church Act 1914

• This way too elaborate for a top country navigation footer. Most Fooland topics footers only have a general link to "Religion in Fooland". Moreover, there is a separate Template:Religion in Wales which contains the same links and more (but it is not properly transcluded, with just 17 transclusions versus 64 links).

At any rate, that's a separate discussion. In this case I think Moxy is spot on: the pragmatic solution would probably be not to merge Template:Culture of Wales into Template:Wales topics, but to convert Template:Culture of Wales from a sidebar into a navbox footer. NLeeuw (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Culture of Scotland has 57 links, and 38 transclusions. Template:Scotland topics has 247 (!!) transclusions and about 193 (!) links. Without going into specifics, I think the answer should be the same as for Wales: convert sidebar into footer navbox; do not merge. NLeeuw (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Template:Culture of Northern Ireland only has 6 transclusions, even though it links to 21 articles. Target Template:Northern Ireland topics has only 32 transclusions, even though it links to 105 (!) articles. Seems to me the target could use a real trim, excluding all links to articles that don't transclude the footer anyway. 32 + 6 transclusions seems fine. I stand by my proposal to merge them, with the recommendation to seriously trim Template:Northern Ireland topics of links to articles that don't transclude it. NLeeuw (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

PS: I WP:BOLDly fixed Template:Northern Ireland topics to include and transclude the few of the 6 articles that didn't overlap yet. Now, we can Just-delete Template:Culture of Northern Ireland without further fuss. NLeeuw (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Alt proposal: Per Moxy's objections here and elsewhere, and my own reconsiderations as nom above, I would like to propose a customised alternative per nominee:
  • Just delete Template:Byzantine culture, Template:Culture of the Ottoman Empire sidebar, Template:Culture of the Soviet Union, Template:Culture of Sasanian Empire sidebar, and Template:Culture of Northern Ireland;
  • Transfer (manually merge) National symbols of England, Tourism in England, and English folk music from Template:Culture of England to Template:England topics, and transclude them; then Just delete Template:Culture of England;
  • Transfer (manually merge) Jazz, Zydeco, Louisiana literature, and Creole architecture in the United States from Template:Culture of Louisiana to Template:Louisiana, and transclude them; then Just delete Template:Culture of Louisiana;
  • Convert from sidebar into footer navbox Template:Culture of Wales, Template:Culture of Scotland, and Template:Culture of California.

That way, we'll solve most issues without creating new ones. NLeeuw (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy @R Prazeres Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for neglecting this: this alternative proposal sounds good to me too. As mentioned, I'm more familiar with the Ottoman template than the others, but as I understand it, the underlying motivation (to reduce redundant sidebars) is accomplished either way. If some are still useful to retain as footer navboxes, that sounds constructive to me and still heading in the right direction. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• merge as proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

November 5

Culture sidebars part 9

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Algeria into Template:Algeria topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Angola into Template:Angola topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Benin into Template:Benin topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Botswana into Template:Botswana topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Burkina Faso into Template:Burkina Faso topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Burundi into Template:Burundi topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Cameroon into Template:Cameroon topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Cape Verde into Template:Cape Verde topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Central African Republic into Template:Central African Republic topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Chad into Template:Chad topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo into Template:Democratic Republic of the Congo topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Djibouti into Template:Djibouti topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Life in Egypt (Template:Culture of Egypt redirects here) into Template:Egypt topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Equatorial Guinea into Template:Equatorial Guinea topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Eritrea into Template:Eritrea topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Eswatini into Template:Eswatini topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Ethiopia into Template:Ethiopia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Ghana into Template:Ghana topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Kenya into Template:Kenya topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Lesotho into Template:Lesotho topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Liberia into Template:Liberia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Madagascar into Template:Madagascar topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Nigeria into Template:Nigeria topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Rwanda into Template:Rwanda topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Somalia into Template:Somalia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of South Africa into Template:South Africa topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of South Sudan into Template:South Sudan topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Sudan into Template:Sudan topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Tanzania into Template:Tanzania topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Uganda into Template:Uganda topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Zambia into Template:Zambia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Zimbabwe into Template:Zimbabwe topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Somaliland into Template:Somaliland topics, and leave a redirect
  

Note: Template:Culture of Libya already redirects to Template:Libya topics

Note: Template:Culture of Malawi already redirects to Template:Malawi topics

Note: Template:Culture of the Canary Islands already is a footer navbox and is functionally indistinguishable from topics navboxes. (Same goes for Template:Culture of Madrid Community and Template:Culture of Andalusia, and Template:Valencian Community topics)

Note: All other countries and dependent territories in Africa do not have a culture sidebar, but only a topics footer navbox.

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

• Courtesy ping to participants of the Culture sidebars part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 discussions for follow-up: @TheBritinator, Super Dromaeosaurus, Chipmunkdavis, Gonnym, Frietjes, Matrix, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Moxy, Renata3, WikiCleanerMan, Absolutiva, Piperium, Pratama26, and Achmad Rachmani: for your information. NLeeuw (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  dude i've literally got no idea what any of this is about from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 24 you participated in the TfMs Template:Culture of New Zealand and Template:Culture of Japan (Culture sidebars part 4). This is a follow-up of those discussions. I'm giving all participants of previous discussions a courtesy ping. But of you prefer not to be notified, my apologies, and I'll exclude you in the future. NLeeuw (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge all per nom and prev discusions —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• merge all per nom and per previous discussions. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. TheBritinator (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Merge all per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete content editors are not interested in link spam.Moxy🍁 22:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete/merge we have too many sidebars and these ones are not helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• Merge also per nom, I think this is a great centralization of related information. Cheers! Johnson524 19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Culture sidebars part 8

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Belize into Template:Belize topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Canada sidebar into Template:Canada topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Guatemala into Template:Guatemala topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Mexico into Template:Mexico topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Panama into Template:Panama topics, and leave a redirect
  

Note: Template:Culture of Cuba already redirects to Template:Cuba topics

Note: Template:Culture of El Salvador already redirects to Template:El Salvador topics

Note: Template:Culture of Jamaica already redirects to Template:Jamaica topics

Note: Template:Culture of Nicaragua already redirects to Template:Nicaragua topics

Note: Template:Culture of the United States already redirects to Template:United States topics

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

• Courtesy ping to participants of the Culture sidebars part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 discussions for follow-up: @TheBritinator, Super Dromaeosaurus, Chipmunkdavis, Gonnym, Frietjes, Matrix, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Moxy, Renata3, WikiCleanerMan, Absolutiva, Piperium, Pratama26, and Achmad Rachmani: for your information. NLeeuw (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Merge all per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• merge all per nom and per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete pls stop forcing link spam ....have the balls to just delete.Moxy🍁 22:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you mean to say you didn't want me to give you a ping? (In that case, sorry). Or do you agree with the proposal? NLeeuw (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: They should just be deleted or merge into a redundant footer related to culture. Country "Main Topic" footers generally only have main parent articles like "Wildlife of Canada" we generally don't spam sub articles like "Fauna of Canada", "Flora of Canada", "Forests of Canada" etc - last thing we should be doing is overwhelming these top article country navigation templates with every sidebar template there is. For Canada - for example - we have 39 sidebars with the project that maintains these having no desire to jam them all into one template as per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. " Good example {{Canada topics}} small grouping of parent articles that's easy to see and navigate vs {{India topics}} an accessibility and navigation nightmare. I've seen arguments before that these culture templates should be in the main country templates by many..... the problem we're going to have is those that edit sports articles and media articles and economic articles and law articles all feel that their topics are just as important as the culture is to be mixed in to these country templates. Culture articles are subtopic of the main country topic just as sports are laws, government music etc.(sorry for typos on my phone) Moxy🍁 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Moxy You make good points (as usual).

  At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 6#Culture sidebars 11, I wrote earlier tonight: :Note: Template:Odia culture (footer navbox) should perhaps be renamed Template:Culture of Odisha (currently a redirect to sidebar Template:State of Odisha) after main article Culture of Odisha, but otherwise I would keep it separate from Template:Odisha (footer navbox). I'm excluding this issue from the current nomination, but for the sake of completeness I'm mentioning it.

  Pragmatically speaking, I think it make sense to have separate footer navboxes for culture and for more general stuff on Odisha, due to the sheer amount of links in the Culture navbox alone. My primary aim is to get rid of the disruptive, poorly designed and badly transcluded WP:LEADSIDEBARs, not to dump as many links as possible into the top article country navigation templates. It is good to keep that goal in mind. Sometimes converting a sidebar into a new navbox may therefore be a better idea in practice than merging it into a much larger existing navbox. NLeeuw (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  If the culture templates are standalone...as in there is no culture footer - they should be converted to a footer not jammed into another template. I am beginning to think we need to take this approach to the wider community.... this sort of run around to delete sidebars is reminding of the portals fiasco a decade ago. Moxy🍁 23:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Nerge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

oh my goodness just merge already like i'm getting pinged for every one of these just merge the dang articles from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 22:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:History of Argentina

• Propose merging Template:History of Argentina (105 links, 27 transclusions) into Template:Argentina topics
  

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

@Nederlandse Leeuw well that discussion ended in merge, so there is nothing stopping you from implementing that merge and then continuing with this. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym Well wouldn't that be confusing? I'd rather not mix things up. NLeeuw (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think it will be, then sure. Close this and reopen at a later date. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete pls stop spamming country navigation templates with every damn link possible.

Moxy🍁 23:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Would it be better to convert these sidebars into new footer navboxes rather than merging them into existing country navigation templates? I think I'm starting to understand your objections, now that we're dealing with much larger templates than I started this series of culture sidebars TfMs with. NLeeuw (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Precisely - as per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) Moxy🍁 00:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Okay. One issue is that WP:NAVBOX never defines a maximum number of links. With Benjitheijneb, I've been working on User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Maximum links rule, where we set 50 links as a maximum for campaignboxes (which are technically sidebars rather than navboxes). I think we could take that as a rule of thumb for our purposes here as well? If you agree, then the next step seems straightforward.

At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#South America history sidebars, I've outlined how many links each history sidebar has, and how many of them are actually transcluded (which may included transclusions from pages that are not linked, but that's fixable). What I would propose is to only count the transclusions, and use them as a basis for new footer navboxes. E.g. the 8 transclusions of Template:History of Suriname. I'll put links to those 8 articles in this new footer navbox, add them to the bottom of those 8 articles, and then nominate Template:History of Suriname to be Just-deleted. (I might add the 5 missing transclusions in this case as the number is still very small). Sounds good? If you agree, then I'll proceed.

The only real problem might be converting Template:History of Brazil (174 links, 85 transclusions). 85 is still arguably way too much for a footer navbox. What would you suggest? Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Merger of this nature is crazy. We should not go out of our way to make templates inaccessible. Moxy🍁 04:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. But you shouldn't revert mergers that were carried out after a discussion to merge them reached consensus. That could be taken as disrupting the process.

Nevertheless, I am very much open to splitting off a UK culture footer navbox from Template:United Kingdom topics in order not to make the latter too loaded with links (what you called "mass link spam"). You've convinced me that it's important to consider the resulting total number of links in a merged template. Sometimes we should convert a culture sidebar into a new navbox footer rather than merge it into an existing topics navbox footer, and this seems a good example of just such a situation. NLeeuw (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This is why It may be best to bring this to the wider community - what I am seeing is a small group of editors forming a local consensuss that is the opposite of what our editing guidlines says is best. Simply no way most will think adding every Society article to the template bellow follows our editing guidlines WP:NAVBOX...that said if the future plan is conversion over merger it may workout.Moxy🍁 14:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, this discussion is over? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Okay. How would you suggest we bring this to the wider community? An RfC? Personally, I am trying to refine my approach by turning my overview at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars into a proper essay that may eventually evolve into a guideline. I'm using the 50+ links and transclusions a lot as a rule of thumb in order to recommend against some of the larger mergers I've recently proposed, and now (thanks to your objections) I am reconsidering. There are several examples we might use to base a general rule for separating society/culture footers from other "topics" footers that would get overpopulated, or are arguably already overpopulated (Gotta keep 'em separated! ). Quoting several examples I wrote earlier elsewhere:

• Template:Andhra Pradesh seems to be heavily focused on geography/topography. Template:Andhra Pradesh topics is much more about culture, society, socio-economics (and Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh almost completely overlaps with the latter).
• Template:California topic is so clearly restricted to plain geography/topography that, taking Moxy's objections into account, it might not be a good idea to merge Template:Culture of California into it. The latter links to about 77 pages, but only has 15 transclusions. A better idea might be to start a new footer navbox from scratch based on those 15 transclusions, and then Just-delete the Template:Culture of California sidebar.
• Template:Ontario and Template:Ontario topics do basically all topics simultaneously: geography/topography, government/politics, history, economy, culture(/society), and communities + transporation. In that case, you are okay with a complete merger as the scope completely overlaps, and the resulting merged template would probably have fewer than 50 links and transclusions.
• When I look at Template:Culture of Scotland, Template:Scotland topics and Template:History of Scotland, I see a massive amount of overlap, but I'm not sure what the best division between those three templates should be, or if "three" is even the best number of templates to divide all linked/transcluded articles into. I do think that in the Template:History of Scotland, we should get rid of the Culture, Politics, Sport, and Religion sections, as they have very little to do with strictly history. Similarly, in Template:Culture of Scotland, we should probably eliminate the History section, because that is already the domain of Template:History of Scotland. What, then, should remain in Template:Scotland topics? Well, geography/topography, contemporary politics/government, maybe economy? Edit: No, economy has its own Template:Economy of Scotland! Edit: And politics has its own Template:Politics of Scotland, as well as Template:Scottish devolution...

So, while it may be obvious that a template should probably be split if it has more than 50 links and/or transclusions, it may not always be obvious how the split should be made, and into how many new templates it should be split. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

PS: At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#What to do when not to merge?, I summarise this discussion and propose a standard model for country and territory topics templates with fixed parameters, so that the total number of links can never exceed a certain number. (Kinda like an infobox, in which parameters that are not recognised simply will not display anything). NLeeuw (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been here a very long time and in my opinion you're one of the greatest editors in regard to how your taking some criticism on something that is clearly a good faith effort...... your approach of compromise and common sense is a breath of fresh air. If your spearheading further endeavors of this nature I'm am very confident you have what's best for our readers in mind. ..... Special Barnstar coming your way in the near future.! Moxy🍁 21:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Thank you so much :D I'm trying. I know I'll sometimes make mistakes, and that I should try to correct them rather than pretending I'm always right. Fellow editors like you have a way of seeing my mistakes that I myself failed to see. We need each other to move forward.

I just hope I haven't been overwhelming you with questions, and asking your thoughts on how to improve the situation. So far you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate that very much, especially when we are dealing with complex issues that require a lot of effort to properly disentangle and figure out. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2

Template:British barrelled name

• Template:British barrelled name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Keep as it is. There is no need to remove the "British" demarker from this template. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

• Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.

  And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why is there a need for this to be the most prominent disclaimer about most people? Hatnotes are great where many readers need this information. But why do we think the exact structure of the surname is the key attribute many people will be interested in? meamemg (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Delete I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb ^talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page and we should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person using MOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing about Helena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Jonesey95. This template is pretty darn clear about how to use it and why it exists. The nominator admitted I don't understand what this template is for which is one step away from IDONTLIKEIT. Not understanding is what the template's talk page is for, not what TFD is for. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support keeping but renaming, per PamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• I have no strong feelings about it being either kept or deleted, but as some users have pointed out if it were to say it should be changed to "double-barrelled", which is normal English usage. Keivan.f^Talk 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose it says "barrelled" (which I agree is weird) as opposed to "double-barrelled" because some such surnames have more than two parts, such as Vane-Tempest-Stewart – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I understand that, but we shouldn't be re-inventing English usage for our convenience. "Barrelled" is not used in that way; "double-barrelled" and "triple-barrelled" are. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. My latest article Verité Reily Collins gives an example of where it is helpful. Her surname is Reily Collins, which she got from her father, her first name is Verité. The banner make this clear. Unfortunately Germaine Greer was unable to consult Wikipedia in 1970 and therefore in The Female Eunuch Ms. Greer gave her the sole surname of "Collins". This is left unchanged in the article's text as a direct quote, but in a subliminal way it explains why Reily Collins is used elsewhere in the article. Ms. Greer is a long term UK resident but it would not be unusual even for Brits/Commonwealth readers to trip up on this, and so it is helpful to clarify. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep a bit niche, but usage has been well explained. Moving because this has utility outside of British names sounds reasonable but should be done through WP:RM. As for consolidation with other templates, show me a demo merged version first so functionality can be tested then we'll talk. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" rather than being specifically British or "barrelled". Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" as per Eilidhmax and others- this isn't British-specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to 'Template:Double-barelled surname'. The hatnote is not for editors but for readers,; just as it is helpful for readers to know that the 'Kim' in Kim Jong Un is his family name, it is useful to know the 'Bonham Carter' in Helena Bonham Carter is her family name. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Template:Family name hatnote or rephrase to mimic that template's wording. Both FNH, {{Spanish married name}} and this template exist because the family name of a subject is not simply the last word in the person's name. Nobody here seems to dispute that FNH and SMN are useful; the only difference seems to be that editors are more familiar with the British convention, IMHO a clear instance of language bias. On the other hand, I don't like that this template says how a person's surname "should" be written, as we aren't in the business of telling people what they should do. My preferred phrasing is "In this double-barrelled name, the surname is {{{1}}}." Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The specific Britishness should be mentioned as the various traditions function differently and serve different purposes. For "barrelled" vs "double-barrelled", is worth mentioning that barrelled surnames are not limited to being double; There are triple and quadruple-barrelled surnames as well, for example "Montagu Douglas Scott" which does not contain any hyphens, making the actual surname hard to distinguish unless directly specified.— Cosmic6811 T/C 04:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per ChrysGalley, Jonesey95, Zackmann08 and Cosmic6811. –CybJubal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Although "double-barrelled" is the more common version, there are those who have more, as Admiral Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax can attest. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Rename and improve. The wording and format is odd. It is phrased as a direction for writing and not as a reader-facing piece of information. We have other templates for Spanish names, Chinese names, etc. that are more clearly written to prove information and clarification to readers and this template should follow suit. No objection to merging with a more general family name template. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with another family name template, this is exactly like the Lee surname thing for Lee Kuan Yew. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

October 24

Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

• Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

This characterization appears to be a misunderstanding of the sidebar. This is not linking to sections within a single article, but rather between different articles that cover the whole of the characters derived from the Brahmic script, with many of the Canadian Syllabic characters having their own place within that historic context. The fact that the content is not forked into a separate article is irrelevant, the sidebar is for navigation between different pages, and the pertinent information is found at a particular section within those pages. Several other characters, on the other hand, don't have well documented context like that and AFAIK Wikipedia lacks that content currently. But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives. Lastly, the redirect objected to is a redirect from other capitalization and only exists because of a technical limitation of mediawiki.

I would have no objection to creating redirects from the base characters to the appropriate article sections and then link to those, ala the Vowels and Syllabic Consonants sections of {{Devanagari abugida sidebar}} if that is somehow deemed more proper. But this related content is not otherwise linked together in any way, so the sidebar has clear and non-redundant purpose and needs to remain. However, I'm going to add links to Cree syllabics, Eastern Cree syllabics, Western Cree syllabics, and Inuktitut syllabics for additional related content, and I would encourage any other pertinent content others can find. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 16:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Its good you added more links for the subject, but sidebars are not immune from navigation requirements like those of navboxes. "But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives". Sidebars like navboxes are not created just so a need can be created or be in a position for an article to be created so it can be linked for the subject. That is a Crystal argument. Either there is enough articles to navigate for or there isn't. And I did not mischaracterize my nomination about links to article sections. Those are links to article sections as in sections of articles. It does not mean I said a single article's sections. Prior to your edits those were the only links, and following the addition of four articles, they still outnumber direct article links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

When this was nominated, there was content at eleven different articles being linked. That is current needs, not even remotely "when the need arrives" - navigation between that content is unavailable by any other means, and WP:Crystal is completely non-sequitur. Even if there are an additional 7 possible future targets, their non-existence does not negate the now extant 15 articles for which this sidebar provides current internavigation. Navbars and navigation sidebars routinely contain full lists of category members for which many may not have extant content for linking.VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

They are to link to articles directly. We only have four links to articles outside the main title link for this subject. Links to article sections especially when they out number direct article links fail the navigational purpose a sidebar is for. And links to article sections do not count as links to articles because they don't count even if related. Content is not the right word to use. Content can mean anything outside of articles. It can even mean links to Wikipedia sister projects. I would say if there is a fifth article for the sidebar, then it can pass the bare minimum to be kept and I don't think the characters should be hidden. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting that from, but its application runs completely contrary to WP:Splitting for content splits. Are you perhaps misreading guidance on navigation links among sections within an article? Because that would actually make sense. You know exactly what I mean by content here, and it has nothing to do sister projects or whatever else you are implying. I am not a strawman. I don't even know how to respond to an argument so baffling - that somehow the intricacies of internal article organization would make a link to completely separate pages somehow not count for the purposes of navigation because that content isn't found in the lede. The link subject is clear for every single one of these. The content linked in these sections would make an independent stub/start class article with two references - but splitting the content would strip it of context, remove pertinent content from the current article, and is specifically discouraged by the actual guidance Wikipedia has on splitting content. So no, we had 11, and now 15 articles linked, and I do not accept a counterintuitive and anti-policy interpretation deflating that number. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 22:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Would the remaining articles in Category:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics be okay to add? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking through that list, probably only Ojibwe and Carrier. Ostensibly Blackfoot as well, but there's a confounding alternate syllabic script that is based partially on UCAS that I don't know enough about. Paging @Kwamikagami: to see if they have some idea how to get that article in a position to handle that mess. As for the Unicode blocks, those pages are about computer technology, and while it is right up my wheelhouse as a Unicode contributor, they are more appropriate in a Unicode technical context than navigation within graphemics. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 23:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and four articles is certainly not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Convert to a navbox and remove redirects or section links. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• This template is primarily used in locations where a navbox is not appropriate. A companion navbox might have some alternate use case, but it will not work as a replacement for the primary purpose of this sidebar - navigating between information on the derivation, usage, and variations of archetype letterforms of the Canadian Syllabic script - which is found in context with the related letters of Indic scripts. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 03:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  If it isn't appropriate then it shouldn't be used on that page. If it shouldn't be used on that page, it shouldn't link to it from the navbox per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is linked within the sidebar per BIDIRECTIONAL. The whole point of sidebars is to make appropriate links accessible from the context in which those links are useful to the reader. A navbox is used to place links at the end of an article without context. If you had an article about the history of mathematics, a navbox with links on mathematicians and math topics would be appropriate, but a sidebar on calculus would appropriate to place in the history of calculus section. Likewise, a link back to that article section would be completely appropriate for that calculus sidebar. Context vs decontextualized is the difference, and one is more appropriate in this instance. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I support converting to a navbox per Gonnym and see what happens from there. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• convert to a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

October 23

Template:Death date and age text

• Template:Death date and age text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, Gonnym, and Frietjes: any thoughts? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months, which can be a boon in some infoboxes (where these templates are used). Unless I'm missing something, while {{death date and age text}} allows for this (e.g. {{death date and age text|3 Oct 2025|1809-02-12}}), {{death date and age}} does not. As such, I would oppose redirecting or changing the template. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Fourthords: you are partially correct, see below:

  • {{death date and age|3 Oct 2025|5 Dec 1990}} → October 3, 2025(2025-10-03) (aged 34)
  • {{death date and age|1990-02-12|1980-03-12}} → February 12, 1990(1990-02-12) (aged 9)

  Basically {{death date and age}} overrides Oct with October. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. I'll put that on my todo list for this afternoon as regardless of this merge, that should not be the case.

  That being said, given that it works (and that I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed) what are your thoughts on merging? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: It's probably not a good idea to relist discussions you're involved in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery I felt that since there had been very little traffic on this discussion there was no harm in relisting it. To be clear, I would absolutely never have closed a discussion I was involved in... But moving forward I will avoid relisting discussions I have been involved in as well. Appreciate the advice. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• redirect pending changes which will preserve DMY or MDY in the input (per MOS:DATE), if this is not possible, then don't redirect. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
• Zackmann08, what is the status of preserving the input format? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Plastikspork: I'll be honest, haven't even looked at it. Been working on other projects and this fell by the wayside... I suggest closing this as merge PENDING that change being made and placing it in the holding cell. I'm trying to take a break for Thanksgiving, but will definitely look into this soon. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Fourthords, Plastikspork, and Frietjes: Good news!!! Got the fix mocked up at Module:Age/sandbox... Just have to test the ever-loving-crap out of it to make sure I didn't break anything along the way. It definitely does what I want it to do (note same fix was applied to {{birth date and age}}):

  • {{death date and age/sandbox|3 October 2025|5 December 1990}} → 3 October 2025(2025-10-03) (aged 34)
  • {{death date and age/sandbox|April 10, 2025|January 5, 1990}} → April 10, 2025(2025-04-10) (aged 35)

  Just want to make sure I didn't inadvertently break anything else so going to write some more testcases (help welcome!!). Give me a few days and I should be able to merge it. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Completed discussions

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.