🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TfD
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TfD)
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 2 79 0 81
TfD 0 3 37 0 40
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 9 0 9
RfD 0 0 55 0 55
AfD 0 0 1 0 1
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_December_7#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

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

Notify users

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

December 7

[edit]

Template:Wdtable row/regicide

[edit]

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

Template:Wdtable row/person4

[edit]

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

Template:Wdtable row/lighthouse4

[edit]

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

Template:Wdtable row/lighthouse

[edit]

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

Template:Wdtable row/bridge4

[edit]

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

Template:Attached KML/Missouri Route M (Jefferson County)

[edit]

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

Template:Canon RF-lenses

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Chengdu–Panzhihua section RDT

[edit]

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

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/type check

[edit]

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

Template:Muzaffarpur–Hadapsar (Pune) AC Express Route

[edit]

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

Template:Flag football women's national team flag right

[edit]

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

Template:Flag football women's national team flag

[edit]

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

Template:Flag football men's national team flag

[edit]

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

Template:Fbwu17

[edit]

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

Template:Engelberger Aa route

[edit]

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

Template:Db-selfuser

[edit]

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

Template:Zamindars of Chaugachha

[edit]

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)[reply]


December 6

[edit]

Template:Peruvian political crisis short

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Mario Draghi sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Baltic Pipeline System-II full

[edit]

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

Template:Field hockey at the 2010 Asian Games

[edit]

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

Template:Kart racing results legend

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:MARINERS

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:MergedMapGetPushPin

[edit]

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

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

Template:Dingdong Dantes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Marian Rivera

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Hebrew name 1

[edit]

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

Template:Construction industry by country

[edit]

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)[reply]

Module:Road data/strings/SAD

[edit]

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

Module:Road data/strings/GGY

[edit]

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

Module:Sports color/majorette

[edit]

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

Module:Sports table/Stv1

[edit]

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

Module:Sports roster/NBA

[edit]

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


December 5

[edit]

Template:Graph:Most Expensive Cars

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Graph:Most Expensive Paintings

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Overwatch (video game)/PlayerGrowth

[edit]

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

Template:CCI statistics

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Backrooms Levels

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Can-arpt-wx

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Anarchism cleanup issue graph

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:GameStop stock price graph

[edit]

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

Template:STV election graph

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:2025 MPBL season by team

[edit]

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

Template:Cricket batting averages (10 innings)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Best Test career bowling averages

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Knight Riders Group

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Season sidebar

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:UK general election navigation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:UK general election opinion polling

[edit]

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)[reply]


December 4

[edit]

Template:Use Liberian English

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:ACVoting

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Tarcoola–Darwin railway line

[edit]

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

Template:Sydney–Melbourne rail corridor

[edit]

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

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

Template:WPNICK assessment cat

[edit]

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

Template:Spud

[edit]

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

Keep. 4 entries seems fine here. Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Module:TemplateDataGenerator

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Show SVG

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    “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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


December 3

[edit]

Template:2017 Hockey India League table

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:2024 Hockey India League table

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Chery Tiggo EV Crossovers roster

[edit]

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

Template:Attached KML/Filyovskaya Line

[edit]

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

Template:Adana Demirspor squad

[edit]

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

Template:2024 UP Warriorz season

[edit]

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

Template:2024 Royal Challengers Bengaluru (WPL) season

[edit]

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

Template:2024 Mumbai Indians (WPL) season

[edit]

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

Template:2024 Delhi Capitals (WPL) season

[edit]

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

Template:2024 Gujarat Giants (WPL) season

[edit]

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

Template:Hugh Jackman

[edit]

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)[reply]

Delete - Barely used, fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Template journal inline

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And for those people I'll say, c'est la vie. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Its uses can be covered by other templates, and <syntaxhighlight inline> where needed. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Template journal

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Unique coins

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Honduran post-coup polls

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per WikiCleanerMan - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]


December 2

[edit]

Template:China National Games Wushu

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:US TV sidebar

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:IrelandRMArchive

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Infobox Victorian government

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Debug

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any news on this? --Grufo (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    “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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Sporting fiascos

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Cite correspondence

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Wagner Moura

[edit]

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

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

Template:Timeline of Hamburg

[edit]

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

Template:Stargate Infinity timeline

[edit]

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

Template:Siddhabali JS Express Route

[edit]

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

Template:Grading scheme/doc/table

[edit]

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

Template:Brighton & Hove Bus Route 29

[edit]

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

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

Template:Ahmedabad Metro map

[edit]

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

Template:ClassesAt2008VintageYachtingGames

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Former Saturday Night Live cast members

[edit]

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

Template:Current Saturday Night Live cast members

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Template:Mon alphabet

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Battle for Dream Island

[edit]

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)[reply]

Jude Halley (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Per rationale of nominator. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Kreamymate: What do you mean by baron? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. hi! (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPersonHumanGuy they probably mispelled barren. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete per everyone else here. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be closed this is unanimous. hi! (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


December 1

[edit]

Template:NASCAR on Speed

[edit]

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)[reply]

Module:Graph

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:North American Game

[edit]

WP:NENAN. Most of these articles sparingly mention hunting (Rock ptarmigan and Virginia opossum), and these are taxonomically unrelated animals. I can't imagine this template actually being used. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Men's Rugby World Cup table templates

[edit]

It is common practive to not use tables and instead insert them directly to their respective page. When they need to be transcribed on to another page, {{#section:Name of article|Standings}} can be used in place of the template when <section begin=Standings /> is place before the table and <section end=Standings />. 2025 Women's Rugby World Cup and 2023 Rugby World Cup are just two examples of this practice being used. Louis (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Condensed matter experiments

[edit]

Template has only 6 of hundreds of possible entries. A brief discussion at WT:Physics#Template:Condensed matter experiments was unanimous that this is not salvegable and it should be deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campeonato Pernambucano

[edit]

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

Template:Kenyan English

[edit]

This talk page template is redundant following the deletion of its article counterpart {{Use Kenyan English}}. It should therefore be deleted. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Thailand (1932–1973)

[edit]

Nominating after three years. There hasn't been much improvement or purpose for these template to remain as is. All three templates are unnecessary and violate Wikipedia:TEMPLATECREEP and WP:NENAN. We already have Template:History of Thailand navbox. And all articles to some extant are already covered by other relevant navboxes such as monarchs, prime ministers, elections, protests, coups, wars. More navboxes are not needed and certainly not for every period for every country. How are PM's relevant to a history navbox when we don't even have the same for other heads of state or government for history of a specific country? A main country history navbox for an overview of general topics are enough. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute nightmare of a template. Use the much better {{History of Thailand navbox}}. These could basically be articles in and of themselves. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Gilgit-Baltistan

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:LDS Temple

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

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


November 30

[edit]

Template:Do not create article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:PRC military sidebar

[edit]

Redundant to main navbox on PLA. All links are featured on the navbox. There is nothing that this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sidebars and navboxes don't serve the same purpose at all, I really don't get why a sidebar and a navbox sharing a topic should merit deletion of one of them. One is there to give a quick overview of a topic and one is here to link basically everything useful on said topic. The fact the sidebar contains everything the navbox does is in no way a problem. Additionally the sidebar helps users make sense of the somewhat confusing PLA org chart with its handy visual design so it should be kept for that alone. Really don't understand where this deletion request came from after the template functioning as intended for like three years now. Andro124 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. How long a template has been around does not mean its not a reason to keep. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to a review. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The astute reader will notice that the WP you linked is basically a non-sequitur that doesn't have much to do with the content of your argument at all, a favourite of oldhead wiki editors desperately looking to drive away any engagement from anyone not in their clique. Andro124 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't. Considering how many sidebars exists and continue to be created for almost every subject does not mean one is needed in the first place. This sidebar fits into that. Your comment is coming off as a PA. And my linking of a manual of style is not an act of driving away any engagement. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you refuse to engage in any discussion and your entire argument is that you personally don't like the template and that we should somehow trust you as the sole arbitor fit to judge if templates are needed or not per the intentionally vague WP guidelines. Also somewhat unclear why you seem to think this doesn't come off as at minima somewhat arrogant and at worst, actively unpleasant. Andro124 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears sufficiently redundant to navbox, and on People's Liberation Army, is very redundant to the infobox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely redundant to the navbox. The OP expresses very clearly and quite simply his reason for seeking deletion, and I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could rationally define the argument as that he doesn't like it. (And quite aside from that, Andro124's apparent belief that the definition of "arrogant" is "They're trying to delete my creation!!!" is scarcely helpful to their cause.) Ravenswing 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I literally have had nothing to do with this template until yesterday when every single PLA page suddenly broke because of the RFD announcement. Something you could clearly check if you actually took more than 10 seconds to research this, and weren't just here to back up your buddy Judge-Jury-Executioner. Andro124 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're owning this very hard for someone with no stake in it, that's for sure. Perhaps you'll deign to be more civil when you return from your block. The next one will only be for longer. Ravenswing 12:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OWN arguments by Andro124 aside, the nomination is accurate. Just use a navbox. No need to clutter articles with a sidebar. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and massive visual clutter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navboxes often don't show up on mobile and I've personally found the sidebar to be a much clearer and easier (and better looking, with all the handy associated imagery & such) tool for navigating the labyrinth of different PLA branches and figures for my own research, especially for such a hierarchically structured organisation where the very horizontal nature of the standard navbox design can just lead to more confusion as to what the relationships are supposed to be between the different bodies and sub-bodies. The sidebar's layout and presentation is just so much better and it's my immediate go-to for further info, even on the desktop browser version where the navbox is actually an option. I've never found it to be clutter-y in the slightest, and though the navbox is great as a big segmented list of links you can go to if you already kinda know what you're looking for, the sidebar is a perfect and much needed eye-friendly key to understanding immediate organisational relationships as well as a great quick-access gateway for the things you're most likely to want to know about next. Both are necessary in their own way for their own unique purposes to my mind. ~2025-38992-29 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above argument doesn't really make sense as both navboxes AND sidebars do not show up on mobile... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IBC-13 Shows

[edit]

Only three links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic needs of a navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cdx-button

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in September 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no use to anyone. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Bar box/sandbox

[edit]

Since anonymous users are starting to act like admins and decline simple housekeeping deletion I will make this a point of sending this to TfD so maybe the declining policy will change and not allow non-admin users to decline admin actions. At least when an admin (or any registered user) declines, you have a "name" behind the action and they are held accountable.

To the matter at hand, this is a simple G6 ("housekeeping") or G8 ("Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page"-esque) as the parent template was redirected. The /sandbox page serves no purpose and even redirecting doesn't add any value or history. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym This is a redirect (that's how Module redirects are formatted by the MediaWiki software). Subpages of redirects that are also redirects are not eligible for G6 or G8 as long as they point to a valid target. This should probably be at WP:Redirects for discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This page isn't a redirect so does not qualify for that. Gonnym (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it in fact is, however while it started as redirect, and I restored it to one, it spent the greatest amount of time as an additional sandbox following [1]. So it would have been entirely proper to challenge the bold redirection and restore that version before listing it here. That was not done but doing it now would cause even more confusion, and the procedural defect is not large. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page I tagged for speedy was not a redirect at the time. I did not notice that between my requests you changed it. I've reverted it. Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect. I changed it back to a redirect at 16:44, you made this listing at 17:04, you restored the sandbox at 17:57 after I suggested that as a possibility. Please do not confuse the discussion with incorrect information, the history is open for anyone to examine. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page qualifies for neither WP:G8, nor for WP:G6, in fact it is a textbook WP:!G6, and User:Gonnym should stop tagging pages under those criteria until they have read and understood them both.
Needless to say this is not the appropriate forum to change speedy policy, and so complaints about non-admin removals are off topic, but since a WT:CSD thread will be snow-rejected and an WP:ANI thread would be closed out of hand (typical case example), the practical difference is nil I guess.
However, while both of the given reasons for deletion are incorrect making this technically eligible for speedy retention under WP:SKCRIT#1 due to the absence of an intelligible deletion rationale, I do believe the potential exists that a plausible case for deletion could be made here, so I will withhold any request for a procedural closure for the time being. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete absolutely absurd that an editor with the experience that Gonnym has is requried to bring such an obvious delete to a full blown TFD. Waste of everyone's time to have a routine delete in the TFD queue, but I guess this is where we are now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zackmann08 if you believe these type of pages should be eligible for speedy deletion you are welcome to start a discussion to that effect on WT:CSD, but as right now they are not. Failure to list routine deletions that do not fall under any WP:CSD here takes up even more time when WP:DRVs are then needed to reverse out-of-process speedy deletions. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR exists to we don't need to wikilawyer around stupid things. Gonnym (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gonnym if you want to delete a page per WP:IAR then tag with Template:db-reason citing WP:IAR. But do not tag it with a clearly incorrect template which only guarantees wasting peoples' time. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikilawyering. Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gonnym it is no way "wikilawyering" and you need to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on your fellow volunteers. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally the DEFINITION of wikilawyering.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zackmann08 it is not, and you should strike your false accusation per WP:REDACT. Per its own page, it covers editors who "apply a portion of a policy or guideline with the motive to achieve an objective that goes against the intended message of that policy or guideline" (empasis in original). I have not at any point done that, and you cannot and have not provided a single diff of evidence of me doing so, so this is more WP:ASPERSIONS. Spurious ad hominem will not win anyone to your cause, nor will it change deletion policy. You do not like policy go to WT:CSD and get it changed, but do not baselessly accuse your fellow volunteers of wikilawyering because you do not like how it is applied. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll join the "this isn't a speedy deletion" faction; Ahecht and ~2025-31245-28 have made arguments that seem convincing to me. And see also Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#RFC: Updating T5 to account for parent templates that have been merged at TFD. On the merits, 'weak keep, since I've never seen a convincing reason for deletion buried in this mess - "The /sandbox page serves no purpose and even redirecting doesn't add any value or history" isn't really a reason at all, it's a circular argument.
    This is all I have to say here; I won't make any more comments in this discussion since it's clear from the start and the numerous prior times this has come up that neither side will succeed in convincing the other side so any further comments are futile. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a tracking category. “/sandbox” subpages are used for testing, and we have no reason to block any testing. However subpages of redirects can be hard to track, therefore (if it doesn't exist already) I'd propose that Module:Documentation automatically adds a Category:Sandboxes of redirects tracking category to similar cases (possibly hidden). --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on EARTH would you need a sandbox for a REDIRECT? And adding a tracking category for these? What is the point? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they might be experimenting on how to turn a redirect into an independent template. Or the template already existed, it had problems, it got temporarily converted into a redirect to a similar template, and the sandbox is needed to fix the problems and then turn the redirect back to the template it was. Our task is not to guess if something will never have use cases (we will always fail if we do that); our task is simply that of ensuring that everything is maintainable. The only problem that sandboxes of redirects pose is traceability. And that can easily be solved with a tracking category. --Grufo (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep this module sandbox around. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Progressivism US

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep per Aunger67. Ideally the Progressivism template would be modified to be less US-focused. Tenpop421 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Delete per nomination Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SWTTF collaboration

[edit]

This process hasn't been used in 16 years. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transliterate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

This allows writing

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

which generates:

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

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

Template:Resfn

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7 by User:Explicit (note only closing AFTER was deleted). (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 year old template with 1 total use. No need for template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HTML comment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Delete. Subst templates have always been able to leave comments. See Template:Uw-vandalism1 for example. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you sure? Try to rewrite {{Shortdesc there}} without {{HTML comment}}. --Grufo (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

Unused template that is over a year old. No clear use case that cannot be achieved with a simple link and MAGICWORDS. Only transclusions are in documentation where it was placed by the creator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused template that is over a year old. No clear use case that cannot be achieved with a simple link and MAGICWORDS. Only transclusions are in documentation where it was placed by the creator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Massively used in Module:Params/doc (which was the main reason for its creation, together with its potential usage elsewhere). Its current usage allows to consult Module:Params and Module:Params/doc separately, giving different outputs depending on which of the two pages is being consulted. Removing the template will effectively be disruptive and with no apparent reason. --Grufo (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 13 uses in a doc page you created is not massively used
    2. if the template is removed, the links will be replaced with with either {{tl}} or regular wikimarkup links as is the standard procedure for deletion of a template, which you really should know
    3. you have offered zero explanation as to why this template is needed or what functionality it provides that cannot be achieved with {{tl}}
    4. I will note that every use YOU inserted into Module:Params/doc had to be surrounded by &#123;&#123; & &#125;&#125; thus creating more work for the editor.
    Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've replaced the usages like here. This template makes it harder to understand without any real reason. Look at the syntax difference. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you have replaced is more or less what the documentation of Module:Params looked like before this template was created. Since many examples are subpages, especially the ones inside Module:Params/testcases and Module:Params/doc/examples, the way you want to restore the documentation will bring it back to a less-readable state (and it is already a heavy text to read). --Grufo (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet is having tons of &#123;&#123; in the syntax a more readable state?! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I should have created a {{Relative template link}} too, modeled on {{Template link}} but never had the time (nor, eventually, the will to argue with people like you). In any case, you are talking about readability of the wikitext, whereas here we are talking about readability of the page (which is what matters). --Grufo (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can achieve the exact same result with either {{Template link}} or just plain links with regular wikimarkup. Those are both MUCH more readable in both the wikitext and the page. What you are doing decreases the readability and accessibility of both which is why in the 14+ months since you created it the ONLY person to use it has been you... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me how to obtain the exact same result via {{Template link}}? I can't seem to find the way. As with (almost) every template, of course you can obtain the very same result by pasting the template's content directly in the page. In the case in question, this would mean that you will have to replace all links of the type
{{rel|Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table}}
with links of the type
[[Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table|{{#invoke:path|rel|Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table}}]]
--Grufo (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to be clear, for those who don't know how the Holding Cell works, this template is used a few times in /doc pages where the creator has bulk inserted it into their other creations. If this template is deleted, all those uses will be replaced by other code, most likely {{tl}}, so no broken code/red linked templates will be created. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EngvarB variant

[edit]

{{EngvarB}} has been merged into {{Use British English}}, so this template should not exist. I am also not even sure what this template is meant to indicate; the current wording say essentially "try to make edits which do not use any particular variant of English"... which is such a good idea that it is already a project-wide guideline. I would recommend deleting as confusing, referring to a deprecated template, and not worth the banner bloat. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prostitution in the People's Republic of China

[edit]

Single-use template. Contains article information that should be added in the main article if not included. I'd argue against subst. Just outright delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of value for a sidebar here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

November 29

Module:SportsRankings/data/N.F.-Board Women's World Ranking

[edit]

Unused data modules. If any is used during this TfD, let me know and I'll strike them out. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use in russian wiki: curling season 2025–26 [ru] like this ones. I don't know, is it means? Hevyal (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not used on English Wikipedia. Not sure how it would affect Russian Wikipedia usage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Each wiki has its own modules. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Sports box

[edit]

Unused module. It claims to implement Template:Football box, but that uses Module:Football box. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Taxobox

[edit]

Unused module. Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/SWinxy/Taxobox) if they still want it. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:VENAClassnomination

[edit]

Unused module. Template:VENAClassnomination was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:UsersInGroup

[edit]

Unused module. Template:UsersInGroup was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:UserboxWide

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

November 28

Template:Purnagiri JS Express Route

[edit]

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

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

Template:Saskatchewan communities

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

November 27

Template:Graph:Major League Soccer Season Records

[edit]

No longer used since graphs have not been working for a while. Not needed and frankly its current uses are for an interactive chart, but something like that is no longer supported. If someone can convert its uses for something for the three articles can use if it requires this template, then by all means go for it and I will pull back this nomination. If deletion is the result, please be sure to delete the doc which is not linked through the main template page. Template:Graph:Major League Soccer Season Records/doc. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace if possible and delete template. We need to finish getting rid of the graph extension code. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NSplaces

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Module:Location map/data/Scandinavia LCC map

[edit]

Unused location map modules. If any is used during this TfD, let me know and I'll strike them out. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Scandinavia LCC map is used in my sandbox for a Bas 90 preparation article. Please keep that location map module. Thank you, noclador (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Module:Location map/data/Serbia 1878 is used in my Template:Timok Rebellion Map. Please keep that location map module. Thank you, DrMako (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gonnym Do you mind leaving the Module:Location map/data/South Africa Wits East Campus module please. I am making a map to help people find unknown or historical parts of Wits. Thanks08:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC) Derek J Moore (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Derek J Moore, will it be used? It's been over 2 months since you created this module. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Turkey West is being used in Yakub II. Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Death and funeral of Pope Francis

[edit]

This does not need a template or a sidebar. All links can be merged if not added into Pope Francis' navbox. Outside of the background section and the main title link, only three articles of relevance. The main category has three articles outside the main article. Not including the subcat of 2025 papal conclave. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template:Pope Francis should be used on any relevant pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Gonnym said, just use {{Pope Francis}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pagination

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:IDRConvert

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Pagelist/sandbox/benchmark

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Strategic force

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

November 26

Template:Events leading to the American Civil War

[edit]

Just a list of links to articles. Not a typical structure of a sidebar of navbox. All links can be found in other navboxes or the main article. This is not a typical structure for a sidebar and not one where a sidebar is warranted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination and Also full of WP:OR. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Iamnotflour (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful for articles that were events that basically did lead up to the American Civil War such as the Battle of Fort Sumter. The Civil War is one of the most famous wars in history and there were a lot of events that led up to it. I feel like this is a useful sidebar with a link to the main article. Could also be replaced with one down at the bottom of the article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already voted keep, but another reason I have for keeping is Wikipedia:A navbox on every page #Benefits of navboxes. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Servite et contribuere I will just point out a few things...
  1. That essay is A navbox on every PAGE, NOT "a navbox for every topic". Each of the pages I visited that are linked to from this template have multiple navboxes...
  2. This is a Sidebar, not a navbox. Two very different things. A navbox doesn't clutter the article and make it hard to read the way that a sidebar does.
  3. Per #2, if you feel that this sidebar warrants converting into a navbox, that is a different conversation entirely.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Template:Wikispore-inline

[edit]

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

Also conisider Template:Wikispore which has some transclusions but none of the links currently work anyway. -- Reconrabbit 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Template:Iraqi coups

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

November 22

Template:Uw-softerblock/preload

[edit]

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

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War

[edit]

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

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

PS: Note that the nl:Tien jaren (Tachtigjarige Oorlog) article already has a period-specific sidebar (zijbalk) listing only the battles occurring in the 1588—1598 period. (The Ten Years (Eighty Years' War) was a sort of "Mauritian phase"). NLeeuw (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RobertJohnson35 and Benjitheijneb: you two engaged with me the most during the May 2025 TfDs on overgrown campaignboxes. I think you'll be interested in discussing this proposal as well (originally suggested by RobertJohnson35). NLeeuw (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep but convert to navbox. Similar reason with Zackmann08 above Simple non combat (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kommunizm

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:R to diacritic/Explanation

[edit]

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

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

Template:Germany by state category navigation

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find this helpful when I came across it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. DB1729talk 12:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Template:Most populous cities in Yunnan

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

November 16

Template:Crisis in Venezuela sidebar

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Which would also apply to the larger one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one doesn't collapse tho. Newbzy (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
DONTHIDE basically gets a pass for all navboxes. Not sure why it's being mentioned here. Izno (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both redundant to {{Crisis in Venezuela}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Template:Adjacent place

[edit]

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

Comment: {{Adjacent communities}} is a bad template. It's a pretty dumb template as a navigation template, taking way too much space for a very trivial piece of information. I also really doubt that readers navigate between articles like that. Additionally, it is being used in a lot of situations in the middle of an article, which hides article text completely from mobile viewers. Since {{Adjacent place}} does not use a base navbox it doesn't hide the information, nor does is it unnecessarily large. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment the only place this is used is within {{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} where it is marked as deprecated... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
{{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Piperium: Can you explain now? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My fliggly diggle, I meant {{Adjacent communities}} is for places outside of New Zealand, whereas the other template is primarily used in New Zealand[2] from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 00:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because I said so from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because ours is better from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 08:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piperium your sarcastic comments are not helpful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Template:Integralism

[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Mishustin sidebar

[edit]

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

Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete - Just clutters the article. No need. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zhirinovsky sidebar

[edit]

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

Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete - Just clutters the article. No need. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

Culture sidebars part 11

[edit]

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

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

    • Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. " Moxy🍁
Merge per prev noms —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 10

[edit]

Former countries
Subnational divisions

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

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

November 5

Culture sidebars part 9

[edit]

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

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

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

Culture sidebars part 8

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

Template:History of Argentina

[edit]

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

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

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

Would it be better to convert these sidebars into new footer navboxes rather than merging them into existing country navigation templates? I think I'm starting to understand your objections, now that we're dealing with much larger templates than I started this series of culture sidebars TfMs with. NLeeuw (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely - as per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) Moxy🍁 00:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. One issue is that WP:NAVBOX never defines a maximum number of links. With Benjitheijneb, I've been working on User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Maximum links rule, where we set 50 links as a maximum for campaignboxes (which are technically sidebars rather than navboxes). I think we could take that as a rule of thumb for our purposes here as well? If you agree, then the next step seems straightforward.
At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#South America history sidebars, I've outlined how many links each history sidebar has, and how many of them are actually transcluded (which may included transclusions from pages that are not linked, but that's fixable). What I would propose is to only count the transclusions, and use them as a basis for new footer navboxes. E.g. the 8 transclusions of Template:History of Suriname. I'll put links to those 8 articles in this new footer navbox, add them to the bottom of those 8 articles, and then nominate Template:History of Suriname to be Just-deleted. (I might add the 5 missing transclusions in this case as the number is still very small). Sounds good? If you agree, then I'll proceed.
The only real problem might be converting Template:History of Brazil (174 links, 85 transclusions). 85 is still arguably way too much for a footer navbox. What would you suggest? Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merger of this nature is crazy. We should not go out of our way to make templates inaccessible. Moxy🍁 04:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But you shouldn't revert mergers that were carried out after a discussion to merge them reached consensus. That could be taken as disrupting the process.
Nevertheless, I am very much open to splitting off a UK culture footer navbox from Template:United Kingdom topics in order not to make the latter too loaded with links (what you called "mass link spam"). You've convinced me that it's important to consider the resulting total number of links in a merged template. Sometimes we should convert a culture sidebar into a new navbox footer rather than merge it into an existing topics navbox footer, and this seems a good example of just such a situation. NLeeuw (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why It may be best to bring this to the wider community - what I am seeing is a small group of editors forming a local consensuss that is the opposite of what our editing guidlines says is best. Simply no way most will think adding every Society article to the template bellow follows our editing guidlines WP:NAVBOX...that said if the future plan is conversion over merger it may workout.Moxy🍁 14:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this discussion is over? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. How would you suggest we bring this to the wider community? An RfC? Personally, I am trying to refine my approach by turning my overview at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars into a proper essay that may eventually evolve into a guideline. I'm using the 50+ links and transclusions a lot as a rule of thumb in order to recommend against some of the larger mergers I've recently proposed, and now (thanks to your objections) I am reconsidering. There are several examples we might use to base a general rule for separating society/culture footers from other "topics" footers that would get overpopulated, or are arguably already overpopulated (Gotta keep 'em separated! ). Quoting several examples I wrote earlier elsewhere:
So, while it may be obvious that a template should probably be split if it has more than 50 links and/or transclusions, it may not always be obvious how the split should be made, and into how many new templates it should be split. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#What to do when not to merge?, I summarise this discussion and propose a standard model for country and territory topics templates with fixed parameters, so that the total number of links can never exceed a certain number. (Kinda like an infobox, in which parameters that are not recognised simply will not display anything). NLeeuw (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here a very long time and in my opinion you're one of the greatest editors in regard to how your taking some criticism on something that is clearly a good faith effort...... your approach of compromise and common sense is a breath of fresh air. If your spearheading further endeavors of this nature I'm am very confident you have what's best for our readers in mind. ..... Special Barnstar coming your way in the near future.! Moxy🍁 21:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Thank you so much :D I'm trying. I know I'll sometimes make mistakes, and that I should try to correct them rather than pretending I'm always right. Fellow editors like you have a way of seeing my mistakes that I myself failed to see. We need each other to move forward.
I just hope I haven't been overwhelming you with questions, and asking your thoughts on how to improve the situation. So far you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate that very much, especially when we are dealing with complex issues that require a lot of effort to properly disentangle and figure out. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Template:British barrelled name

[edit]

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

Keep as it is. There is no need to remove the "British" demarker from this template. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
    And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is there a need for this to be the most prominent disclaimer about most people? Hatnotes are great where many readers need this information. But why do we think the exact structure of the surname is the key attribute many people will be interested in? meamemg (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page and we should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person using MOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing about Helena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Jonesey95. This template is pretty darn clear about how to use it and why it exists. The nominator admitted I don't understand what this template is for which is one step away from IDONTLIKEIT. Not understanding is what the template's talk page is for, not what TFD is for. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping but renaming, per PamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong feelings about it being either kept or deleted, but as some users have pointed out if it were to say it should be changed to "double-barrelled", which is normal English usage. Keivan.fTalk 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it says "barrelled" (which I agree is weird) as opposed to "double-barrelled" because some such surnames have more than two parts, such as Vane-Tempest-Stewart – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but we shouldn't be re-inventing English usage for our convenience. "Barrelled" is not used in that way; "double-barrelled" and "triple-barrelled" are. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My latest article Verité Reily Collins gives an example of where it is helpful. Her surname is Reily Collins, which she got from her father, her first name is Verité. The banner make this clear. Unfortunately Germaine Greer was unable to consult Wikipedia in 1970 and therefore in The Female Eunuch Ms. Greer gave her the sole surname of "Collins". This is left unchanged in the article's text as a direct quote, but in a subliminal way it explains why Reily Collins is used elsewhere in the article. Ms. Greer is a long term UK resident but it would not be unusual even for Brits/Commonwealth readers to trip up on this, and so it is helpful to clarify. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a bit niche, but usage has been well explained. Moving because this has utility outside of British names sounds reasonable but should be done through WP:RM. As for consolidation with other templates, show me a demo merged version first so functionality can be tested then we'll talk. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" rather than being specifically British or "barrelled". Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" as per Eilidhmax and others- this isn't British-specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per ChrysGalley, Jonesey95, Zackmann08 and Cosmic6811. –CybJubal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

October 26

Template:Greek Athletics Championships

[edit]

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

Procedural keep, I think this should be withdrawn because this is far too sweeping of a nomination for 21 templates used on dozens of pages. As discussed in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 21#Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships, number of links on a navbox is not a P&G-based reason for deletion. Please, a precedent needs to be set first that deletion of these types of templates is supported by the community before doing a mass nomination like this. --Habst (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a merged template at {{User:Habst/National athletics championships editions}} per the explanatory essay linked. It can be split by continent or region as well should the template be too large, and the formatting can be fixed up so you don't have to expand twice. Would that be an acceptable ATD? The navigational purpose is to move between national championship editions, even if there are only four or five of them, and to know exactly what years national championships were staged (not all of these navboxes have corresponding overview articles where these are enumerated). --Habst (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is way too hard to navigate. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that's a P&G-based reason for deletion. If the reason is technical (e.g. clicking expand twice), it can be fixed by someone knowledgeable with templates. If the reason is conceptual because it is large, it can be split by continent or further collapsed as in {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. --Habst (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different and are not addressing the fact that 3 templates are just a sea of red. This putting a band aid over a hole in the wall. It does not address the failures present and yes hard to navigate is an issue. The more you argue for policy and guidelines from me, the more you are bludgeoning the conversation. I would ask for a policy and guidelines from you as to how that fixes the issue. The pandemic template does not combine respective country navboxes into one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only responded briefly to people that have directly addressed me by my username; that is not bludgeoning, and on Wikipedia, we generally do need policy or guideline-based reasons for deletion. How is it a failure to have red links on a navigation template? The links serve a purpose as pointers to create new articles, and some of the work is already done (i.e. disambiguating the titles) that wouldn't be done with unlinked text. --Habst (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 templates have no articles at all. The rest have less than the basic five. No, they don't. That is a Crystal argument. These navboxes have been around for a while, if articles were not created then after all this time, it is unlikely that they would be created before this nomination. It is not the responsibility of Tfd nominators to create those articles. Tfd nominations are based on the now and if someone is willing to create the articles to help these templates meet the requirements, then they can, but we can't wait around just because one day someone will. You haven't provided a policy or guideline for these to be kept. And NENAN is a long-standing precedent and not going to change soon. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having lists of red links isn't a CRYSTAL argument; that is why we have many WP:Red link lists on Wikipedia across many topics. As national championships receiving SIGCOV it's likely that these articles will be created soon; there are actually a few of them in my backlog along with hundreds of other articles.
Lastly in Wikipedia deletion discussions, generally speaking we need a policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. It doesn't quite work that way in the reverse, though I would argue in these cases that the standard WP:NAVBOX would apply in standard use.
As a compromise if you want to nominate the ones with no blue links only, I would support deleting or merging those to overview pages. --Habst (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habst procedural keep doesn't really make any sense. These all fall under the same category and the same reason for deletion. It is MUCH easier for them to all be nominated as a batch as is routinely done at WP:TFD as opposed to having to copy and paste the same comment 15+ times. HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to !vote to keep one and not another in this batch, but if that were to happen (and it has in the past) you can simply say "Keep these 3 because they are useful and delete the rest". But having 15+ duplicate nominations just gums up the process and makes it harder for everyone involved. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed my !vote to keep per your comments. For a mass nomination to succeed, generally there needs to be demonstrated some type of appetite for deletion of these types of templates among Wikipedians, and that plainly hasn't been demonstrated yet. I'm open to any solution including one I disagree with as long as there's consensus. I think it is highly likely that Wikipedians will have different opinions about these templates -- some have at least five four links (including plus the overview link) while others have only one or two, and some editions are more likely to be created than others.
Re: NENAN, as I said at comment I honestly do not have a position on the navbox debate but either way NENAN "is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted by WP:NBFILL". --Habst (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None nominated have five links. Title link does not count. It's about the individual article links that are the primary purpose of navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my above comment to say four links plus the title instead of five. I think the argument still stands. --Habst (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as the creator of these I'm happy to move to userspace the ones with no edition links. I created them as articles exist on other wiki which can be translated, but ended up focusing on the winners lists first and never got around to the national editions for those countries. I oppose the deletion of templates with 3 or more links. I don't think there is a single reader out there who thinks the conversation of whether two links should be in navbox or a see also is worth the effort of consideration. We've all got better things to do in life. SFB 01:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note Template:Swedish Athletics Championships links to five year events, the general outdoor championship article and the general indoor championship article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaffet i halsen, you forgot to sign. We don't count the articles linked in the title or the two on the side because its more about the links in the body. Still to few links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete the ones with less than 3 links. Keep the ones with 4+ links but remove all red links and non-links from them. We don't need a sea of red links in these templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can go for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

[edit]

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

This characterization appears to be a misunderstanding of the sidebar. This is not linking to sections within a single article, but rather between different articles that cover the whole of the characters derived from the Brahmic script, with many of the Canadian Syllabic characters having their own place within that historic context. The fact that the content is not forked into a separate article is irrelevant, the sidebar is for navigation between different pages, and the pertinent information is found at a particular section within those pages. Several other characters, on the other hand, don't have well documented context like that and AFAIK Wikipedia lacks that content currently. But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives. Lastly, the redirect objected to is a redirect from other capitalization and only exists because of a technical limitation of mediawiki.
I would have no objection to creating redirects from the base characters to the appropriate article sections and then link to those, ala the Vowels and Syllabic Consonants sections of {{Devanagari abugida sidebar}} if that is somehow deemed more proper. But this related content is not otherwise linked together in any way, so the sidebar has clear and non-redundant purpose and needs to remain. However, I'm going to add links to Cree syllabics, Eastern Cree syllabics, Western Cree syllabics, and Inuktitut syllabics for additional related content, and I would encourage any other pertinent content others can find. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 16:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its good you added more links for the subject, but sidebars are not immune from navigation requirements like those of navboxes. "But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives". Sidebars like navboxes are not created just so a need can be created or be in a position for an article to be created so it can be linked for the subject. That is a Crystal argument. Either there is enough articles to navigate for or there isn't. And I did not mischaracterize my nomination about links to article sections. Those are links to article sections as in sections of articles. It does not mean I said a single article's sections. Prior to your edits those were the only links, and following the addition of four articles, they still outnumber direct article links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When this was nominated, there was content at eleven different articles being linked. That is current needs, not even remotely "when the need arrives" - navigation between that content is unavailable by any other means, and WP:Crystal is completely non-sequitur. Even if there are an additional 7 possible future targets, their non-existence does not negate the now extant 15 articles for which this sidebar provides current internavigation. Navbars and navigation sidebars routinely contain full lists of category members for which many may not have extant content for linking.VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are to link to articles directly. We only have four links to articles outside the main title link for this subject. Links to article sections especially when they out number direct article links fail the navigational purpose a sidebar is for. And links to article sections do not count as links to articles because they don't count even if related. Content is not the right word to use. Content can mean anything outside of articles. It can even mean links to Wikipedia sister projects. I would say if there is a fifth article for the sidebar, then it can pass the bare minimum to be kept and I don't think the characters should be hidden. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you are getting that from, but its application runs completely contrary to WP:Splitting for content splits. Are you perhaps misreading guidance on navigation links among sections within an article? Because that would actually make sense. You know exactly what I mean by content here, and it has nothing to do sister projects or whatever else you are implying. I am not a strawman. I don't even know how to respond to an argument so baffling - that somehow the intricacies of internal article organization would make a link to completely separate pages somehow not count for the purposes of navigation because that content isn't found in the lede. The link subject is clear for every single one of these. The content linked in these sections would make an independent stub/start class article with two references - but splitting the content would strip it of context, remove pertinent content from the current article, and is specifically discouraged by the actual guidance Wikipedia has on splitting content. So no, we had 11, and now 15 articles linked, and I do not accept a counterintuitive and anti-policy interpretation deflating that number. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 22:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the remaining articles in Category:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics be okay to add? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through that list, probably only Ojibwe and Carrier. Ostensibly Blackfoot as well, but there's a confounding alternate syllabic script that is based partially on UCAS that I don't know enough about. Paging @Kwamikagami: to see if they have some idea how to get that article in a position to handle that mess. As for the Unicode blocks, those pages are about computer technology, and while it is right up my wheelhouse as a Unicode contributor, they are more appropriate in a Unicode technical context than navigation within graphemics. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 23:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and four articles is certainly not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a navbox and remove redirects or section links. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is primarily used in locations where a navbox is not appropriate. A companion navbox might have some alternate use case, but it will not work as a replacement for the primary purpose of this sidebar - navigating between information on the derivation, usage, and variations of archetype letterforms of the Canadian Syllabic script - which is found in context with the related letters of Indic scripts. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 03:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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 contrabout 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Template:Death date and age text

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, Gonnym, and Frietjes: any thoughts? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months, which can be a boon in some infoboxes (where these templates are used). Unless I'm missing something, while {{death date and age text}} allows for this (e.g. {{death date and age text|3 Oct 2025|1809-02-12}}), {{death date and age}} does not. As such, I would oppose redirecting or changing the template. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fourthords: you are partially 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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: It's probably not a good idea to relist discussions you're involved in. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I felt that since there had been very little traffic on this discussion there was no harm in relisting it. To be clear, I would absolutely never have closed a discussion I was involved in... But moving forward I will avoid relisting discussions I have been involved in as well. Appreciate the advice. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

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