Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 9 20 29
TfD 0 0 6 22 28
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 17 17
AfD 0 0 0 11 11
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_November_19#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

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

Notify users

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

November 19

[edit]

Template:Article needed

[edit]

This template redirect is unused and only causes confusion of users attempting to use it to ask for Wikipedia article creation, regardless that this template requests a page number in a reference. I consider this template misleading and only harmful. ❏ Okterakt 🦊 UwU (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer/notice: I removed ([1]) the last remaining usage of {{article needed}}.
It was also decided in 2019 that it should be deleted. I would appreciate its deletion. ❏ Okterakt 🦊 UwU (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cortuluá squad

[edit]

The club was dissolved in 2024. Svartner (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alianza Petrolera F.C. squad

[edit]

The club was dissolved in 2024. Svartner (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Equidad squad

[edit]

The club will be dissolved at the end of the 2025 season. [2] Svartner (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Zvijezda 09 squad

[edit]

Just one valid blue link. Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Olimpik squad

[edit]

Abandoned/outdated football template.Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Krupa squad

[edit]

Abandoned/outdated football template.Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Čelik Zenica squad

[edit]

Only 3 valid blue links, unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC AP Brera Strumica squad

[edit]

Only 3 valid links for players, unnecessary Svartner (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tatung F.C. squad

[edit]

Only one valid blue link, unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

[edit]

Template:Infobox bell

[edit]

Only has 3 uses after 7 years. Not even sure why I created this (pretty sure it was requested by other users) but it is overly complicated, has too many parameters that violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and worth noting that some of the most famous bells don't even use this. (See Liberty Bell & Tsar Bell for example). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-notwebhost-deleted

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Template:Db-notwebhost-notice. mwwv converse∫edits 17:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 17:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template:Jericho (2006 TV series)

[edit]

Only connects six articles (two of which are at AFD and another with dubious notability) Olliefant (she/her) 02:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 6 articles is more than enough. If articles are deleted, this can be brought up again. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiCleanerMan. BARELY meets the threshold and just clutters the article. WP:NENAN - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiCleanerMan and Zackmann08. Οἶδα (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Location map/data/Northern and Central Europe 2

[edit]

Unused location map module. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Region topic/Oceania

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Region topic/Asia

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Region topic/Africa

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Location map/data/Greater Penang

[edit]

Unused location map module. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Location map/data/Stanley Park Vancouver

[edit]

Unused location map module. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Road data/dump

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Top icon

[edit]

Unused module. {{Top icon}} does not use this. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an abandoned user draft to replace Template:Top icon. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Infobox road/meta/mask/country

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unused submodule of Module:Infobox road. -happy5214 02:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Road data/countrymask/parser

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unused submodule of Module:Road data/countrymask and as only content contributor. (The only other logged contribution was page protection.) -happy5214 02:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Jct/statename/data

[edit]

Unused module. Seems it was replaced with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Does WP:T5 apply to modules??? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unused submodule of Module:Jct and as only contributor. I'm not an admin, but IMO T5 applies to modules. -happy5214 02:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Fixme

[edit]

Unused module. Nice idea but it seems no one is using it. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 18 November 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]

Module:Population clocks

[edit]

Unused module that had it's single link removed during the past 5 years. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Human spaceflight capability

[edit]

This template previously used the Graph extension to generate a map. Unfortunately, there is no such feature in the Chart extension, so it is unfixable. I have replaced the only transclusion with an SVG file conveying accurate information. (I did not wait for this discussion to conclude because readers were being done a disservice by having a broken graph rather than a working file. WP:NOTBURO applies.) Delete as nominator. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

[edit]

Template:Payment required

[edit]

Used by only 3 articles and doesn't seem to be substituted anywhere. This function is better served by other templates/template parameters (see WP:URLACCESS). Ahuman00 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems useful. What are the alternative templates? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have read the linked page, I agree with deletion in favour of those other parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a parameter. Not evr3ything has to use the monolithic citation template system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
All 3 usages of this template are placed right after a citation template. If those are the usages, then yes, they should use the standard way and not add an unnecessary template. Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox autonomous community of Spain

[edit]

Now unused custom wrapper for Template:Infobox settlement. Not needed. Just use settlement. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No usage, per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Civil War cemeteries

[edit]

Only four links. Was wrongfully being used in category space. There are 17 articles for the subject, but it does not warrant a sidebar for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not worth a sidebar. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman–Persian Wars timeline

[edit]

Only used on one article. I don't think subst is the solution. The article already has this information on there. Plus, an infobox that summarizes the conflict as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warof1812-Origins

[edit]

Redundant to the main navbox of the war. All links are present in the main navbox. There is nothing this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't or isn't. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant to Template:War of 1812. Not everything needs a sidebar, particularly when there is already an existing navbox that does all of that and more... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AC Ospitaletto Franciacorta squad

[edit]

Just one valid link, unnecessary Svartner (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's an Italian professional team, and like every professional team on Wikipedia, it has its own template. When, and if, the team is relegated, it will be deleted. El giaguaro (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what team it is, it matters what pages it links to. This navigation template has 2 links, the club and one player. That isn't enough for such a template to exist. Gonnym (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to wait until the January transfer window. If links aren't added to the template in January, then I agree. But for now... El giaguaro (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links for this template. Gonnym (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resources Capital FC squad

[edit]

Empty football team template. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sham Shui Po SA squad

[edit]

Empty football team template. Svartner (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yuen Long FC squad

[edit]

Empty football team template Svartner (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use meetup templates

[edit]

The above entire list is only used on Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar to store a list of places. The only two templates of this set (which aren't nominated here) that are transcluded on other pages are Template:Meetup/November 2025 and Template:Meetup/December 2025. Once these templates are no longer used on editor pages, the template should be subst and deleted. This just adds to load times for that page. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete all per nom, no need for templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all I'm one of the maintainers for meetup lists. Now it is true that I didn't set up the system: but I don't want to see something that has worked perfectly well for fifteen years get trashed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: WP:LONGTIME... The fact that it has worked for 15 years doesn't mean it should be kept. Discuss the actual merits of what Gonnym has suggested, not just a knee-jerk don't touch what works. No one is suggesting trashing what has worked. These templates are used on ONE page. What is your reasoning for why they can't be substituted onto that one page and the 184 single-use templates deleted? There would be no information lost and things would work just the same... So other then not wanting other's touching the system you maintain, what is the actual reason for keeping these? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely a case of TfD makework. These templates are useful to the organisers and attenders of meetups. Templates are more flexible than substed content. In effect substing templates for the sake of it is equivalent to printing out digital documents then deleting the originals. For those that are not transcluded its equivalent to shredding the printouts as well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. These subpages are not doing any harm, and they are clearly useful to the people who use them. Let them be. If each of these were an individual template, I might have a different opinion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe move to subpages of Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar, since it seems as though that's where they are being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucchese 1905 squad

[edit]

Unused template which was mostly blanked. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of countries by life expectancy/OECD

[edit]

Unused table. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IrelandRMArchive

[edit]

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

Template:Infobox Victorian government

[edit]

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

Template:2023 National Games Kabaddi Points table Group A

[edit]

Unused as Kabaddi at the 2023 National Games of India was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Evolution of Nickelodeon

[edit]

Massive timeline that doesn't need to be placed on multiple pages. Incorporate into the body of Nikelodeon... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Redundant and excessive timeline sidebar. All links can be found directly on the main Nickelodeon and History of Nickelodeon articles. Οἶδα (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British dependencies chief justices

[edit]

After removing links that were not at all related to the subject as such as the main article links to British territory and former colonies that are irrelevant to the scope of the template, i.e. current dependencies. We are left with just three articles of relevance. Fails navigation and a template like this is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Theropods & Maniraptoriformes

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each sub group there can have its own navbox, but a giant navbox like this isn't helpful at all. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Aramea

[edit]

Template for WikiProject that has been deleted for about 14 months now, see MfD. Very unlikely to be used on future articles. Surayeproject3 𖢗 17:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not serving any purpose... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 16

[edit]

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]

Template:Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) roster

[edit]

All single-use templates. These templates have article information on template space which is a violation of Wikipedia:Template namespace. There is no need to transclude a simple table list outside of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Table rosters should not be in templates (unlike navboxes) as they are only used (and should only be used) on the team page. Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 17 November 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]

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]

Template:Metals-metalloids-nonmetals: compare, details

[edit]

Single-use template with no template parameters. This is article content that should be carefully copied into the parent article and then deleted. Note that the navbar will need to be removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Article content in a template that is used in only one article. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perth City Council elections

[edit]

Still the same three links. Still no improvement from the last nomination one year ago. All articles are easily accessible from one another. Still fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure why it wasn't closed as delete last time. --woodensuperman 09:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KF Trepça'89 squad

[edit]

Only one blue links for players. Unnecessary Svartner (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough links for a navbox that has a lot of non-link text. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KF Drenica squad

[edit]

Only two blue links for players. Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template:PShakva

[edit]

Unused succession template. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map zoom

[edit]

Unused template. Seems to have been replaced by something else recently. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- now replaced with templates and modules directly calling Module:Infobox dim. — hike395 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kollam/expanded

[edit]

If an editor wants to expand a navbox, they should use the |state= parameter. There is no reason for this. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EasterEgg

[edit]

Unused and really completely pointless template of an icon. If someone really wants to use this icon, then just use the icon. This icon does not help or give any additional functions to a discussion (and obviously for articles this is invalid). Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

שלום Gonnym
I hope you are well. Thanks for the message. Always pleased to meet a Wikipedian who is working across different languages. Very important to see things from different perspectives. My guess is that an easter egg might have very little significance for you? And in the big scheme of things this icon also has very lttle significance for me. But I am trying to teach a few vernacular Wikipedians how to use templates, and perhaps create easter eggs. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_25/Easter_egg_experiments Regards Derek J Moore (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you helping new editors, but can't we teach them how to do things that we actually want and need on en.wiki? Teaching them about creating stuff that will end up being sent to deletion is probably not the best experience. Gonnym (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gonnym It is your choice to send this template to deletion, not mine! Derek J Moore (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Gonnym - Stormdew (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 19

[edit]

Unused content tables. These should not be in templates anyways. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a template if those tables are used in article then there's very less probability of getting vandalism of those tables. Kaustubh42 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is being vandalized then request protection. We don't hide article content in templates. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and no reason for a template... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Kaustubh42 (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global Heat Maps by Year

[edit]

Deprecated graph template. The remaining article transclusions need to be either converted (if there is an alternative available) or removed and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These templates used to generate interactive maps, but there is no such ability in the Charts extension. The next best thing would be to create some SVG maps; see c:Commons:Map resources for help doing that. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Map

[edit]

Deprecated graph template. The remaining article transclusions need to be either converted (if there is an alternative available) or removed and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These templates used to generate interactive maps, but there is no such ability in the Charts extension. The next best thing would be to create some SVG maps; see c:Commons:Map resources for help doing that. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map with marks

[edit]

Deprecated graph template. The remaining article transclusions need to be either converted (if there is an alternative available) or removed and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These templates used to generate interactive maps, but there is no such ability in the Charts extension. The next best thing would be to create some SVG maps; see c:Commons:Map resources for help doing that. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Lines

[edit]

Deprecated graph template. The 9 remaining article transclusions need to be either converted (if there is an alternative available) or removed and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox residential college

[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 Withdrawn. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox residential college with Template:Infobox university.
I see nothing unique enough about Residential college that warrants a custom template. We've already merge 20+ variants to Infobox university, this seems prime for the same treatment. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The targets and emphasis of information are completely different. "Already merged 20+ variants" does not constitute a necessity and valid reason to merge these two. Cfls (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Cfls hasn't pointed out any specific thing that is different parameter-wise that makes the nomination incorrect. So leaning support until new information is presented. Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. A residential college is not a university, and, as Cfls has noted, the respective infoboxes rightly present different data. Having separate parameters for things like sister colleges, JCRs, boat clubs, titles of college heads, &c. continues to be of interest to these pages' visitors, and it might be unwise to lose them arbitrarily. There is no reason to lose this resolution and I fail to see what there would be to gain in such an ungainly lumping. Claudius Deirus (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are two different things. A residential college is typically a set of dormitories or "houses" within a college or university. It typically does not have things like academic departments, enrolled students, a sports mascot, professional schools (e.g. a law school or a business school), or the other trappings of a full university. The two things are too different for a merge to make sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This merge would create unnecessary bloat to a template that's already excessively bloated, and as others have already pointed out, a residential college and a university are two different things. There is not enough overlap to constitute a merge. AstroSloth12 (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two substantively different things. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:21, 17 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:Graph:Chart

[edit]

This template is no longer working due to the Graph extension chaos; uses need to be converted to use {{Chart}}. Because {{Chart}} requires files at Commons to function, this is best accomplished via GraphBot (talk · contribs) by changing {{Graph:Chart to {{PortGraph|name=Descriptive name for the file at Commons and leaving the rest of the template code alone. See this sample human edit which resulted in this bot edit. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert and delete per nom. We need to remove these sections of dead content from our articles. Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you expect to accomplish by bringing this to TfD now; people are already working on converted uses and every use requires the manual addition of a name, so shunting work that is already being done into the TfD holding cell does not accomplish much. But agree this should eventually be Deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 15

[edit]

Template:Lang-mnc

[edit]

Continuing with converting the leftovers from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September_27#Replace and delete lang-?? templates. Support has been added for the transliteration standards. See:

  • {{langx|mnc|ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ|Manju gisun|translit-std=mdorff}} → Manchu: ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ, romanized: Manju gisun
  • {{langx|mnc|ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ|Manzhu gisun|translit-std=hu}} → Manchu: ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ, romanized: Manzhu gisun
  • {{langx|mnc|ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ|Manju gisun|translit-std=Abkai}} → Manchu: ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᡤᡳᠰᡠᠨ, romanized: Manju gisun

It seems there is one article that uses more than one transliteration standard which currently isn't supported by langx. For that usage {{Transliteration}} can be used for the extra ones.

Replacing this template will add additional consistency with the rest of the langx system. Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not centred

[edit]

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

  • Comment: This template was created as humour; I was thinking maybe users would put it on their talk page as a parody of {{censor}}. Remember that humour templates aren't often actually used (does anyone really warn people using the uw-constructive templates?), they're more there to give people who stumble across them a good laugh. Newbzy (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Humour may sometimes be kept, but perhaps not in the form of a template like this? I don't know what the policy is. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, move it to userspace, since it's intended for user talk pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to no apparent policy supporting deletion. Policy and consensus pertaining to humor is murky; I've read through WP:HUMOR and WP:FOOLS to try to find some sense of what is allowed and what isn't allowed, and basically this isn't in the no-no namespaces (article, talk, help, and help talk) or hostile towards anyone or anything, however it should be noted that neither of those Wikipedia space pages are official policy. There's WP:NOTWEBHOST, but the silly template is not a "personal web page," is not something using Wikipedia as file storage, is not something trying to generate romantic leads, is not a memorial, and isn't content for a project unrelated to Wikipedia, so even that doesn't really apply here. I would not be opposed to userfying the template, and I personally don't see it particularly funny about it (WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT don't mean a hill of beans), but I'm not seeing any reason in policy to delete it. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC) PS The documentation for this template should emphasize that it is not to be used in the mainspace under any circumstance. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

[edit]

Template:Sierra Leonean English

[edit]

This template, designed for talk pages, is redundant to the 'British English' template. It has no equivalent 'Use Sierra Leonean English' template for use in articles. This has led to a mix of talk pages tagged with this template whilst their article pages are tagged with the 'Use British English' template. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgp4004: The article Sierra Leonean English is a stub and doesn't tell us which spelling they use, or if it is grammatically distinct from standard English. If it is the same as English, then delete, otherwise keep. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Singapore English

[edit]

As with the now deleted Use Malaysian English template, this template is redundant to Use British English. As stated on the template page, it is an instruction to use 'Singapore English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.' Dgp4004 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with {{Use British English}}. As the article at Singapore English says, "Standard Singapore English retains British spelling and grammar." The article notes differences in pronunciation, which do not matter for a written encyclopedia. The article also discusses "Singaporean Colloquial English, which is better known as Singlish", which uses grammar and word choices that we must not use in article prose, per MOS:COMMONALITY. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I will note there remains small vocabulary differences between British and Singapore English (chemist vs. pharmacy, crisps vs. potato chips, aubergine vs. brinjal, etc.). I don't think it's a significant enough difference to keep it, especially if the template instructs use of British English anyway (and as others have mentioned, MOS:COMMONALITY would take precedence in many of these cases anyway — even the Boots (company) article uses pharmacy). DonutHog (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article for Singapore English states that it is grammatically indistinguishable from British English. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{Use British English}} Christian75 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge (if needed) per nom - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to get rid of the Use Singapore English template, then should we not remove the Use Australian English template as well? Australian English is similar to British English, and the only difference is that the Australian Labor Party needs to be spelt in the American English variation. Icepinner 02:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Like user DonutHog said, there are differences in vocabulary, but I'm not sure if that warrants a separate template.
Take note that Singaporean editors may have different notions of what's considered "standard" English given that SgE is quite "endonormative" nowadays. Even though there are no differences in spelling between the two varieties, there may be some differences in syntax or word choice, but we can't expect every editor to know this.
Let's say editors are told to use "British English" in the prompt. I don't think there'd be any change to the style of writing honestly.
MiltonLibraryAssistant ❉ talk 07:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jiaozuo–Liuzhou Railway

[edit]

Single-use navigation template and the stations that it lists are inconsistent with {{Jiaozuo–Liuzhou railway RDT}}. Most links are redlinks. Several links go to disambiguation pages. I reached out to the creator but they're inactive. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pocket God

[edit]

Only 1 directly related link to the main topic: Pocket God (comics). Mika1h (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otherwise, studio articles would have one for every notable work that they worked on. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Australian Greens

[edit]

Not a country or similar, and I don't think we should use flags in lists with political parties normally, hardly recognisable at the size it would display anyway. Fram (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjacent place

[edit]

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

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

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 13

[edit]

Template:Universal page list

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 weeks later still unused. Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it won't be used as long as the text “This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy” appears in its page. --Grufo (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request de-nomination. According to our rules, a template should be nominated for deletion when:
  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.
Of these points, the only possible cause for nomination that can be argued to apply to this template must fall under point #3; however the nomination was done only two weeks after the template was created, and the nomination itself de facto freezes further transclusions. In requesting this de-nomination I also ask the admins to enforce the general rule that no template should ever be nominated for deletion due to point #3 unless it has been published for at least six months.
I believe it is a wise rule to implement in general, which can only benefit Wikipedia with no additional costs. Of course, once this template has been de-nominated, if after six months it meets the requirements of point #3, it can be nominated again for deletion. --Grufo (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you requesting this when you already stated you want this template kept? Logoshimpo (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Logoshimpo. The reason is that after this comment I noticed that an invalid argument was systematically being used, and I realized the very possibility of nominating freshly-created templates under point #3 is the cause. --Grufo (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators believe there is a valid reason for deletion under criterion 3 as you cite. 2 weeks is just as arbitrary as 6 months. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Not used, redundant and not needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal page list with custom separators

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 weeks later still unused. Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it won't be used as long as the text “This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy” appears in its page. --Grufo (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request de-nomination. See rationale at § Template:Universal page list. --Grufo (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This request doesn't seem valid when you already stated you want to keep this template. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What argument is this? I want to keep this template AND propose this rule, to avoid similar cases in the future. The rule would not apply only to this template, but to every template listed here. I could easily re-propose the same rule after this template gets deleted (which I hope does not happen, since I want to keep the template – because I consider it technically better than other similar templates). --Grufo (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Not used, redundant and not needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Infobox Chinese subpages

[edit]

Move the listed templates to the suggested location. This is an unusual case. I don't understand why these templates are all subtemplates of Template:Infobox Chinese. I was going to BOLDLY move them, but want to make sure I'm not missing something... It seems to me to somehow imply that all these languages and cultures are somehow a subset of Chinese which it totally inaccurate. Also was going to do this as a requested move but there is no way in that process to centralize the discussion, so I felt this was the best route.

Note that {{Infobox Korean}} is currently in VERY limited use (19 transclusions) as a redirect to {{Infobox Korean name}}. In order for this to work those 19 transclusions will need to first be converted to use {{Infobox Korean name}} which can easily be done in the WP:HOLDINGCELL

--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not. Many items using these templates are translated or referred to wikis of other languages to some extent, for many of them, the original source could be written in characters of Kanji, Hán-Nôm etc. A sudden change would cause confuse when conducting interlanguage linking and intertextual connection. HCCB3947 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:HCCB3947 can you elaborate? Redirects would be left behind and the templates would function EXACTLY as before. All we are talking about is giving them a new name... How old this affect interlanguage linking? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When people from other wikis using "translation" function to create an corresponding English item, because of the name of the template differs, the machine just won't allow them to adapt the template translation directly, EVEN IF there is a redirect left in the original, which causes inconvenience. Bi-/Multilingual Wikipedia editors would suffers. HCCB3947 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the old template still exists, and if the relation is moved to correspond to the new template (for example here for Infobox Chinese/Arabic) the translation functionality will not be affected. It will simply grab the new template name. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current naming scheme is really confusing. Need to check if Module:Infobox multi-lingual name needs updating or something. Pinging @Trappist the monk in case it does. Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any of these templates use Module:Infobox multi-lingual name. That may have been the intent long ago. I know that I did not finish the module's implementation. Pretty much any enthusiasm that I had for completing Module:Infobox multi-lingual name evaporated when I suffered a catastrophic computer failure and lost all of my notes about changes that I wanted/needed to make.
The documentation in Module:Infobox multi-lingual name suggests that there is some sort of support there for:
I tested {{infobox Chinese/Japanese}} in my sandbox (permalink) so there is summat there; whether it is usable, I don't know.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in support of most of the moves, but still not sure what's best to do with Infobox Korean name. Think having Infobox Korean and Infobox Korean name as separate things will be confusing. Reasoning is that we want people to use Infobox Korean name in like 99.9% of cases; the only time Infobox Korean (currently Infobox Chinese/Korean) should be called is when it's used in other infoboxes. I don't want to have people use this on accident because of naming confusion.
Also possibly Infobox Korean name should be moved to "Infobox Korean", just like "Infobox Chinese"; the "name" part probably not needed. grapesurgeon (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AeroRoutesRef

[edit]

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

Comment - if we do delete, can we make sure we replace it with a citation needed tag where it’s removed, since this would be a reference we’re removing? Danners430 tweaks made 16:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The given entry at WP:AEROROUTES does not state that the source is deprecated, just that the source is a self published source and not reliable. But for that matter, the blog is based on the industry-provided OAG-publications. Are these also an unsuitable source? The Banner talk 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate change and health

[edit]

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

Delete - Unused and unneeded. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to some of the articles, I'd add it to more in the future but now I can't as the deletion notice ruins article layout. I think this is a useful template for an important topic. Adam Harangozó (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine to withdraw. Please add it to the rest of the articles. Navigation templates should be placed on all pages it links to per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

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

Comment: if both do exactly the same thing (I haven't checked, but the function calls are different. One calls "auto" and the other "lie", which their function seems different), then I'd say "Link if exists" is the better name. Both are also currently lacking in documentation, with complete parameter description missing. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, the parameters of {{Link if exists}} and {{Auto link}} are non-overlapping (except for the first parameter, which is the title of an article that may be linked). {{Link if exists}} accepts |prefix= and |nsp=, both of which alter the namespace of the link. {{Auto link}} accepts a second parameter that is the text displayed by the template. Module:Link if exists implements the union of all of these parameters. Upon merging, both templates would accept the union of the parameters and there would only be one template not two. — hike395 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395 does the new module also do what Template:Link if exists with link text wants? It's not used so no idea if this is needed, but before I send it here, just making sure. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Yes, Template:Link if exists with link text implements the same behavior as the proposed merged template. I would note, however, that there are 0 mainspace transclusions of that template. — hike395 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think merging to get all of the parameters in one editor-facing template is a good idea. Note that since the merge was proposed, I have added |color= and |hide_display= to Module:Link if exists to support {{Category link if exists}}. I think those parameters should appear in the new template, and we can convert {{Category link if exists}} into a wrapper template.
I would propose that we keep {{Link if exists}} as the name of the merged template, per Gonnym. — hike395 (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China District Maps

[edit]

Very clunky and unhelpful, collapsed (see MOS:DONTHIDE) maps that blow up the Infobox when used (see Dehui for example). Each of the parent articles (for example {{Changchun districts}} → Changchun) has a much better version of the map in the body of the article. Do not need a map showing all the neighboring districts in each subsequent article. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox KR place

[edit]

Total of 5 article transclusions. No need for a custom wrapper. Just use {{Infobox settlement}}. Suggest replacing the 5 uses with Infobox settlement. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox administrative region of Bangladesh

[edit]

Recently created, still unused, custom wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. No need for yet another wrapper. Just use Infobox settlement... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:07, 13 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]

Template:Redirect category shell/meta

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T5 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub-template which also isn't linked from anywhere and doesn't have documentation explaining its existence. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forget why I created it but if it is not being used it is safe to delete. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies... -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:29, 14 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:Olympic type

[edit]

Unused Olympics-related template. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice in theory but unused and unnecessary. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Request for permission links/notify

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:T5 — MusikAnimal talk 02:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused probably after the parent template was converted to Lua with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 13 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:Review forum/styles.css

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T5 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after switching to helpbox with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:14, 13 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:Reviewing pending changes right place

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 13 November 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]

Template:ProvinciaIT/alpha-sort form

[edit]

Unused sub templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:59, 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 here; these are being stored as subpages for centralization purposes probably (given their age) with the intent of being used separately. Izno (talk) 05:50, 14 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]


November 12

[edit]

Template:North Star Athletic Association navbox

[edit]

Defunct college sports conference ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kururin series

[edit]

Has only links to 2 actual articles. Both articles are already included in the developer template Template:Eighting. Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mika1h It links to three articles now! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is still redundant since all 3 games are developed by Eighting and should be included in Template:Eighting. --Mika1h (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diego Maradona series

[edit]

Barely used. Violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and redundant to Template:Diego Maradona. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Please don't delete it. He is the greatest of all time. Do not remove this template from Wikipedia. BillieCrygor (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BillieCrygor: please read WP:ILIKEIT. Your arguments are invalid for this discussion. Why do we need ANOTHER template that duplicates {{Diego Maradona}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

November 11

Template:Uw-ablock

[edit]

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

  • Not "never"; there's ten blocks I can find with one or the other of these templates as the reason. All expired, at least. —Cryptic 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you proposing to delete these, update these, etc? Even though they are subst'd, I am not sure deletion is necessary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am proposing that they be deleted as the primary option, since there seems to be no practical and common use for these templates anymore. But if they are still useful in the form that they may be used in the block reason, then I'd say the substitution of these templates should be deprecated (i.e. tools like Twinkle should remove the options to substitute the IP-only block templates) since there is no notification system for IP user talk pages anymore, hence no point in placing them any longer. I should also make it clear that I am not asking for existing substitutions of all "Anonymous user(s) from this IP address have been blocked ..." block notices to be removed, especially considering that we aren't going after and deleting every single legacy IP talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Related: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2231 (block: have the block evasion preset show for temporary accounts). In other words, we may code Twinkle to use {{Uw-ipevadeblock}} on temporary accounts user talk pages, at least temporarily. We need to get a block evasion preset into the Twinkle block module for temporary accounts since it's a common block reason. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Centrism US

[edit]

This template is new and being added to many over-templated pages. There is not, in fact, a specific page on Centrism in the United States - only an article on Centrism. The U.S. is essentially a two party state (owing to First Past the Post voting) with no centre party. Thus the contents of this template are being manufactured by adding anyone and anything described as a centrist in their particular party. It creates a kind of WP:OR in the collation. We have a category that acts as a taxonomy. The creation of an intrusive SIDEBAR taxonomy duplicates this, and does not provide anything meaningful to the reader.

Because these templates are intrusive, and this one is being added to pages that already have political templates, it needs discussion. I do not, in fact, think it meets any of the 4 WP:TFD#REASONS but it was created without consensus, and so I think its existence or otherwise needs a discussion and consensus under TFD: Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this template is a useful sidebar. Yes, the U.S. is a de facto 2 party state due to the disadvantage for third parties in the electoral college, but we still have U.S. sidebars for lots of other influential ideologies in the U.S. that aren't solely represented by either of the 2 major parties (i.e. Libertarianism, Progressivism, Socialism, Modern liberalism, etc.). Moreover, Centrism (why not purely ideologically unified) is a large movement in the United States represented by many independent voters and advocated for by organizations on which we have detailed Wikipedia articles (such as No Labels, Bipartisan Policy Center, Reform Party of the United States). If we still have a utility for sidebars on other ideologies (like Libertarianism, which is a smaller movement in the U.S. than Centrism), we should maintain a sidebar for Centrism. Aunger67 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFull of WP:OR and clutters already cluttered pages. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the reasons provided by Sirfurboy, this template's existence contributes to numerous WP:BLP violations in its usage on various politicians' articles where it has been added without discussion or verification. Majority of the politicians included in the template are not mentioned in Centrism in the United States. It should be deleted. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The user who started this thread seems to be attempting to micromanage editor collaboration on the template, and is now trying to get the entire sidebar removed from Wikipedia after no one took his side. I had attempted to make edits on other pages, abiding by his suggestions, but he only moved the goalpost after I did so. Unless there is a greater consensus for this sidebar to be removed, I support keeping it. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RideTheLightning99: You're making an assumption of motivation without sufficient evidence. You are expected to assume good faith of other editors. Focus on content, not the contributor lest you run afoul of the civility policy. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This provides no logical reasoning to keep. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Serious risk of OR and arguably potential BLP vio (as it is a strictly political term, it can be a loaded one). Lack of an article on the specific subject hurts as well; would be better if such a page existed to better clarify what gets included and why. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there is not a specific page on Centrism in the United States, then it fails WP:SIDEBAR #4 . There are quite a few WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issues, and on many of the articles I looked at, there is no clear discussion of the topic (Centrism) in the article when landing in a specific section, which makes this fail points 1, 2, & 3 of WP:SIDEBAR. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is entirely original research. Literally Arnold Schwarzenegger is found within the template, but who is determining the qualification? The article of Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't even mention the word once. So would moderate constitute centrism? Many BLP violations, but primarily original research. It seems that one user who has an obsession with sidebars is reviving the usage of this out of nowhere. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these cluttered sidebars are a net negative, and this one is even worse. The word centrism is almost never used in these articles, and we don't even have an article on "centrism in the United States". An arbitrary assemblage of links. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It suffered from bloat and then a butchering process. It's pretty much useless now. The only part that isn't getting constantly challenged is the related topics tab. I'm not convinced that an article wouldn't have the same issues, especially when there was no consensus on how much coverage qualified mention in the sidebar and there was disagreement over whether centrism was related to the left-right spectrum or just bipartisanship. Catboy69 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing entries that are not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is not butchering. The error is in thinking a SIDEBAR should be an exhaustive taxonomy. We use categories for those. An article would be better, because in an article, WP:V can be used to insist that we are following reliable and independent secondary sources to write the subject, and not just creating a collection out of our own heads. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Template:Mohamed Muizzu

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bullfighting career

[edit]

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

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

Keep The "Spanish" parameters are used in the English article about bullfighting. Probably the right terms. Christian75 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 10 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]

Template:Belarusian Athletics Championships

[edit]

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

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]

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]

Template:Vibe

[edit]

One redirect and repeated later as a direct link. Mostly just links to related articles. Nothing to the band outside of the main article. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No direct links to the band's actual content other than the main link. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic needs of navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Say Sue Me

[edit]

Three links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 links and seems fine to me. I'd remove the non-link member names. It's a navbox meant to link to pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic needs of a navbox and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soul Company

[edit]

Fails NENAN - for not everything needs a navbox. All links are able to be found on the main article. This does not require or need a navbox. No other links outside organization members exist for Soul Company. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic needs of a navbox and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drunken Tiger

[edit]

Only two links outside main article and one redirect. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic needs of a navbox and WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tang Dynasty

[edit]

Per NENAN. All links can be found through the main article. There isn't much of a difference that this template is doing in terms of navigation than what is already on the band's main article and articles on their albums. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic needs of a navbox and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Call (band)

[edit]

Fails NENAN. All links can be found through the band's main article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian politics by time in office

[edit]

No longer needed as articles have been redirected or deleted. Only two articles are transcluded by other navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic needs of a navbox and WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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🍁

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]

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]

Template:History of Argentina

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Culture sidebars part 7

[edit]

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

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]

October 27

Template:Infobox London station

[edit]

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

  • Lean support (see updated comment below) - generally I am in favor of this type of merge. We should not have custom templates for different localities that do the same thing for consistencies sake. This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} and {{Infobox US metropolitan area}} both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}} for example. HOWEVER, {{Infobox London station}} is widely used with over 850+ transclusions. At first glance, there are a number of parameters in it that are NOT present in {{infobox station}} so a straight merge could result in a significant loss of data. The real question there is are there too many params in {{Infobox London station}}? Could it use with some trimming down to be consistent with station articles around the world? I would say yes, but that needs to be part of this discussion.
@Smithr32: it might be helpful to do a param comparison chart (here is an example) of what data would be lost in this process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, potential data loss needs to be addressed first. -MJ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the data loss may be necessary, may be an improvement, may be good overall... But right now it isn't clear WHAT will be lost and that is what needs to be addressed.
@Smithr32: here is my 2 cents... I would withdraw the nomination for now. I would do a detailed analysis of what would be removed and start that discussion on Template talk:Infobox London station. Once there is a detailed breakdown of exactly what changes are being proposed, come back and renominate the templates for merger. Then you will have more information and people like myself, MJ and all the others who patrol TFDs will be in a position to make informed comments.
The problem is that right now we have no idea what will be changing and most of us are unwilling to dive into the research to figure it out so will likely just vote to keep it as is since there are too many unknowns...
If you decide to go this route, feel free to {{ping|Zackmann08}} me and I can help you close the TFD. Again, withdrawing the TFD does not preclude you from renominating it at a future time! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zackmann08, I'll work on a comparison list betweens params in London station and Infobox station. Passenger count for previous years can be featured in the main article as a section instead of a long infobox. Smithr32 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please remove "‹ The template Infobox station is being considered for merging. ›" which is shown at the top of every page using Infobox station? Its completely irrelevant for most articles like Węgliniec railway station which has nothing to do with London. I think it should only be shown above pages that use Infobox London station. Fortek67 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying a merger notice is standard practice for all infobox templates, plus it allows interested parties who frequently edit Infobox station to add input on this merger proposal. Cards84664 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant for every article that uses either template. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Please revert your edit hiding the notice from Infobox station. Cards84664 06:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Message restored to 57,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For how more longer will this message be on pages? Can we just limit it to pages with categories in the United Kingdom? Fortek67 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should show up for all articles currently using "Template:Infobox London station". It's not relevant to every train station article on Wikipedia. –Fpmfpm (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. I can't support a merger that would result in data loss with no indication of what data will be lost and no justification for losing that data. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now until a proposal can be put forward that addresses the data loss issue. — The Anome (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Template:Infobox London station works perfectly well as it is. Nominations containing phrases like "modern up-to-date" and "hasn't been updated in years" are a red flag. We are not some advertising agency in the business of persuading the client to part with thousands of pounds for the agency to "update" the website in the expectation that they will return eighteen months later with another wad of cash for another pointless "update". There is no issue with Infobox London station that could be fixed by merging, and it would bring about a whole bunch of hassle. Have any perceived shortfalls in Infobox London station been raised at Template talk:Infobox London station, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? Answer: no. Has a potential merger been suggested at those same pages? Answer: no, again. How often does Smithr32 (talk · contribs) work on London station articles? Answer: never. How often does Smithr32 work on station articles of any kind? Answer: extremely rarely. In fact, I can find only two articles about railway stations with edits by Smithr32: Reading Green Park railway station and West Malling railway station, neither of which use Template:Infobox London station; and between them, they have no more than five edits by Smithr32, none of which involved the infobox. In short: Smithr32, what does this have to do with you? Why do you want us to go through all this grief again? Five years on, I am still waiting for answers to some of the questions that I asked during that debacle. I say again: Oppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have to edit London transport articles to know it makes more sense to use the main station template. 👀 Smithr32 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality does not help progress the discussion. Focus your criticism on the edits being proposed here, and not the editor. Cards84664 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will second what User:Cards84664 said. I too find User:Redrose64's overwhelming WP:OWN mentality troubling. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal not on attacking the nominator for not discussing with the right people. WP:TFD is the proper avenue for this discussion and the notices atop tens of thousands of articles are meant to draw people to the discussion. If you object that others weren't notified, FIXIT and notify them. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing my point. Why was this merge not suggested at the WikiProjects before a TfD was raised? The feasibility and method could have been discussed by the people who actually use the templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this Infobox has been tailored for its specific needs and if merged into the generic Infobox station, would lose the parameters and information it gives the general public about. Saying that it "has not been updated for many years" is wrong as it is updated yearly with the latest data when possible. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm going to restate what I said in 2020: it's not all obvious why London, and only London, needs its own infobox. This is what I said then: "There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for the entire rest of the planet." The attitude of certain members of the UKRAIL project hasn't changed. If the idea didn't originate there, from one of their own, they're not interested. The outcome of that 2020 TfD included a senior editor maintaining a years-long public grudge against the nominator, which is unprofessional at best. Template consolidation is an accepted principle. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate hidden minefields for the unwary. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mackensen. There is no need to have a special template with completely different formatting and parameters for one city with <1.5% of total station articles. If there are more than a handful of London-specific parameters that are somehow essential (which I doubt), then this template should be turned into a wrapper for {{infobox station}} with those extra parameters. Certainly, the parameters for decades of ridership data are superfluous and do not need to be transferred - they violate the principle from WP:INFOBOX that The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That being said, I do think there should be some more discussion on which parameters make their way into {{Infobox station}}. I see no reason why we can't merge parameters unique to the London station infobox into the main one. However, I agree with Pi.1415926535 that some parameters might be better off omitted from the infobox – personally I'd rather they be included in the article body, if at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Long overdue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing my initial lean support to support. This is a good faith effort by the nominator to merge a template that is long overdue for a merge. There are certainly concerns about what will be removed and what will not, but those discussions can take place in the holding cell. There is MUCH precedent for this such as the recently created {{Infobox social media personality}} and {{Infobox gridiron football biography}}. Both were EXTENSIVE merges of multiple templates. The TFD agreed to merge, then numerous editors discussed how and what to merge vs what to remove. The only objections thus far have been 100%, pure WP:OWNERSHIP complaints. This is a definite yes in my book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Zackmann. Parameter omissions and additions can be hashed out in the merger process. There is no reason why we need an infobox for specific locations, and ten other Infobox templates have already been merged into Infobox station since 2014. Cards84664 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Couple of suggestions above that the infobox contains decades of passenger data. This is not the case with only the last five years shown on each station article. MRSC (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely nothing special about London stations that justifies this template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inclined to Oppose. I think there are plenty of parameters of the current infobox that cannot just be displayed in the newer infobox.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some examples of which parameters cannot be displayed on the newer infobox? I'm currently doing a parameter comparison on my Sandbox page with the main Infobox station template. Smithr32 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support for now, per Mackensen, on the condition that we can discuss exactly which parameters can be merged (rather than just redirecting the template and calling it a day). For example, a couple things I noticed:
  • The London template uses a lot of historical ridership data. Should these be kept or deleted when the infoboxes are merged?
  • The London template has some London-specific parameters like original, pregroup, and postgroup, along with some London-specific external links. Should these be retained?
  • London stations have specific accessibility categories; how should these be handled?
Overall though, in the long run, merging these templates will increase the ease of maintenance, as it means that we don't have to maintain one infobox for most of the world and ten other templates for very specific locales. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion results in "merge", I sincerely hope the passenger usage statistics on this and all other GB rail station articles are retained. As a casual reader I find this *incredibly* useful Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear what improvement would be achieved by merging the London station template with the generic version. There are specific features of the London station template that are not present in the generic version that would need to be added; for example the London station templates use of a set of subtemplates (i.e. {{Tubeexits2023}}) that add the usage data automatically so that individual articles don't need to be amended when new data becomes available. My biggest concern is that the the generic version is completely locked off from editing except by a Template editor.
DavidCane (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Emperor of Byzantium: Can you clarify your comment on coding, I'm not sure what the correlation between railway stations in Greece and railway stations in London is, you are already using Infobox station and can always suggest parameter adjustments. Cards84664 15:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cards84664, it’s in response to both ‘Infobox station’ templates possible losing data (if merged to create one signal Infobox?) its impact on other railway Inboxes (Greece in this case), and the fact with 2500+ railway stations in the UK… it will be a lot of work correcting the errors created by this decision… I only mention Greek railway stations because, of the work involved in creating less than 300 stations, and updating the Infoboxs of 2500+ worries me of the amount of work involved… it’s not a criticism of standardised of the Infoboxs, it’s the worry more articles will need to be ‘fixed’ ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Emperor of Byzantium: Nothing's being removed from Infobox station, we are going to be determining which features from Infobox London station are being carried over to Infobox station. Cards84664 01:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cards84664, thank you for your quick response! Appreciate you put my concerns to rest! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian alphabet sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Copyright violation

[edit]

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

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

October 23

Template:Death date and age text

[edit]

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

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

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.