Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 14#Template:Pocket God

< November 13
November 15 >

November 14

[edit]

Template:Sierra Leonean English

[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. Izno (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Use Singapore English

[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. Izno (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Keep Singaporean English is not identical to British English and is a commonly spoken and official standard of Singapore. I see no reason why the Singaporean English template would be deleted while the Hong Kong English template and many others are kept. The Malaysian rationale listed in the nomination is faulty, English is not an official language in Malaysia and is not widely spoken as the primary language of the population like Singaporean English is. SigillumVert (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SigillumVert: I think it would help to document how the formal standardized and academic English of Singapore differs from that of the United Kingdom. If there are significant differences, then the impetus should be to keep the template (and the template should quickly/easily show which differences readers should look for).
    Malaysian English has an official status in that country: National Language Act 1963/67 (Revised 1971) states: "Continued use of English may be permitted [...]Use of English language may be permitted in Parliament and Legislative Assembly[...] (d) of all Ordinances promulgated by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, shall be in the national language and in the English language[...]"
    A similar document comparing formal standardized English in Malaysia and such in the UK would be helpful too.
    For the purposes of ENGVAR I count Malaysia as an "English-speaking country", but I pretty much use British English while doing so.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being pedantic I would like to point out that while English in Malaysia is recognised, it is not an official language. [1] is a good visualiser. Malay is the sole national language. Unlike in Singapore (where Malay is also a national language) the other languages, including English, are co-official. It is also the medium of instruction in education and is generally ubiquitous in Singapore like in no other Asian country.
    As for the template I think we should perhaps update the words used to highlight the difference, but deleting it just seems inconsistent and regressive. SigillumVert (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true the government of Malaysia didn't make English the official or a co-official language, so that's why I wrote it has an "official status" (to show it has some legal of recognition, and explaining why I still treat Malaysia as an English speaking country for ENGVAR purposes).
    If you want I can see if I can find any government documents or textbooks that highlight official English grammar/spelling in education, business, and the government in Singapore. Such a document would be crucial in proving that this template should be kept.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are able to find something that'd be swell. I know the vocabulary differences off the top of my head, but I'm not sure if I know any government document regarding that. I found this paper [2] that states that there is, indeed, a difference between British English and Singaporean English; and that SSE has a different standard to BrE.
    Also in British English collective nouns can take plural verb forms for example "The team are winning." while Singaporean English uses strict singular agreement "The team is winning." SigillumVert (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From your own source: "I have observed that the differences between what I used to call ‘Singapore Standard English’ and the Standard English of other regions is minimal: the very few differences that have been suggested as distinctively Singaporean...are not enough to warrant its being a distinct dialect." Dgp4004 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The author argues that the differences between English varieties are exaggerated in general and makes the case for the existence of a single 'Standard English dialect'. Following this strictly would mean doing away with all engvar templates. SigillumVert (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of other redundant templates is not a good reason to retain this one. Several have been deleted these past few weeks and I've no doubt others will follow. Neither is the status of English within Singapore a reason to retain the template. This template does not exist in order to alert readers to the status of English in a country. It is intended to guide bots and editors as to which spelling to use. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:26, 21 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:Jiaozuo–Liuzhou Railway

[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. ✗plicit 14:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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:Pocket God

[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. ✗plicit 14:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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:Country data Australian Greens

[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. ✗plicit 14:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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: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]
@Gadfium: what makes New Zealand different from every other country and community on wikipedia? Why is it that ONLY {{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} gets its own custom adjacent places template? (Which by the way is marked as deprecated in the documentation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} no longer uses adjacent place. It just hasn't been removed from the template. However, articles on NZ suburbs use the adjacent place extensively. Before that was available, the infobox had its own custom fields. I was not aware until now (or perhaps have forgotten) that adjacent place appears to have been written specifically for use with NZ suburbs. It does provide greater flexibility than having the functionality in the infobox. If adjacent place is deleted, the script to do so should return the content to the infobox rather than replace it with adjacent communities, unless as I said before, adjacent communities can be improved to not wreck article layout.-Gadfium (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Adjacent communities does not serve the same function as this template. I'd elaborate, but it's 3:30 AM. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 14:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piperium: Can you explain now? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjacent communities is for external countries and takes up a large amount of space in the middle of the page; adjacent place is used primarily for New Zealand places and takes up a small amount of place on the side of the page, and is often described by the text.
so they're pretty similar from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 09:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piperium {{Adjacent communities}} is NOT for external countries.... It is, as the name clearly states, for communities that are adjacent. How is this any different than adjacent place? Additionally, the params are marked as deprecated... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My fliggly diggle, I meant {{Adjacent communities}} is for places outside of New Zealand, whereas the other template is primarily used in New Zealand[3] from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 00:00, 21 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]