Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Template:Integralism

< November 1
November 3 >

November 2

[edit]

Template:Annual readership

[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) 23:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a longer nomination. The short version: the new Charts extension is not suited to replace this template, and therefore this template should be deleted as redundant to pageviews.wmcloud.org.

This template has been broken since the Graph extension was disabled. It was nominated for deletion, but was kept and wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude> in the hopes that the Chart extension would save the day and get it working again.

The old Graph extension used the pageviews API directly. There is no such capability in the Charts extension. To mimic this functionality, we would need a bot at Wikimedia Commons (Charts are hosted at Commons) to update the data. A bot would need to upload 53,000 charts—more as the template gets added to extra pages—and update them every so often. We would also need permission from the Commons community to run a bot there. All of that effort... or we can just link to pageviews.wmcloud.org, which allows for comparison between pages, arbitrary time frames, filtering by views on mobile/desktop, and other additional functionality which would not be easily replicated by a bot. We would also need someone to code the bot, and I suspect most bot coders will ask why pageviews.wmcloud.org is insufficient.

My proposed solution is delete the template, which will also help with banner blindness. We need fewer banners so that editors actually see the more important ones, like {{contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Frequently asked questions}}. We could include a link to pageviews.wmcloud.org in {{talk header}} if people feel that the link already provided by the MoreMenu gadget is insufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well argued nomination. Redundant to wmcloud.org. No need to keep broken code laying around. If someone DOES want to make this work, better to just WP:BLOWITUP anyway. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Newbzy (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more is less User:Easternsaharareview and this 02:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (WP:PAGEVIEW quickly and easily provides this information if and when needed). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Alex26337 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems like this is a WP:SNOW consensus. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an experimental alternative pageviews charting template is available at {{Xreadership}}, and could be upgraded to replace {{annual readership}}, keeping the old name as a redirect. It isn't so much that I object to deletion of the content of the {{Annual readership}} template itself—I am actually okay with that—what I object to is the removal (presumably by bot) of all the transclusions of it, so we would lose the memory of where it was located, thus making a transition to using the new template via redirect more difficult. For now, we should just replace the template content with nil but leave it in place. Then a separate decision can be made about whether and how to upgrade the new template (which will require bot assistance to avoid a manual step) and replacing it with a redirect to the new template. Currently there are 50 transclusions of {{Xreadership}}, half are up to date, the remainder are stale. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Xreadership}} still requires updating data on-wiki, with the same drawbacks mentioned (no comparison, fixed timeframes, no filtering by mobile/desktop). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is true. However, all of those are a function of its initial design as a stopgap intended to disappear and be replaced by a plug-and-play reactivation of {{Annual readership}} which would "just work" with the new extension, after altering the string Graph: to Chart: At least, that was the impression I was under for the two years or whatever it was while Charts was in development, and I am pretty sure many people thought the same. Clearly, things did not turn out that way, rendering {{Annual readership}}, in its current form, useless, and thus a deletion nom a reasonable response.
    But Xreadership with a bot-assist (already in the works) is not useless. Admittedly, it does not have all the features you mentioned, partly due to its conception as a throwaway, but it already has enough features to be useful, and some of the things you listed could easily be added, or already are part of the design. In particular, it was designed to be mobile-friendly, and whereas Annual readership was useless on mobile for periods longer than a few weeks because the vertical bars got squeezed into illegible lines, Xreadership does not suffer from this, as the bars are horizontal, and the Xreadership charts look much the same on mobile as they do on desktop. As far as 'no comparisons', not quite sure what you mean, but if {{Annual readership}} offered comparisons of two pages, I was unaware of it. There are other missing features, like log scale, but it is designed to easily handle that as an upgrade. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to say that the external tool allows comparing pages, and you can specifying any timeframe you want, and looking at page views coming from mobile vs. desktop (I wasn't talking about whether the template is mobile-friendly, but rather whether it can say "we got X views from mobile" or "Y views from desktop"). For instance, here is a comparison of the pageviews of Cat, Dog, and my userpage from desktop users between October 10 and October 23: [1]. You can do this for arbitrary pages without waiting for a bot to come around and update an onwiki page. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, indeed, and nevertheless, numerous editors have thought it was useful and worthwhile enough to take the time to add {{Annual readership}} to 50,000 article Talk pages over the years, even though the more powerful features you describe were always available in Tools the whole time. That is not an insignificant figure, and some editors will no doubt continue to find it useful to have the ability to see page views on the Talk page, even lacking the multi-page or multi-device comparisons available in the tool. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Template:Annual readership/doc, I see no guidance whatsoever on which articles it is appropriate to place the template and which it is not. Given that, I presume the list of articles that included the template is basically a list of places where someone happened to have a personal preference for it and decided that it was worth the banner bloat. That's not a very cohesive strategy, and as such I don't think the list is particularly valuable info. Sdkb talk 21:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance at {{section sizes}} isn't much more than that: "To be used on the talk pages of very long articles, or in discussion of other articles where it is desired to show the sizes of subsections." Is that all that's needed? So, if I modify the objective on the doc page of {{Annual readership}} to add, "...or on talk pages where it is desired to show the page views of the corresponding article", that would change things wrt guidance? What's wrong with someone simply making a bold edit to add a pageviews graph based on pure, personal preference, and then everybody else leaving it there because they seem to like it? At some point, it isn't just personal preference anymore, and now we have, or at least, had, 50,000 of them. Isn't that worthy of some level of respect? Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot, the problem with leaving decisions like this up to personal preference at individual pages is that we make better decisions when they're centralized. There's a debate to be had about whether/when the benefit of this outweighs the banner bloat concern. It'd be one thing if that debate was had when this template was introduced, with considered perspectives from editors who care about talk page design, resulting in documented guidance. It's another to have a bunch of separate instances where someone said, "eh, I like it, might as well", and either no one noticed or no one felt strongly enough about it to fight it (banner bloat often happens by a thousand cuts). It's too late to have that debate now. But without it, I don't see any evidence that there was ever affirmative consensus that introducing this template was a good idea. Cheers, Sdkb talk 17:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sdkb talk 21:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose deletion, I see value in opening a bug with the WMF and getting an integration of the annual readership API with the Charts extension instead of deleting the template completely (which at a technical level is "not that hard" on the scale of technical work if a volunteer wants to take it up). The template I think has a place on talk pages with a lot of traffic (which is it's usecase?) and it's primary audience is not editors, but rather the fact it allows non-contributors/readers interested in the backrooms (who might not have accounts and thus be unfamiliar with MoreMenu or the pageviews.wmcloud.org domain) to visualize the readership of a article. -- Sohom (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per concerns listed in the nomination's rationale. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replacing this with a talk header link to the specific graph would be a good idea. A whole lot of people are going to be unaware of this and linking it in context would be helpful. For example, I use PageViews a lot, yet I wasn't even aware you could add it to the More menu until I stumbled upon this discussion. --Joy (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my experience, most of the time, this template does not appear, and it is not as important as other talk page templates, such as {{Talk header}}, {{WikiProject banner shell}}, {{Censor}}, {{Contentious topics/talk notice}}, and {{British English}}. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom put it well. Cheers! 123957a (talk) 20:48, 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:Muizzu sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only six articles exist for the subject in their navbox. There is no need for a sidebar. Much of this is clutter to links to article sections and links with no direct relevance. No need and not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another classic example of WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. UnilandofmaTalk 15:11, 3 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:Simon Harris sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to two articles of direct relevance. Rest are to article sections or political positions. Fails navigation. Not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of these articles are only loosely linked to the subject. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:09, 3 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:British barrelled name

[edit]

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

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

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

  • Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
    And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is there a need for this to be the most prominent disclaimer about most people? Hatnotes are great where many readers need this information. But why do we think the exact structure of the surname is the key attribute many people will be interested in? meamemg (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page and we should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person using MOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing about Helena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Jonesey95. This template is pretty darn clear about how to use it and why it exists. The nominator admitted I don't understand what this template is for which is one step away from IDONTLIKEIT. Not understanding is what the template's talk page is for, not what TFD is for. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping but renaming, per PamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong feelings about it being either kept or deleted, but as some users have pointed out if it were to say it should be changed to "double-barrelled", which is normal English usage. Keivan.fTalk 04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it says "barrelled" (which I agree is weird) as opposed to "double-barrelled" because some such surnames have more than two parts, such as Vane-Tempest-Stewart – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but we shouldn't be re-inventing English usage for our convenience. "Barrelled" is not used in that way; "double-barrelled" and "triple-barrelled" are. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My latest article Verité Reily Collins gives an example of where it is helpful. Her surname is Reily Collins, which she got from her father, her first name is Verité. The banner make this clear. Unfortunately Germaine Greer was unable to consult Wikipedia in 1970 and therefore in The Female Eunuch Ms. Greer gave her the sole surname of "Collins". This is left unchanged in the article's text as a direct quote, but in a subliminal way it explains why Reily Collins is used elsewhere in the article. Ms. Greer is a long term UK resident but it would not be unusual even for Brits/Commonwealth readers to trip up on this, and so it is helpful to clarify. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a bit niche, but usage has been well explained. Moving because this has utility outside of British names sounds reasonable but should be done through WP:RM. As for consolidation with other templates, show me a demo merged version first so functionality can be tested then we'll talk. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" rather than being specifically British or "barrelled". Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to the generic "Double-barrelled name" as per Eilidhmax and others- this isn't British-specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to 'Template:Double-barelled surname'. The hatnote is not for editors but for readers,; just as it is helpful for readers to know that the 'Kim' in Kim Jong Un is his family name, it is useful to know the 'Bonham Carter' in Helena Bonham Carter is her family name. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 21:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Template:Family name hatnote or rephrase to mimic that template's wording. Both FNH, {{Spanish married name}} and this template exist because the family name of a subject is not simply the last word in the person's name. Nobody here seems to dispute that FNH and SMN are useful; the only difference seems to be that editors are more familiar with the British convention, IMHO a clear instance of language bias. On the other hand, I don't like that this template says how a person's surname "should" be written, as we aren't in the business of telling people what they should do. My preferred phrasing is "In this double-barrelled name, the surname is {{{1}}}." Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The specific Britishness should be mentioned as the various traditions function differently and serve different purposes. For "barrelled" vs "double-barrelled", is worth mentioning that barrelled surnames are not limited to being double; There are triple and quadruple-barrelled surnames as well, for example "Montagu Douglas Scott" which does not contain any hyphens, making the actual surname hard to distinguish unless directly specified.— Cosmic6811 T/C 04:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per ChrysGalley, Jonesey95, Zackmann08 and Cosmic6811. –CybJubal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Although "double-barrelled" is the more common version, there are those who have more, as Admiral Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax can attest. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sub2

[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 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard special-purpose character-format. We have long had general ways to subscript a "2", or any number, or superscript any number, in chemical formulas, either as regular HTML or as {{sub}} or {{chem2}}, etc. Only use is User:Yhynerson1/ECS, and that user has been gone for 7+ years. Propose substitute and delete the template. The userspage page itself is at best an abandoned draft related to Standard electrode potential (data page). DMacks (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a Pandora's Box we do not want to open. Do we make {{sub3}}, {{sub4}}? etc. {{sub|2}} produces the same thing and takes one extra character to write... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only "subn" or "supn" we appear to have, so it's not even part of a self-consistent deprecated approach. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 2 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:Mishustin sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 November 14. Izno (talk) 05:23, 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:Zhirinovsky sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 November 14. Izno (talk) 05:23, 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:Medvedev sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox exists for the subject that is much better in terms of scope for navigation. And while that navbox could use an improvement, a sidebar is not necessary. Not every world leader and/or politician needs a sidebar. And there is nothing that this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR there is no need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Add any relevant missing links to the bottom navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 2 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:Members of the Imperial Russian State Dume (Kharkov Governorate)

[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 00:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All have less than five links. Third template only links to one article three times. Fails navigation per NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unhelpful and unneeded. WP:NENAN. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:43, 2 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:Electoral history of Russian presidents

[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 03:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a link to an article section. No need. Already covered by other navboxes. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially duplicates Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:34, 2 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:Continental Asia in 10000 BP

[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 03:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Concerns of OR two years ago. Not sure if they were resolved. If maps OR concerns can be fixed and used then we can keep, but if not - delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created over 2 years ago and isn't transcluded anywhere. The small barely noticeable link on the image is not how we handle maps. If the map isn't used in any article it isn't needed. Those links should be deleted. Links between non-article pages on templates should only be available for navigation on the template itself (or its doc page), and should be hidden on transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, unhelpful and unneeded. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:11, 3 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:Integralism

[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 relisted on 2025 November 14. Izno (talk) 05:27, 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]
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 relisted on 2025 November 14. Izno (talk) 05:40, 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.