Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 24

< November 23
November 25 >

November 24

[edit]

Template:Roman–Persian Wars timeline

[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) 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would be ok with subst to article, but this is practically an article itself. Really not useful as a sidebar and should really be removed and the contents transferred to the body of the article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:24, 25 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 dependencies chief justices

[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) 17:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom this is not useful and fails the requirements of a navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:24, 25 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:Bundesstraße nn

[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) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should not be listing every junction the highways have in the infobox. Instead, we shall be listing only the most important junctions the highways currently has.--~2025-35594-96 (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these articles would have been translated from their equivalents on the German Wikipedia where they put the full junction list in the infobox. On the English Wikipedia, our project guidelines say to list a summary and to put the full list in the body of the article in a table that follows the formatting from MOS:RJL.
Either the templates should be moved out of the infobox, or the information within them should be moved out and the templates deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates don't follow MOS:RJL then the information should be converted into a table that follows and the templates deleted. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 2 December 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:Show SVG

[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 December 4. (non-admin closure) =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:18, 4 December 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:Break lines

[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) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another in a long line of bulk imports from a foreign wiki. Completely redundant to {{Poem}}. No reason to have a second template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:11, 24 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:Template journal parameter

[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) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Para. Another import from a foreign wiki that has been essentially unused for years. Note I say "essentially" because it technically is used, but only because the creator inserted it into Template:Semantic markup templates which transcludes it across multiple template doc pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure what other wiki you believe this template has been imported from. --Grufo (talk) 17:02, 24 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.
[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 December 2. Izno (talk) 17:08, 2 December 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:Url to title

[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) 17:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another unhelpful and unneeded template that the creator has bulk imported from another wiki. If you need the page title, just extract it from the URL. I see no scenario in which this would be used in a template to extract the pagename. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what other wiki you believe this template has been imported from. --Grufo (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a substitution template (whose usage cannot be inferred from the transclusion count) that facilitates the transcription of page titles when we only have their URLs:
    {{subst:url to title|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history}}
    ↳ Main Page
--Grufo (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot figure out the page title from that URL you are not going to have the knowledge to use a substitution template to generate the title... Seriously what is the ACTUAL use case where you have a URL but don't know what the title of the page that URL goes to it? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can figure out the page. But if you have, let's say, this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24, you currently have three options:
  1. Take the Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24 part and manually replace (one by one) all the underscores with spaces
  2. Copy and paste the Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24 part into a text editor and globally replace all the underscores with spaces (usually not feasible on mobile devices)
  3. Just paste it inside the {{subst:url to title}} template
When the URLs are many, avoiding the third solution can become cumbersome. Furthermore, this template can be exploited as a metatemplate by other templates that require a full url (the diff templates are good examples). --Grufo (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be noted that the text editor already auto converts the URL to a page title... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The visual editor you mean? We don't force people to use the visual editor. --Grufo (talk) 19:51, 24 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:Debug

[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 December 2. Izno (talk) 17:32, 2 December 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:Further discussions

[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) 17:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not needed and not helpful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:26, 24 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:Template data

[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) 17:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a built-in mechanism for nicely and neatly formatting TemplateData. Why would you complicate that by using a template to do it? This is unused and has no use case. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no other way to transclude templates in the templatedata object. With this template you can do| example 3 = {{#time:Y-m-d|now}} to show "example": "2025-12-05", but you cannot do the same via "example": "{{#time:Y-m-d|now}}" --Grufo (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can use {{#tag:templatedata|...}} for what Grufo suggested. You don't need this baroque template efffectively written in a custom language rather than standard wikitext to do that. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is like Microsoft bringing out a new framework every couple of years to "simplify" programming. OMG. TemplateData looks complex so lets add a template so now everyone needs to understand two systems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 1 December 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:Px

[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) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unhelpful and no use case that I can think of. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:17, 24 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:If then show verbatim

[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) 17:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you ever use this? Claims that it can be substituted... Why would you need a template to format verbatim text? Just copy and paste the text.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you understood what this template does. --Grufo (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current only other alternative to this template, {{If then show}}, trims leading and trailing spaces, but sometimes it can be necessary to preserve those. --Grufo (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: what possible scenario would you need to maintain the spaces where you could not use &nbsp;? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep thinking about the main namespace and the HTML displayed in articles, but this is a metatemplate, it is meant for template programming: there sometimes you might want an actual space and &nbsp; is absolutely a no-go. The most typical example are if/else conditions in which you want to display the first condition if non-blank, AND the first condition is computationally expensive, AND it contains fixed leading and trailing spaces (these can be a collection of newlines, tabs, whatever). In this case &nbsp; would be considered as non-blank, whereas a space is by definition “blank.” --Grufo (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is effectively unused. {{if}} can do the same basic thing of preserving spaces. Especially since people prefer to use Lua rather than complex series of metatemplates these days I find the chance that enough people will end up finding and using this to be worth it low. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi * Pppery *. I have been reading your comments here and so far they seem well balanced, even if most often they don't go in my favour (so thank you for your contribution!). Here however I must correct you on a technical note: although it is technically true that with the {{If}} template you can achieve the same result, you would normally prefer {{If then show verbatim}} to {{If}} because of the same reasons you would normally prefer {{If then show}} to {{#if}}: a.k.a. the condition {{{1}}} and the text to show {{{2}}} being the same text, and that same text being computationally expensive/long. To be more specific, exactly like you would probably prefer writing
    {{If then show|{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|something else}}
    instead of,
    {{#if:{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|something else}}
    you will want to write
    {{If then show verbatim|{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|something else}}
    instead of.
    {{If||{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|something else}}
    (And if you want that cleanness in the code, I am also sure you will want others to do the same) --Grufo (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know how if et al. works. My point is that the number of templates that will want to do this specific thing is going to be negligible. And in many cases you can refactor so that "VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT" doesn't happen to start with a space fairly easily, limiting the utility further. TLDR while you have a point this seems too nich to be worth having a template for IMO. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a template has a purpose, it should be clearly explained in the documentation. Wikipedia is not a code repository. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 1 December 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:Rough age

[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) 17:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't have enough age related templates? See: Template:Birth, death and age templates. COMPLETELY redundant to {{Time interval}} which can do all this and more... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a limit? Is it redundant? What template does what this template does? --Grufo (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it IS redundant. See {{Time interval}} which does all this and more. As Pppery says below, enwiki is not a code repository for all your little pet projects. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively unused. Enwiki is not a code repository. What is the actual use case for this? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is designed as metatemplate to be used by other templates, in those cases in which there is a deadline, we want to show the time passing, but we don't need to be too precise. Contexts like this one:
  • This discussion lasts one week; it started {{Rough age|{{#time:Y-m-d H:i:s|{{{1}}}}}}} ago.
↳ This discussion lasts one week; it started {{Rough age}} ago.
However here the use cases can be really many, since it's basically a rough clock --Grufo (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you throw a bunch of safesubst: statements in your template doesn't mean it makes sense to use as a substitution template. Also this is completely redundant to {{Time interval}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:05, 28 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:Temporary wikitext

[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) 17:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not behavior we should be encouraging in articles. Text should not disappear after a certain amount of time. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:01, 24 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.
[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) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you ever want to do this?! Just use special:ExpandTemplates... You don't need a custom linking template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:59, 24 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:Template journal named parameter

[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) 17:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:para. Are we really going to create custom versions of {{para}} for ever template!? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:57, 24 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:Sanitize HTML attribute

[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) 17:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unhelpful and unneeded. There are better ways to do this than a complex template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are these better ways to sanitize HTML attributes? Can you show me an example? I will be happy to vote for deletion at that point. --Grufo (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand what the templates you nominate for deletion do. You can't use <nowiki>...</nowiki>. Imagine that a template named {{Foobar}} had this wikitext:
<div style="{{{style}}}">{{{content}}}</div>
How can you make sure that the |style= parameter is correctly sanitized? How can you make sure that if the user calls the template with,
{{Foobar
	| style = font-family: "Helvetica Neue";
	| content = Lorem ipsum
}}
the double quotes in "Helvetica Neue" are replaced with &quot;? Or the same for the other forbidden characters? With this template instead you can simply write the {{Foobar}} template as:
<div style="{{Sanitize HTML attribute|{{{style}}}}}">{{{content}}}</div>
--Grufo (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to lawyer the process with non-existent use cases. Been two months since you created this template and even you haven't found a use for it as it has zero uses (except for another of your useless templates). So until you can find an actual use for this template, wikipedia is not a repository for useless code. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless templates that would require {{Sanitize HTML attribute}} on English Wikipedia right now, because as they are now they are unsafe (e.g. {{Em}}, {{Strong}}, etc.). But I can't be the one editing the entire encyclopedia. Give them time, and the creators of these templates will discover the existence of {{Sanitize HTML attribute}}. --Grufo (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates have been around for decades without the need for your code and no problems have arisen... If you think you have identified an issue with another template, bring it up on that templates talk page and address it in the templates sandbox. Don't just create useless templates and hope that one day someone else will discover and use it. If you cannot use a template when it is created, there is no point in having it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have identified an issue, there is an issue. Period. That issue however has very low priority and can be solved with the natural slowness of the case in question. You have nominated for deletion a template that not only has potential use cases, but whose adoption can be argued to be due across multiple templates. --Grufo (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. And I have no idea what problem will be solved with this template. The Banner talk 02:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“I have no idea what problem will be solved with this template”: The template name “Sanitize HTML attribute” should be clear enough… But no problem, I can explain it to you, as I already did with the previous user. This template allows you to write
{{em
	| style = font-family: "Times New Roman";
	| 1 = Lorem ipsum
}}
or
{{em
	| title = "Lorem ipsum" is a fictional text used in typography.
	| 1 = Lorem ipsum
}}
(or similar things), whenever a template assigns HTML attributes (any kind of attribute) using the incoming parameters as input. Currently you cannot write what I just wrote (unless you manually replace the forbidden characters with HTML entities or other alternative characters). --Grufo (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused (as the only template using it seems to be heading for deletion). But I can't be the one editing the entire encyclopedia [...] en.Wikipedia isn't a code repository. I appreciate your attitude in wanting to code stuff. However, this isn't the correct venue for it. Here you should create code that fills a specific void. If you feel that {{em}} or {{strong}} should be modified, then do so. Create an edit request and get your code there. It is that simple. However, if you continue to create templates and leave them unused, they will end up here, over and over again. Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Wikipedia isn't a code repository”: That implies storing templates for not using them. The usage of template instead was due already yesterday. And you are wrong at asking me to even know what templates have the issue in question. The one template I created that required this template used this template, as it should have. --Grufo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Zamboni's pendulum.svg

[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 keep. (non-admin closure) =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 03:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure what this is supposed to be.. Why is a single use image a template? Just place the image in the article.. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not possible to display animated SVG images in any other way. --Grufo (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can place the template's code in the article... You don't need a template to display an image... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do that. See how people will react to that bloated page (which is the reason why we create templates in the first place). --Grufo (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done No need to have an animated SVG in the article space anyway. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“No need to have an animated SVG in the article space anyway”: Says who? --Grufo (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was done, just like you asked but then you reverted the change so I guess it stays until the template is deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it done? You asked to insert the template's source code into the Giuseppe Zamboni page, and I invited you to do so. Probably you realized it was an absurd thing to do, and so you didn't, but instead removed the animation from the page altogether (which technically qualifies as a disruptive edit, since there is no reason to remove an illustrative animation from an article). --Grufo (talk) 20:14, 24 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:List with serial comma

[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) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:Enum & Template:Csv. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:50, 24 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:Coins

[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) 17:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unhelpful, unneeded. Not even sure what the point of this template is. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Not even sure what the point of this template is”: Again, I see you aren't sure of what the templates you are nominating are. --Grufo (talk) 08:43, 24 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:If then else error

[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) 17:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unhelpful, unneeded. There are parser functions for this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I confirm, I am pretty sure you don't understand what you are nominating for deletion. --Grufo (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current mechanism to search for errors on English Wikipedia is based on transclusion count of the {{Error}} template in the main namespace (other Wikipedias don't have this problem). Due to this, the templates {{If then else error}}, {{Error if empty}}, and {{If then verbatim else error}} are necessary to avoid false positives when parser functions are not used to determine the error conditions. --Grufo (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is so necesssary why is it still unused?? Just use parser functions to achieve this. Just because other wiki's use it, doesn't mean English Wikipedia needs it. You need to start discussions before you start pushing other wiki's templates... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. Probably others solve the issue in more inefficient ways (of which I am inaware). What I do know however, is that if you create a template on English Wikipedia and you write {{if then show|{{some very long computation}}|{{Error|Some Error}}}} (and other similar syntaxes), you will generate false positives. If you ask me, I think that the {{Error}} template is badly designed here, and tracking categories should be used instead. On Latin Wikipedia (which is where I contribute the most – I am an admin there), we have no need for these three templates. --Grufo (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, you are taking stuff that you wrote on the Latin wiki and trying to impose it on the English wiki. Just because it is useful there, doesn't mean it is useful here. If you want to make such sweeping changes you need to discuss them not just create templates, edit policy pages and start dumping your code into tons of articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat this for the zillionth time: this template exists only on English Wikipedia and has never existed on Latin Wikipedia (although, if that were not the case, that would not be a problem either). --Grufo (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you are in fact correct. I got overwhelmed and confused by the massive dump of code you made recently importing code from the latin wiki and basically using Wikipedia as your own code repository. You are correct, this one was NOT taken from the Latin wiki. I apologize for my mistake. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the tons of templates you claim I have imported from elsewhere (which, by the way, would not be an issue), although it is actually not true? --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from the wikitext of this comment, and the fact that {{error}} is not transcluded on this page, Grufo's comment doesn't seem to be true, and just using {{error}} in {{if then show}} doesn't result in the page transcluding the template.. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I created this suite of templates after being made aware by this message of the way {{Error}} works. I resolved that by creating {{Error if empty}} (which is “the error version” of {{If then show}}). Then however I realized that unless we finally change the way {{Error}} works, we would need also “the error version” of {{#if}} and “the error version” of {{If}}: hence the three templates. Without this template the suite will be somewhat incomplete. --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, right. This brings up a little-known way the parser works. Normally template parameters are evaluated lazliy so my self-demonstrating example doesn't call {{error}}. However, if a module does something like pairs(frame.args) either directly or indirectly (which Module:Params does and must do) then that expands all arguments eagerly. So that explains why that complaint on your talk page happened. However it still doesn't justify creating a huge series of templates that wrap {{error}} for special cases when the builtin if statements (or anything not using the pairs(frame.args) style) can handle it perfectly fine. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @* Pppery *: “Normally template parameters are evaluated lazliy”: On this point, are you sure template parameters are normally evaluated lazily? From what I can recall, only {{#if:}} and {{#switch:}} evaluate their parameters lazily; with everything else (including all templates) parameters are always evaluated in advance. --Grufo (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were the case, then my self-demonstrating example above would cause this page to transclude {{error}}, which you can see that it doesn't. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some test
    @* Pppery *: You are right, it doesn't! Then I can't understand its logic in full. How can the parser know how many parameters it must pass to a template? I still think the mechanism English Wikipedia chose for the {{Error}} template is weird (we should use tracking categories). --Grufo (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting but doesn't fit the bill as explained above.—Alalch E. 18:15, 28 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:History of Thailand (1932–1973)

[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 December 1. Izno (talk) 06:28, 1 December 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:Iraqi coups

[edit]

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

Merge per nom. Note that Template:Protests in Iraq navbox title is actually "Protests and coups in Iraq" so the nomination is even more correct (the template should be moved to match the title after this TfD). Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while WikiCleanerMan is correct that coups are not protests, the two are (at least in Iraq) closely related. Given the navbox title of {{Protests in Iraq}} merging the two would seem reasonable. Wouldn't be opposed to merging both to a new {{Protests and Coups in Iraq}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries in Protests in Iraq are not protests. Uprisings and rebellions are not coups nor protests. The coup navbox is more accurate to what it is about and contains all links of relevance. All articles on rebillions and uprising should be moved to their own navbox and remove coup articles from it as well. And there is plenty of protests in Iraq articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing so why should they be merged together? More generally, there is an antipattern of navboxes growing in size and scope until they're uselessly large. A small, focused navbox is a good thing, not a bad thing, and there's a lot of navboxes that should be split. SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sort of merge is probably merited. There's a strong overlap in the links each of these are navigating, and depriving users of the other links in each template that don't have an overlap is a bad thing, not a good thing, as it were. The topics appear to be joined at the hip and should have a navbox that represents that fact. Izno (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiCleanerMan: in light of Izno's comments, what do you think about merging the two to a new {{Protests and Coups in Iraq}}. Each would have their own section to make clear what is a protest and what is a coup... But I think they are closely enough related to warrant a unified navbox but we also keep them separate enough to make it clear protest ≠ coup. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's currently overlap, it can be solved better by moving Protests in Iraq to "Revolts in Iraq" or the like and separating out the coup-content. Take the 1936 Iraqi coup d'état - this was not a popular protest or rebellion, this was a conspiracy by a very small number of officers. It's not really the same thing. (Also not sure why that's listed as an "Attempted coup" in the coups template, but that's a side issue, it definitely was more than "attempted".) SnowFire (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Kenyan 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) 06:25, 1 December 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 'Kenyan English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.' Dgp4004 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. I know a lot more about our policies, guidelines, and practices since creating this template, and they have also changed. This template is not needed. It could be a good idea to redirect it to prevent recreation but I don't know enough about template deletion to opine on that.
--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Coffeeandcrumbs: long-time no see, I hope you're well. On this point I'm curious, what are these "policies and guidelines" you mention which support taking away the English variety from an independent sovereign African country and labelling it as "British"? I know WP:WORLDWIDE is more of an essay than a policy, but there are certainly WP:NPOV issues at play here... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Kenyan English is most definitely a variety of the language, with English being one of the official languages of that country, and forcing all Kenyan articles to use a template called "Use British English" would be a bizarre, backward and colonialist step. I'm very sympathetic to the notion that we should have one template to cover the different English spelling varieties that are similar to the one used in the UK, indeed for many years we had just such a template at {{EngvarB}}. I would be extremely happy if we could work towards re-establishing a template like that, or even just moving the existing {{Use British English}} to a more neutral title that covers all the localities across the Commonwealth that use the same sorts of spelling. But until such a unified neutrally-titled template is created, we are stuck with using those for the individual nations where English is an official language. Per WP:AINTBROKE, keeping this doesn't harm anyone, but removing it brings a lot of problems.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to argue for the renaming of the 'Use British English' template, that's a proposal you should put on that template's talk page or a TfD about that template. But not liking the name of that one is a weak argument for keeping this one. Dgp4004 (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are for administrative purposes only, and are not meant to imply ownership by any given country over a given page. I agree that EngvarB's deprecation has caused many problems, but opposing deletion here on the basis of some kind of nationalistic argument is not helpful. If no one is capable of identifying any distinction between written British and Kenyan English in the encyclopaedic register, while also taking WP:COMMONALITY into account, there is no reason to retain this template, which may give people the false impression that there is a difference. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute any of this, but we are where we are. A wrong-headed decision was made to deprecate the template EngvarB, which covers this topic with WP:COMMONALITY across all the countries, and we're left with trying to shoehorn all these topics into a template which refers to one country and one country only. Kenyan English may be lexicographically almost identical to British English, but that doesn't mean it *is* British English. Kenyan articles should not "use British English" because WP:TIES mandates us to use Kenyan English for those articles. My first choice would be to revive and rename EngvarB, but assuming that's not possible, it's far better to simply keep the existing nation-by-nation templates which tell editors the actual rule they're supposed to use than force them to use a template which doesn't match the WP:TIES guideline. So the fundamental premise of this nomination that the template is "redundant" is not true, and the situation as we have it WP:AINTBROKE.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kenyan English is a spoken dialect, not a written standard, which you can glean from reading that article. WP:TIES does not mandate that we write in dialect. The de facto written standard in Kenya is 'British English'. If you would like to propose a revival of EngvarB, I should be most happy to provide my assistance and support. Until someone can provide evidence of an independent written standard known as 'Kenyan English', however, this template should not exist. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you concede that one template could and should cover both, and as EngvarB was deliberately redirected as opposed to deleted, you can simply use EngvarB if editors on a particular article feel it more appropriate than Use British English. It still works and it remains in use on 85,359 articles. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Kenyan English is not redundant to British English, as much as there are lots of similarities in spelling with the British English since it's mostly derived from British English which is also taught in schools, Kenyan English is just a dialect on its own, with lots of other different spellings and pronunciations, and also vocabulary. Using British English will be forcing articles on Kenyan-related issues to be based on just a single country's dialect, which would lack the originality and context it ought to have. The template should thus not be deleted. Akili88 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not designed to indicate that matters such as pronunciation are different. It is primarily concerned with spelling for the purposes of editing Wikipedia, and there are evidently not 'lots of other different spellings' as you stated. The article makes quite clear that 'Kenyans generally use British English' and the differences noted are Bantu or Swahili words which would be tagged with their appropriate language tags. The template itself further makes clear that 'Kenyan English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.' It's a clear cut case of redundancy I'm afraid. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said there are not 'lots of other different spellings' as you are claiming. The two have lots of similarities and also lots of differences likewise. Kenyan English is distinctively different from British English, though they also bear a lot of similarities. You should take some time and read Kenyan articles. Don't base your conclusions by just reading one or two pages. Akili88 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but both this template and the article it directs editors to consult disagree with you. And repeatedly claiming that there are lots of different spellings and that editors should look them up elsewhere is not a great demonstration of the utility of this template. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template. A few similarities to the British English don't justify redundancy as you are claiming. Kenya being a sovereign nation has its own dialect, which is based on British English but has evolved and developed to become an English variety on its own. You should spent some time reading articles written in Kenyan English before you start making such a baseless claim.
Mushelehka (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not written in dialect. 'Dialect' refers to spoken, not written language. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“'Dialect' refers to spoken, not written language”: Just passing by. Most linguists will tell you that there isn't a clear distinction between a dialect and a language. --Grufo (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such distinction. I merely pointed out that Wikipedia is written in standard, written English, and never in dialect. This is a point of fact. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Use British English}} or replace with {{Use British English}}; do not simply delete transclusions outright as not usable here on the English Wikipedia. The template should not be deleted, since the effort of having articles identified as using British English spelling and word choices should not be lost.
This "Use X English" family of templates is intended to provide editors with advice about word choice ("truck" v. "lorry"), spelling ("color" v. "colour"), and occasionally grammatical construction ("Since 1960" v. "From 1960"). Other than those differences, writers at the English Wikipedia are supposed to follow MOS:COMMONALITY, writing in standard English that can be understood by the most readers. The article at Kenyan English describes Phonology, which is not relevant for a written encyclopedia. It describes differences in grammar, giving examples of "give me burger" and "There's a lot of equipments being sold at the shop", two types of phrasings to be avoided per MOS:COMMONALITY. The article says that Kenyan English generally uses British spelling and vocabulary. It also uses words borrowed from Swahili, but per MOS:COMMONALITY, any such words should be glossed for non-Kenyan readers. And that's the whole article. The article provides no real guidance about how to write in Kenyan English that is different enough from guidance that would be provided for British English, so it is not useful or usable (TFD reason 3) on the English Wikipedia. The {{Use British English}} template provides appropriate guidance for editors. Redirect to {{Use British English}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect may work fine for bots but it's not so helpful for human editors who will still see 'Use Kenyan English' when editing the articles. A 'delete and replace' would at least be better than a 'redirect', in my view. Dgp4004 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would find that redirect even more confusing than the status quo. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended my position above. The point is that it should not simply be deleted. The attachment to British English should remain in some way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.