Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 24#Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

< October 23
October 25 >

October 24

[edit]

Template:Accessibility editnotice

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; and rightly so. The implication that people with no sight should be able to access articles about visual impairment, but not, say, Beethoven or pregnancy, is deeply misguided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template has about 250 uses, so the nominator is mistaken that it is unused. Of course visually impaired editors should be able to access all articles, but we have limited editorial resources, as evidenced by e.g. the fact that we don't have alt text for 100% of the images we use. And common sense dictates that visually impaired editors are more likely than the average reader to be interested in topics like Visual impairment given its direct relevance to their lives. This makes it, as the template says, particularly important (not "only important") to follow accessibility best practices there. This editnotice provides a helpful reminder of that. Sdkb talk 14:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, on looking at the template, I see that its wording had changed since I'd last visited it: @Waddie96 changed , so it is especially important that it conform to the guideline to and must adhere to the guidelines. It is entirely understandable that you'd object to the template with the changed wording, @Pigsonthewing, as I do too; it indeed implied that other articles do not also need to be accessible. I have reverted back to the "especially important" wording, which is hopefully a better ATD. Sdkb talk 14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unused on articles or talk pages, where I expected for find it, I now see that it is used on other templates.
    Contrary to your edit summary it was not the reverted wording specifically which prompted this deletion proposal.
    The point remains that it is not for us to decide which articles are most of interest to certain users; and it is equally important that accessibility measures are applied to all articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an editnotice; those are always going to be in templates.
    I'd love to be in a world in which everyone abided by accessibility guidelines all the time, no matter how cumbersome, but that's a fantasyland. In the practical realm, I would be surprised if you've included alt text with every single image you've ever added to an article, and even if you have, 99% of other editors have not. What this notice does is, for an editor in the process of editing an article like visual impairment, give them a nudge so that they think, "oh, I normally don't bother adding alt text, but for this article where it's especially important I guess I will". Or, "I've never heard of these accessibility guidelines before, but it seems especially important for this article, so I'll take this opportunity to check them out." That's a useful nudge (and it might even get them in habit of abiding by the guidelines more generally once they realize it's not hard). Sdkb talk 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sdkb — articles about disabilities should at least be readable by those with said disabilities. It is quite reasonable that there be a notice for such cases. --Opecuted (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be readable, but that doesn't require an editor-facing edit notice because it should be the default for all articles. Izno (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:25, 24 October 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:NTA Film Network shows

[edit]

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its only used on one page. No reason for this to be in template space if it can't find more uses. But overall, it is not needed. A timeline for a list of shows on a network, what value does this serve to have? It provides no information for readers. Its just a chart. On article space, you can find this information in simple list prose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a template must be used in more than one article is nonsense. WP:TFD#REASONS says that reasons for deleting a template are the following: 1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. 2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template. 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. 4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing. This template (and the one you nominated below) does not meet any of these criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Substing templates being used in one place as a result of a Tfd has been done for years. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps keep? Don't see what's wrong with having it; besides, subst-ing it might clutter the article up seeing the template code is fairly long. —Opecuted (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DuMont network shows

[edit]

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without subst. Not everything needs a timeline and not everything is readable with one. This one is a mess. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus seems to be moving towards delete, but I can't officially say anything
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Later with Bob Costas episodes

[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 11:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not enough participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:23, 24 October 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:Clone Wars infobox

[edit]

Unused and mainly fan content. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this infobox was because the Battle of Yavin has it's own infobox so I figured that the Clone Wars may benefit from one too. It was deleted from the Clone Wars page because Template:Infobox_military_conflict is apparently not built for fictional conflicts. If that's true, then I apologise for creating the infobox unknowingly, but why is the infobox on Battle of Yavin okay, considering that is also a fictional battle? TheMinionsOfTheTrenches (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend removing it from that page. I find the article suspect in terms of notability. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been removed from Battle of Yavin per WP:INUNIVERSE, which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics. NLeeuw (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: nprd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Template is still unused. No reason to keep presented. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TFD#REASONS #3, per WP:INUNIVERSE (which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.), and WP:G4 (as the template was apparently created to circumvent its removal from Clone Wars). As creator TheMinionsOfTheTrenches indicated, it was removed from Clone Wars, the only article where it had any likelihood of being used. A template rarely should be created if it is to be used on one page alone.
Besides, creator indicates they created the template to circumvent its removal from Clone Wars, which may qualify it for a speedy delete per WP:G4.
On in-universe versus behind the scenes perspectives: see WP:INUNIVERSE. On Wookieepedia, this infobox would be perfectly fine, as it treats the subject from an in-universe perspective. But both the scope and content of the Clone Wars as a fictional conflict have developed significantly over the decades (e.g. originally, the term "The Attack of the Clones" was conceived by Lucas as what is now known as Order 66, i.e. the beginning and end of the Clone Wars have been switched). And it may still evolve further as more canonical materials are added. Therefore, an infobox here on Wikipedia may simply not be the best way to summarise it. Wikipedia best treats it from a real-life / behind the scenes perspective.
At User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Unused and duplicative, the Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand precedent demonstrated that campaignboxes could be used for fictional battles (in this case from the Tolkienverse), as long as the linked articles were standalone articles about fictional battles that have independent notability. In this case, they didn't. Edit: But WP:INUNIVERSE overrules this, because it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.
Creator TheMinionsOfTheTrenches also argued that the fictional Battle of Yavin has an infobox military conflict, so why shouldn't the fictional Clone Wars? Of course, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that boomerangs back to Battle of Yavin itself, where it was apparently removed in April 2024. At Talk:Battle of Yavin, User:Zxcvbnm said: Military conflict infobox is not supposed to be used for fictional battles, period. It uses words like "belligerents" and "casualties" that only apply to real-world conflicts, as the word "fictional" is not amended to them. I will simply be deleting it until further notice, please add the specifics to the article prose itself instead.
This statement does not necessarily enjoy community consensus. But it does make a good point that we should consider, particularly because campaignboxes linking to standalone articles about fictional battles were okay, at least in theory. Edit: Zxcvbnm's edit and comment are in line with WP:INUNIVERSE, which says it's not permitted to Us[e] templates intended for real-world topics.
I'll check up on how this was done in similar disputed cases such as Hebrew Bible battles and fictional Three Kingdoms / End of Han dynasty battles like the Battle of Hulao Pass. NLeeuw (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLeeuw (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself from 3.5 years ago: About the excluding fictional battles rule, I just now remembered: material related to the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history has a strict policy of separating fact from fiction; the 14th-century novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTK) is considered historical fiction and not a reliable source for the end of the Han dynasty and military history of the Three Kingdoms. The Template:Three Kingdoms editnotice warns editors about this in many articles. Therefore, Template:Campaignbox End of Han and Template:Campaignbox Three Kingdoms may not feature fictonal battles such as the Battle of Hulao Pass that is based on the ROTK.
Given the fact that Battle of Hulao Pass is now no longer a standalone article, but redirects to List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, where it has no infobox, this is another argument against using infobox military conflict for fictional battles. The only counter-argument one could make against that is that events in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and such are so clearly fictional that there is no need to have a strict policy to distinguish them from historical events. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to agree with Zxcvbnm on this point, especially when combined with my argument above that Wikipedia should always take a real-life / behind the scenes perspective, unlike dedicated fan wikis that prioritise the in-universe perspective. Similarly, when it comes to conflicts described in religious texts, Wikipedia should describe them from a real-life / scholarly perspective (what we do and don't know to be reliable and accurate), not an in-religion perspective. It's preferable not to present some event as factual when there is significant doubt as to how factual the event was, if it ever did take place. The infobox military conflict is overwhelmingly used for historical events, and that should be its main purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Correction: per Using infoboxes intended for real-world topics. in WP:INUNIVERSE, summarising historical events is the only purpose of Template:Infobox military conflict. It should never be used for fictional battles, no matter how clear we might presume that is to the reader. We've got an obligation to make it clear to the reader. NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Georgian alphabet sidebar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Manx monarchs

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in July 2025. There probably are not enough valid blue links to make this navbox useful. Some of the listed people may or may not have been monarchs of the Isle of Man. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly Rename This is quite a complex area, and a navbox (or even two) could be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I've checked all four of the bluelinks on the template. None of them seems to indicate that the king in question was specifically a ruler of Man — Báetán mac Cairill and Áedán mac Gabráin sought to conquer it and include it in their broader ricks, and Edwin of Northumbria and Tutgual of Galwyddel ruled kingdoms of which Man was merely a part. None of them ruled only Man, or ruled Man as a separate entity from another domain, so I dispute the inclusion of all four on this template. (Otherwise we might as well expand it by adding Charles III, Lord of Man, and his predecessors.) We can't know anything from this template about the remaining rulers, and I'm uncomfortable assuming that any of them belongs here. Unless I'm misunderstanding badly, this template's flaws really can't be fixed without deletion. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's often something that can't be fixed by deletion, but we can pretend it didn't happen. We should certainly add the Stanleys and maybe a generic link to the monarchs of the greater entity after them. Lord of Mann is a simple renaming of King of Mann. As for the question of the parent kingdom in earlier days, it could be made as clear as possible when one polity is subsumed in another. It's certainly the case that further south a king could be the king of more than one kingdom, or kingdoms could be divided or united.
    Simply renaming this (with the better name anyway, since most of the rulers weren't Manx) Monarchs of the Isle of Man would obviate the semantic component of the issues you raise. Sectioning by parent polity can also help. As for the red links, it's a question of creating the targets.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    I mention the redlinks because we can't easily know whether those people belong here; of course it's fine on principle to have redlinks in these places. This template really ought to concentrate on monarchs for whom Man has been the sole domain, or for whom it's been a significant component of the entire rick; that's definitely not the case for Charles III or for any previous UK/GB/English monarch, unless I'm forgetting about something. Man is a bit of a protectorate anyway, hardly a completely separate kingdom, even though it's not strictly part of the UK; it's more analogous to Anguilla or the Falklands, not like Tuvalu or St Lucia, let alone Australia or Canada. We probably wouldn't make a template for "Monarchs of the Falklands" without monarchs for whom the Falklands were a significant territory. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no post-relist discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with a rename to a better title and one that makes sense for the subject matter, still too few links for navigation purposes. If one more link/article is created, then keep, but for now delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ItemCost

[edit]

Found this during the clean up of {{AircraftCost}} which was deleted at this TFD. In principal I love the idea of this template, the problem is it isn't maintained (the current value given is from 2023) or really used (131 transclusions). What's more there is a FAR superior and far better maintained template at {{Inflation}}. Suggest deleting this and replacing its instances with {{inflation}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody complained that ItemCost needed maintenance. Inflation is only an auxiliary template compared to this. Trigenibinion (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: What do you mean by is only an auxiliary template?s It is used in over 25,000 articles... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean these are higher level templates that call Inflation Trigenibinion (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the point of having an unmaintained, inaccurate template when another one exists that does the same thing and is up to date... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you call it inaccurate? A lot of time was spent on this. If there's no maintenance it's because nobody reported any bugs. They do no do the same thing, otherwise I would not have written them. Stop asking to delete things that you don't understand. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: I think you are taking my criticism personally. That is not my intention. I do not doubt that a lot of time was spent on it, but this template is not maintained, the other is. The fact that nobody reported any bugs is not the point. You are using data from 2023. If you are going to maintain a template like this it needs to have the latest up to date data or it is not serving its purpose. You have not in anyway address why this template cannot be replace with {{Inflation}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is other templates called by this one that would have to be updated. This is a general presentation template that can be called by normalizing ones like the one you deleted, AircraftCost. Inflation is a lower level building block. The point was that in infoboxes Inflation was being called directly without consistency in the display of information.
Thanks for pointing out that nobody bothered about updating the currency templates. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated To USD to 2023. Somebody was working on the 2024 data but I don't know what happened, so I will have to look at it myself. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
INRConvert was updated by the maintainers to 2023, so ToUSD now takes advantage of that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To EUR now takes advantage of the To USD and INRConvert 2023 data. The last time someone updated its own data was for 2021 so I will have to take a look at that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Inflation you will see that it is not usually updated. I don't work on that. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no post-relist participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-archive

[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. WP:SNOW. This was inappropriately relisted by an inexperienced user. quite a long read is not a valid reason to relist a TFD. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first I considered updating this template could fix its problems, please see Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-archive

However, the more I think about it, the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates.

After all, the guideline (WP:OWNTALK) specifically states "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." and it also states "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." (Back in 2016 when this template was created, the guideline was not clear on whether the 75K limit then in effect for regular talk pages applied to user talk pages as well. Some editors probably did interpret it that way. More specifically, the guideline did not have anything resembling today's clear language)

But if we remove the "officialness" of a user warning, we remove any specific requirements, we remove "you need to archive"... what's even left?

{{please archive}} is what's left, I say. Which is why I'm nominating this template for deletion. It appears to be wholly and fully redundant and non-compliant.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (added 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)): Me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Our guidelines quite clearly say: The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. To me that means we should use a template that in no way implies the user has done anything wrong, such as {{Please archive}}. Please don't oppose this nomination because you disagree with WP:OWNTALK. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please take into account that both for this TfD and the one five years ago, both !votes did not address the causes for nomination, and/or based their !votes on irrelevant criteria. The closer of the 2020 TfD appeared to ignore the poor relevance to the nominated action by the goven !votes. At the very least, I suggest a relist to gain actually on-topic !votes. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update, as the nominator himself had as a first instinct. Whether it's user talk, article talk, other area talk, or all talk pages in general, the issue of large sizes is an issue that should be avoided (some user talk pages are hundreds of thousands of bytes in size, are extremely slow to load are just ridiculous to navigate), and if this template is reworded to suggest archiving in a manner more palatable to the nominator, that is better than nothing. - \\'cԼF 10:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (note: same user nominated this same tfd 5 years ago to the day, and quite resolutely at that. Just the same, the outcome was "keep", and there were several very vaild points made to support that conclusion that still apply today, while not much was offerred in support of deletion. fyi - \\'cԼF 10:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

    • Comment First off, that older TfC only got two comments. Both ignored how this template is solely meant for user talk space, at least initially. And now you too include talk page size issues in general? Secondly, our guidelines have changed since that last TfD, so I believe having a new discussion is perfectly reasonable. (I repeatedly tried to have the guideline updated, but apparently discussing it first instead of just making the change was my mistake) Thirdly, why do you say "better than nothing" when I quite specifically point out there already exist an alternative that seemingly avoid all the problems of this template I have brought up? Can you go into more detail about what value you feel this template offers over Please archive, User:Thewolfchild, and what updates you would make if this template remains? I'm asking because, as stated, I don't see how there will be anything left if we address all the issues listed for this template. CapnZapp (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2. The following is copied verbatim from the talk page to keep everything centralized Because after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, what specific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !vote keep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are suggesting that talk page length doesn't matter, it seems that you are talking from a place of being lucky enough to have a new and fast computer and thus having it not matter to you. For those who aren't lucky enough to have one, it does indeed matter and should be called out. I would also assume that an incredibly long talk page would be a challenge for those who require assistive technology. Wikipedia should endeavor to be more, rather than less, accessible, and suggesting that the very slight "offense" taken by people who cannot set up an incredibly basic archive system is more important is a bit ridiculous to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your !vote, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. However, you appear to post based on "this template is what keeps user talk pages from being overly long" (I could be wrong). You do not address my concerns with the template: guidelines no longer warrant an user warning, as opposed to a normal ask - and we already have a template for politely asking users to trim their user pages: Please archive. That is, me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors such as yourself asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Keeping this template would assume you are arguing there is still a case to be made for warning (or notifying) users. I don't see that's the argument you're making, but if you are: on what are you basing this? What makes you want to keep this template as opposed to using {{Please archive}} or just a personalized message? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do admit that I misinterpreted the purpose of the nomination. Nevertheless, I don't think Please archive is as good because it doesn't point to the Wikipedia guidelines. Pointing to the guidelines is important to show that it's a policy and not just a personal opinion. If one is to be deleted, the text of this one should be copied over to Please archive instead.
    I also think the exact page size guideline being removed because of A single discussion by a few editors on the talk page is ludicrous on its face. It should be a Village pump discussion with a guideline this longstanding and prominent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Let's just say it together now: it isn't a policy! All right? :-) (the whole reason for my nom is precisely because this template is created on the assumption the user is warned/notified about policy, and now that this is gone, any template that asks you to trim your talk should be clearly seen to be a personal preference ask!) You are free to contest any change, but please, don't let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. If you do start an RfC or somesuch, I guess you can ask for this TfD to be postponed until such time a consensus has been hashed out, but not sure how the TfD community feels about that strategy for delaying TfDs? Maybe better is for this TfD to run its course. Templates can after all always be undeleted if that is what the community wants. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It essentially is a policy. "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." These exceptions are fairly narrow and generally speaking one is expected to abide by it. It's not considered fully optional like, say, a highly opinionated essay might be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that the guideline used to be even more specific and in line with this template, but it was unilaterally removed by a group of editors working solely on that page. Right now it is continued to be removed for the reasons of "maintaining the status quo" even though it was changed from its decade+ long status quo fairly recently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We appear to misunderstand each other, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. In no way did I mean to argue OWNTALK isn't official guidelines. I was instead telling you that the guideline no longer contains the 75K limit. That is what I meant by "it isn't a policy". It used to be, it no longer is. Historic guidelines no longer active are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. You appear to base your !vote on disagreeing with the current guideline. That is not appropriate. If you want the guideline changed, go fight for that. If you want it more widely discussed, go set up that wider discussion. In the meanwhile, though, please base your !vote on the fact that there is no limit set by the guideline. I would not nominate this template for deletion had the guideline not been changed. But it has been changed, which is why I consider a user warning or notification template to no longer be appropriate, hence this discussion. Once more I am asking you to not let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The change to the longstanding guideline was bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements, so it is absolutely relevant to changing this template as well. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people aren't obliged to start a domino chain of major changes simply because of an order "from the top" that may or may not be correct. It's worth it to go back and ensure that the removal of the idea of a page size limit is actually beneficial to users or whether it is the product of someone assuming that their setup is representative of all Wikipedia users. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree with "bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements" I'm not preventing you from taking steps to further change the guideline. But for the purposes of this TfD it is not unreasonable to assume the guideline is as written. I'm not nominating this template on a whim - the current guideline has been stable for 7 months. Please do not base your !vote here on disagreements about the underlying guidelines. Can I ask you to reevaluate your !vote based on the guidelines that exist, rather than the guidelines you want to have, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm - FlightTime (open channel) 18:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Can I ask you to specify which of Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments you base your "per" rationale on, User:FlightTime? Because I can't pick up any hints you saw how I have tried to point out how little relevance their arguments have, and how they both appear to ignore the actual circumstances that I based my nomination on. Super-quick summary: This discussion covers user talk space only. Changes to our guideline makes a user warning template inappropriate. If you dislike the change to that guideline !voting "keep" is the wrong way to go about that - the guideline has achieved consensus and been stable for several months. We already have a template politely asking users to archive their talk pages. If you disagree with any of my objections, it would be helpful if you addressed them. Alternatively, if it is easier for you, maybe you'll simply give the closer a bit more detail on your reasoning for your !vote without relying on Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: Sure, all of their comments. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasoning for deletion, as far as I can tell, comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT that the language used in the uw- series of templates is a little more "official"-sounding and that "uw" stands for "user warning" even though it also encompasses informational notices. The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative {{please archive}}. If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline, that's an easy fix for the template. I also caution the nominator against WP:BLUDGEONING based on the above discussion. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative {{please archive}} What do you mean by "even", Anomie? I quite specifically am arguing that {{Please archive}} contains the right amount of "do this" which is no amount at all. The guideline changed. It now quite specifically tells us that the length of user talk is entirely up to the editor. This means any user warning or notice template is entirely inappropriate. Insofar as us having a template at all (WP:DTR and all) the template we do keep should be outside the "uw-" group of templates. CapnZapp (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you apparently don't disagree with the idea of a template about this, you've apparently decided you don't like this specific title for some poorly expressed reason. You're also continuing to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Anomie⚔ 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote ...the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates I find it genuinely unfortunate if you find this "poorly expressed", Anomie and I wish I had chosen wording you would have found better or more easy to understand. You are correct I do not disagree with having *a* template for asking users to consider archiving (I'm not TfD'ing {{Please archive}} after all). If this realization makes you reconsider your !vote, that'd be helpful. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This commenter appears to be another one that base their !vote on disagreeing with guideline, which is not appropriate. I will however ping User:Anomie: Please correct me if this isn't an accurate reading of you saying If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline. In short, if there weren't consensus, we wouldn't be here now - I obviously waited to see whether the guideline change would be stable before making this nom. CapnZapp (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or the result of WP:ATTRITION. I'm not going to dig into the guideline's archives enough to determine that for myself, hence the qualified statement. Anomie⚔ 21:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both this and Template:Please archive are redundant and we should have one single template notice. However, WP:OWNTALK says this: User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier an extremely long talk page hinders that. Large pages take longer to load and sometimes even can cause the browser to stop responding. Gonnym (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Gonnym, no template in the world can force users to do anything. Second, in the very few cases the user's page gets so long it breaks browsers(!) a more personal approach is definitely warranted. Either way, templates in the user warning and notices group are issued based on the assumption action will eventually be enforced. But as long as WP:USERTALKSIZE states The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. having a "uw-" template feels inappropriate. There just isn't anything to comply with since the guideline change. CapnZapp (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather an annoying template be added to a user's talk page letting them know that their actions cause problems and they should fix it. And as I stated, long talk pages do fail the guideline. That the guideline itself contradicts itself between two paragraphs, that is a different issue. You choose to follow one part, I choose the other. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say "possibly" because at this time, it is not entirely clear whether the RFC creator is targeting WP:TALKSIZE, WP:USERTALKSIZE or both. This TfD is of course relevant only to user talk space. I've left a message to the RFC creator asking they clarify their RFC. CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: quite a long read
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:07, 24 October 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:Pronunciation audio requested

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Pronunciation audio requested with Template:Pronunciation requested audio.
These templates both seem to do the same thing: request that someone make and add an audio recording of a pronunciation of the article's title.

The documentation does try to draw a distinction between them — it says PAR is for article text or language pronunciation whereas PRA is for article title pronunciation only — but because the current wording of both references the article title, this clearly isn't happening.

These should either be merged or a clear difference between them articulated. The accompanying categories — Category:Wikipedia requested pronunciation audios is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested audio of pronunciations — should also be handled accordingly per whatever we decide to do. Sdkb talk 19:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect for the nominator's reason and we shouldn't have separate templates for "article text or language pronunciation" and "article title pronunciation only". Maybe merge/redirect Template:Pronunciation requested audio to the other one. BodhiHarp 16:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not enough participants to fully determine consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete sub pages. If the feature for a title distinction is needed, a parameter can be added and probably a category to go along with it. Also delete one of the current categories as redundant. Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much completely agree with this —Opecuted (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright violation

[edit]

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

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

Template:Syfy Shows

[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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shows listed here are simply too loosely related to merit a navbox. They do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" as is the guideline in WP:NAVBOX #3. It is also obvious from the ludicrous and continually growing amount of shows that List of programs broadcast by Syfy is more appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not at all too loosely related. If navbox size is a major concern, then the first step is to do an Rfc or just a plain new discussion on the template's talk page to see if a split is warranted based on consensus. Netflix original programming templates have been split off and contain many articles for original shows on the platofmr --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the size concern, but I don't find the nominator's relatedness concern to be persuasive. Readers very well might have a SyFy subscription (or whatever it is they're selling these days) or an affinity for their programming and be looking for info about their shows. Sdkb talk 01:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 15:58, 24 October 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:Diplomatic missions in Azerbaijan

[edit]

Only 1 English entry. Note that the Indian embassy in Azerbaijan links to a redirect. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AeroRoutesRef

[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district with Template:Infobox United States legislative district.
Low-use (on 3 of 35 district pages) state-specific template with no unique utility to it. The only substantive difference I see is the voter demographic label 'Unaffiliated/other party', which makes more sense than the 'No party preference' label in the standard U.S. template since Idaho has closed primaries. Perhaps there could be a custom/alternative label in the U.S. template to accommodate this? (if the difference is deemed significant enough to accommodate).
— LifelongDisciple (Talk) 06:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete we don't need state specific instances of this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08, @WikiCleanerMan — I replaced the three uses of this (two of which I had added originally) so the Idaho-specific template is now orphaned.
Hopefully it wasn't out of line (it seemed uncontroversial and trivial to do or undo); I did see that it's noted on the TfD page that templates are rarely orphaned before a decision is made. I haven't nominated anything for discussion before. (: @LifelongDisciple talk 18:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox military exercise

[edit]

This is a low-use single-purpose wrapper template to remove the word "civil" from {{Infobox civil conflict}}, however that parameter has been removed from the parent template. Suggest deleting and redirecting to {{Infobox civil conflict}}. Phuzion (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Exercises occur during peacetime, not war or conflict. They are COMPLETELY different things. For example, Exercise Talisman Sabre is an exercise. But a "civil conflict" is something that involves conflict. Exercises are TRAINING. They do not involve live fire, unless there is no one being fired at.
Guylaen (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm confused because there aren't any modules in the infobox. I was just going to put it into a couple of pages, but without any modules it's useless. When there are modules to include important information, it belongs on all of the pages included here: Military_exercise#List of military exercises Guylaen (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this template does is remove the word “civil” from {{Infobox civil conflict}}, but as I mentioned, that parameter was removed almost 3 years ago. It COULD be rewritten as an infobox for military exercises, but at this time it does nothing to that effect. Phuzion (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{Infobox civil conflict}}, this is no longer needed now that the "civil" word has been removed. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to {{Infobox civil conflict}}. As Frietjes said, this is no longer needed. I encourage people (User:Guylaen in particular) to actually LOOK at the code for this template. Technically it IS functioning as a redirect at this point. Zero additional params are added or manipulated in any way except for |conflict_type=<nowiki/>. That parameter (|conflict_type=) isn't even defined in {{Infobox civil conflict}} so this is just dumping pages needlessly into Category:Pages using infobox civil conflict with unknown parameters (10). I see the value in having a redirect, but this template doesn't do anything of value at this point. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but make new modules to actually make it useful
    Guylaen (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 – either keep or delete, but in no cases redirect. It is completely contrary to logic to redirect this to any page involving conflict at all.
    I need people here to understand that an Exercise HAS NOTHING TO DO with Conflict. Guylaen (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guylaen: I think you are focusing on the name while I am focusing on the technical side of this...
    For example {{Disappeared date and age}} and {{Death date and age}} do exactly the same thing which is why I'm currently working to merge them. Disappeared is ABSOLUTELY different than Death, but if the result for the end user is the same thing....
    I won't speak for other editors, but I'm certainly not suggesting that an exercise is the same as a conflict... But if I can use {{Infobox military exercise|name=Foo|...}} and get the exact same result as {{Infobox civil conflict|name=Foo|...}} then from a technical side a redirect makes sense.
    This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} & {{Infobox Azerbaijan region}} (two completely different countries) both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}}.
    Or why {{Infobox youtube channel}} and {{Infobox streamer}} both point to {{Infobox social media personality}}... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I just think we have some sort of duty to the curious minds who read this website to provide links so that people who go down the wikipedia hole can learn about the world.
    The technical aspects should be built around the core mission of encyclopedic function is what I think. Guylaen (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is pointed to another infobox (which I'm fine with), THAT INFOBOX WILL NEED NEW MODULES. If we want to do the redirect to Template:Infobox civil conflict OR Template:Infobox event, these are the modules that I believe need to be added for an exercise to function properly.
    These are modules that specifically are not found in either event or civil conflict, and should be added to make the infobox appropriate for use on an exercise:
    • Blankdata (about 10)
    • Blankname (about 10)
    • Equipment/Transport and deployment/training aids
    • Type of exercise (e.g., command post, field training, tabletop, computer-assisted, live-fire)
    • Observers / controllers
    • Evaluation criteria / metrics
    • Security classification (Top Secret/Eyes Only, etc.)
    • Real world conditions (e.g., DEFCON, FPCON, THREATCON, Boevaya Gotovnost, etc.)
    • Control elements (e.g., EXCON, White Cell, Red Cell, Blue Cell)
    • Domain(s) (land, air, maritime, space, cyber, irregular, multidomain)
    • Budget in dollars / funding source
    • Simulation or training aids
    • Media / public affairs policy (media allowed to observe yes or no)
    I am still trying to learn how to code infoboxes, but there's a lot of steps involved. Guylaen (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So wherever this decision winds up, I would very much like to see these modules added so I can make use of them. Guylaen (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, now I need to make the article Boevaya Gotovnost, which was the USSR version of DEFCON. Adding it to my TBWs now. Guylaen (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guylaen: so what I'm hearing is that this template needs a complete overhaul. FWIW, if the decision is ultimately made to merge, there is nothing to stop you from later recreating the template in a new way. In its current form it isn't doing anything to make it worth not redirecting... If you add the parameters listed above, that changes the game. I'll ping you on your talk page, but I would recommend letting this TFM run its course, and instead focusing on creating a new incarnation of the Infobox. . Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: noticable amount of recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image hoax

[edit]

Images suspected to be a hoax should be removed from mainspace until it is confirmed that they are not a hoax. No need to tag anything. This template is not used and there is no need to ever use it. Polygnotus (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template is not for article space. It is for File space. The code to link to the relevant talk page has "File talk:" hard-coded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jonesey95 and the templates documentation that very clearly says This template may have no transclusions. This is because it is substituted by a tool or script, it is used as part of a short-term or less active Wikipedia process, or for some other reason.. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of the !voters above seem to understand the deletion rationale. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: What do you mean? You said This template is not used... It clearly says it is SUBSTITUTED so therefore it won't have any transclusions... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 See here. 1 result, with a template since April 2023. It is October 2025 (allegedly).
    I can't imagine a scenario in which this template is useful. Polygnotus (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: It is added, and then removed once things are verified (or the file in question deleted)... So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories... your search doesn't really tell us anything of value. Plus, as has been said, The template is SUBSTITUTED, not transcluded. Your search ONLY looks at transclusions, but still there is no way to look for files where this has been substituted, the file investigated, then cleared (determined NOT to be a hoax) or deleted because it IS a hoax.
    Your statement that you can't imagine a scenario in which this template is useful is because you don't understand it. That is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 No, I don't like it is about liking/disliking, not understanding/not understanding. So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories I am, although the dump is rather big so it would take some time.
    Can you imagine a scenario in which this template is useful? Or do you just assume that it is? Someone finds a file, and thinks it might be a hoax. They can tag it as such, which does nothing, or remove its usage from mainspace (which seems like the correct thing to do until they can confirm it is not a hoax). But let's say they tag it. How does that help anyone? The template seems to invite drive-by tagging. Polygnotus (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: seriously... READ the code. Do SOME kind of WP:BEFORE... The template places the image in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images... It is literally the FIRST LINE of the documentation. This template will categorise articles into Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images. Those maintenance categories are monitored by people... I don't PERSONALLY monitor this particular one (look at my userpage for all the categories I monitor), but I guarantee you that others do. A 5 second look at the history shows this discussion about the category which has been around since at least 2009 and is clearly used by people. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08 If you claim that there is a dedicated team of CIA operatives who check and doublecheck if a file is indeed a hoax when the template is used then that would indeed be a benefit I hadn't considered. I doubt it, but there is the theoretical possibility. I might give it a try if I ever find a hoax image. But it would be nice if you could maybe, you know, relax a bit? We are disagreeing about something that is incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. A "comment out usages" or "uncomment usages" button would be cool. Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, just because you don't like something or don't see its usefulness doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is clearly a driveby nomination from someone who has not bothered to look at what the template does or how it works. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the OP simply misunderstands how this template is used. The documentation says "it is used as part of a short-term or less active Wikipedia process". That means that there is a process that looks like this: suspected hoax images are tagged, which puts them in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images. File pages in that category are processed by editors. If the image is a hoax, it is deleted. If the image is not a hoax, the template is removed. Between such nominations, the template will have no transclusions. The burden is on the nominator to show that this template is never used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions in Oman

[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 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 entry or 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. Note that the blue entry for Japanese embassy in Bolivia is actually a redirect. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 24 October 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.