Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 27#Template:Jirard Khalil

< October 26
October 28 >

October 27

[edit]

Template:Governing Mayor of Berlin

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contains nothing which was not already in Template:Mayors of Berlin created 15 years earlier. Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Worth noting that was created by a blocked user... -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 27 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:Kathy Bates

[edit]

Both templates fail basic requirements for what they are supposed to do. Four links in the navbox. Too few for a navbox for sufficent navigation. And the sidebar mostly links article on characters and adds clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not everyone needs a sidebar or navbox. There isn't enough for both templates to exist. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here that is helpful or warrants a sidebar OR a navbox. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sidebar, keep navbox. The navbox has 6 valid links so more than enough. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PoeTopics

[edit]

Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Poe's navbox is sufficient. Not needed. Not everyone needs a sidebar template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and the fact that Template:Edgar Allan Poe already exists and does a much better job of this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete a nearly 20 year old Topics template for one of the most prominent American authors in history. Lightcrowd (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lightcrowd the fact that this is a prominent American author is irrelevant. The sidebar violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR, as clearly stated by the nominator. Your response is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I smallsup

[edit]

No transclusions in article space. Renders text too small to comply with MOS:SMALLFONT. If the small tags are removed, and if it actually applied italic formatting, it will be redundant to {{I sup}}. Since it does not apply italic formatting, despite the name, it will be redundant to {{sup}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violates the MOS. Also lets remove these from Template:Sup and sub-related templates since that encourages users to use bad templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gene Sharp

[edit]

Too few links for a sidebar for a political scientist. All links can be found through the main article. This is just clutter and a WP:LEADSIDEBAR issue. Seven links but still a small sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clutter and unhelpful. Not everything needs a sidebar either. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the "rule of five" threshold given in Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox ("are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?"), and there is no higher threshold set for political scientists. Without the sidebar, it would be difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles, which are in diverse categories (books, films, institutions), and not listed in a single place in the primary article. This is not clutter, it is helpful. --Presearch (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All links are present on his article. You're gonna have to prove "difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles" without this sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the main Gene Sharp article you can see that apart from the sidebar, the links to the articles are scattered in different sections, and they are often not easily distinguishable from the many links to topics that do not directly pertain to Sharp himself and are not included in the sidebar. And there is no single section or part of the Sharp article that contains links to all sidebarred articles. For example, some sidebarred articles are only linked from a single section (e.g., Making Europe Unconquerable from Works/1980s; Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle... from Works/1980), whereas others are not linked from that section (e.g., Albert Einstein Institution is not linked from that subsection, nor would it be clear from anything within the Works section that the Albert Einstein Institution was any more Sharp-related than other publishers of Sharp's work, such as Princeton University Press). I think a key here is to put oneself in the position of a reader who is new to learning about Sharp, and wants to know "Within Wikipedia, how can I learn more about Sharp and his work?" The sidebar, and nothing else to anywhere near the same degree, gives a convenient answer to that question. The sidebar is not clutter, it is uniquely helpful. --Presearch (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's implying readers can't find it own their own. I was able to find all links from his article. outside of the navbox. It requires very little effort to find them. This doesn't make it easier in the same sense. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "it requires very little effort to find" the links, however much it may apply to you, seems to me to lack understanding of the average reader. The average reader will not know what they are looking for. The sidebar shows them what there is to look for. Wikipedia should be built for readers, not for editors. --Presearch (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader is not an idiot. And your statement implies as such as well intended your template was created to be. "The average reader will not know what they are looking for." Not true at all and you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what your view of the average reader is. People do know what they are looking for and if they don't know, they can try Google searching it and see if what they are looking for is also on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for readers. Our responsibility as editors to build things for their benefit. Same is applied for templates for navigation purposes. Not everyone needs a template just because one can create one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree that Wikipedia is for readers. I agree with you that the average reader is not an idiot, but I disagree that my statement implies such. In my work IRL I am constantly learning about new topics and new issues, and it is much more convenient to see available coverage displayed in a single sidebar than only retrievable through a Google Search or through painstakingly sifting through a large number of links embedded in diverse article sections. I think such a benefit is relevant to a substantial portion of the Gene Sharp article's readers though not all. From that perspective, what appears to be your persistent interest in eliminating this useful sidebar strikes me as misguided. --Presearch (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thoreauviana

[edit]

Sidebar is better served by navbox Template:Henry David Thoreau. This is not a typical sidebar of individuals like US presidents or UK prime ministers. Normally, for writers, a navbox is sufficient for articles on the subject. Not to mention that the related section in this sidebar has mostly unrelated articles to Thoreau. On the articles it is used on, it clutters them up. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even used in the parent article Henry David Thoreau and has a collection of loosely related topics at best. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steve Jobs sidebar

[edit]

We have a navbox for Jobs. This sidebar is just clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not every person needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:100 greatest Bears

[edit]

This navbox is a list of players which is based on a snapshot from 2019 by two journalists. See Chicago Bears#100 greatest Bears list. The template contains no attribution, and there is no objective way to make changes for future players. The existing section in the Chicago Bears article is sufficient (WP:NENAN). -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and I thought this template would be referring to actual bears when I first saw the section title. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mayer, Larry (20 May 2019). "Centennial Scrapbook chronicles Bears history". ChicagoBears.com. Chicago Bears. Retrieved 28 October 2025.

Template:Infobox London station

[edit]

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

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

Template:Jirard Khalil

[edit]

G4, Xplay, Attack the Show, and Sea of Stars have connections to Khalil, but not very major ones; they're either just him being a host for two years, or being a now-removed cameo. The only two articles mainly about Khalil here are his main article and IndieLand. The category section also strangely links to a category of games Sakurai directed, for some reason. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I didn't agree with this template's creation, but couldn't bring myself to discuss this until now. Two articles aren't enough to justify his own template, and since Open Hand Foundation doesn't have its own article (it's a redirect that doesn't quite meet GNG yet), there's little to navigate about him. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox

[edit]

single use template. no reason to have this in the Template namespace. subst into the single article that uses it. Perform this edit to place the infobox directly into the article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]