Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 40 49 89
TfD 0 0 2 11 13
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
RfD 0 0 5 60 65
AfD 0 0 0 2 2
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, with a few exceptions, is discussed.

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming a template
Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

[edit]
Shortcut
  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.

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW , and then select "XFD".)

Step 1

Tag the template

Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_August_22#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without square brackets|result of previous TfD}} in the |text= field immediately before your rationale (or alternatively at the very end, after the last }}).

Use an edit summary such as Adding deletion/merger nomination of [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |). Use the same meaningful title that you chose in Step 1.
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
    • If there is a template you want the other templates to be merged into, you can optionally specify it using |with=.
Related categories
If this template deletion proposal involves a category populated solely by templates, paste this code in the |text= field of the {{Tfd2}} template, before your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
Step 3

Notify users

Notify the creator of the template, the main contributors, and (if you're proposing a merger) the creator of the other template. (To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd notice|template name}} ~~~~
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
  • Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination. In these cases, write a personal message.

If you see any WikiProjects banners (they look like this) at the top of the template's talk page, you can let them know about the discussion. Most WikiProjects are subscribed to Article alerts, which means they are automatically notified. If you think they have not been notified, you can paste the same message in the projects' talk pages, or use Deletion sorting lists. Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects.

Consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination notice is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

  • Notifying related WikiProjects: WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this. Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they are subscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
  • Notifying main contributors: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template and its talk page that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, no further action is necessary on your part. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone other than you will either close the discussion or, if needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. If the nomination is successful, it will be moved to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Discussion

[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst, subst and delete, or similar. This means they think the template text should be "hard-coded" into the articles that are currently using it. Depending on the content, the template itself may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Closing discussion

[edit]

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

[edit]

August 22

[edit]

August 21

[edit]

Template:Power Ballads albums

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions. All linked articles have been redirected to The Best... Album in the World...Ever!. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Institute of Sport 2010/11 Roster

[edit]

Roster navbox with no main article and no transclusions. This team does not appear to have won a championship or to have been notable in some way. Including these players in a navbox does not seem appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PanamGPLaps2012

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in 2012. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-pinfoblock

[edit]

Unnecessary block template which appears to have been used exactly once. Not used by Twinkle, and any blocks for "posting personal information" would either use the {{OversightBlock}} template (for Oversighters) or {{uw-block}} with a custom reason. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 20

[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Lam Sơn uprising

[edit]

This sidebar has no transclusions and just three unique articles linked, including the main article. That is not enough for this to be useful for navigation. Created in 2011. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Customizable IPA

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created in December 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free NASA

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I made that is because NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted", and so I decided to make it incase we ever come to a point where we're forced to use one of NASA's non-free works here for any reason. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't keep unused templates around just in case they are needed. I have no objections to re-creation of this template if it is needed in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCOTUS URL CaseFinder

[edit]

No transclusions. The links appear to have been broken for many years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rowan Joffé

[edit]

Links to two films; doesn't meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 20:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plaincode

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Plaincode with Template:Codett.
Duplicates, templates do the exact same thing. Merge Template:Plaincode (21 transclusions) into Template:Codett (281 transclusions). waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinesh Subasinghe

[edit]

None of these link to the actual soundtracks, but go to the films. Per WP:FILMNAV, he is not a primary creator of these films. If you purge these, there is nothing left. --woodensuperman 10:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andrew Wade

[edit]

Was only the producer on these, we do not generally include production credits in navboxes --woodensuperman 10:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sons of Seasons

[edit]

Only two albums with articles. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 08:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDRGB

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in June 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep both, as creator I created these templates to assist with light and dark mode colors using inline CSS. Otherwise it would be a pain to make colors work in light and dark mode. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful templates that can be used in portals when the time cost of converting to TemplateStyles is too high —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 10:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 19

[edit]

Template:Talkown

[edit]

Pure junk - basically a talk page notice complaining about article stewardship/current consensus and or for use by those that simply aren't getting their way. Recently created by a new user unhappy with a talk page discussion. Moxy🍁 22:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allcaps

[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 speedy keep. Izno (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having a template, we should do it manually. BodhiHarp (talk) 18:23, 19 August 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:Releases SLES

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. The primary author of the template blanked it and may have copied it into articles or removed it from articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only used at SUSE_Linux_Enterprise#End-of-support_schedule.
The template should be removed.
Thanks. Xose.vazquez (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HouseVacantTally

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is not deleted, if this is kept, then rename to {{USHoR-vacant-tally}} since this "House" is horribly named. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the template coding is wrong, it assumes there are only Democrats and Republicans, and never any Independents or Third Parties, which is historically not true. It should also be drawing from a WikiData item instead -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I created this as a practical (and somewhat hastily-built) template to transclude into pages about caucuses in Congress. My goal was to eventually create a database-style list of all members of Congress with attributes including what caucuses they belong to and have a module (or modules) tally up the members of each caucus and then have templates (like the one under discussion) hold the resulting values to transclude into articles that have information about caucuses. Specifically, I was hoping to use an article like List of current United States representatives as the "ground truth" so when a change in membership occurs, only one article would have to be edited and that information would propagate to all affected articles. This would be great for rarely-edited articles like Congressional caucus, which, without such automatic updates, frequently (perhaps even usually) have incorrect information. It would also be good for just United States House of Representatives, where people frequently used to only edit 1 of the several locations caucus member totals are mentioned (including the number of vacancies), resulting in inconsistent information throughout that page. The template's current simple calculation works for now in the absence of such a database and module. I'm not sure what happened to the former transclusions, but I stopped working on this project because there was no consensus: at least one or two people seemed to prefer manually editing the values on each page and actively oppose shifting away from that that I didn't think I should spend my time working on it. Naturally, I believe this is a net negative for the above reasons, but consensus is how things work here.
    So, this template in its current state is a practical, currently-working, rudimentary tool that is controversial enough to not be improved. Without someone who edits the Congressional caucus pages wanting to transclude it anywhere, I guess deleting it would be relatively inconsequential, but it seems like a natural idea that would spring up again eventually. If anyone (particularly someone with more familiarity with Wikipedia's software - like someone who really knows what WikiData is, unlike me) is interested in building the consensus and picking up where I left off, keeping and renaming it would make sense, too. Blippy1998 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution: Using a template to transclude information across multiple articles has the potential for causing all sorts of potential WP:V issues. Note that when information is repeated in multiple articles, it has to be verifiable in each article. So… Make sure that your template transcludes appropriate citations along with any information. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history and the only protest against using this style of template was here, to which I responded at the time. To address the person's concerns, I will limit, for now, the usage of these templates to places that are edited infrequently (by keeping them up to date by having the templates placed there), with the goal of having accurate information on Wikipedia even in obscure places while keeping editing eminently accessible to newbies (i.e. not confusing them with a template where they think a number should be) in highly-visited places. I also applied for a bot so as to be able to edit the templates automatically, which should reduce confusion over the templates and increase their utility. As such, I have started by readding the templates to the chart legend in United States House of Representatives#Committees and caucuses (see [1]).

@Jonesey95: I also added documentation.

@Blueboar: I added citations to the templates, although it is absolutely not standard practice to add citations to the tallies of members in legislatures/caucuses, particularly in infoboxes (see United States Congress, Nebraska Legislature, Philadelphia City Council, Congressional Black Caucus, etc.), so we should not do that here either.

To address the second concern of the anonymous user above, if this goes well, I will likely accommodate independents as well, but again, for now, this works. As for the third concern, I may draw from WikiData at some point; I did figure out how to do that, but I'd have to figure out how to format the HTML correctly and how to make a WikiData bot. I'm still okay with renaming it if people think that's appropriate. Blippy1998 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 18

[edit]

Template:Video game controversy

[edit]

The articles in this navbox are too loosely related to be grouped. Per WP:NAV-RELATED, "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. Articles included in a navigation template must be more than loosely-related." Sources do not link the vast majority of these articles, which are only loosely linked by being controversial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though I would recommend adding the navbox's included pages to Category:Video game controversies first. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Games can be controversial for unrelated reasons. I'll add that it's not good when the reader needs to click on the links to figure out what the controversies even were, which is the case for many of these links. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. FaviFake (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Propose merging Template:Format link with Template:Format linkr.
They do exactly the same thing, except Format linkr is better. I propose redirecting Format linkr and moving it to Format link, which uses an inferior code. There are no differences between the two other than the fact that Format linkr works better. See this taken from the /doc:

{{format link}} {{format linkr}}
{{format link|Some_Page_With_Underscores}} {{format linkr|Some_Page_With_Underscores}}
Some_Page_With_Underscores Some Page With Underscores
{{format linkr|Template talk:T#%7B%7Bu%7D%7D}} {{format linkr|Template talk:T#%7B%7Bu%7D%7D}}
Template talk:T § %7B%7Bu%7D%7D Template talk:T § {{u}}
{{format link|%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96}} {{format linkr|%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96}}
[[:%E4%BA%BA%E7%9A%84%E6%95%99E5%8C%96]] 人的教化
{{format link|Page_With&UnderBar;HTML5_Entities}} {{format linkr|Page_With&UnderBar;HTML5_Entities}}
Page_With_HTML5_Entities Page With_HTML5 Entities

Thanks. --FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: When I created {{format linkr}} I wrote on its doc subpage:

This template […] is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, because of the changes it makes to {{format link}}'s output that could create ambiguity if automatically replaced.

I no longer feel so strongly that {{format linkr}} is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, but I think FaviFake, as merge proposer, should do a review of uses of {{format link}} which contain underscores and see if ambiguity would be introduced by using {{format linkr}} instead. It would certainly strengthen his case. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I ckecked the first 30 or so transclusions, but the template is being used exactly as {{section link}}. How would I look for of uses of {{format link}} which contain underscores?
I'm not sure why anyone would use {{format link}} to preserve the underscores instead of removing them. Wouldn't it be better to just keep the raw link? I don't think there's too much to worry about here. Also, {{format link}} has only ~300 transclusions, while {{format linkr}} has 6k+. The latter is definitely more popuar, and if someone wants to check all 300, it's not a ton compared to other similar TfDs. FaviFake (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm……that does seem reasonable. I'm not sure I knew what I was talking about when I wrote that into the /doc, then. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be okay with making URL-decoding the "default" behaviour and including it in {{format link}}, but I would prefer a) an option for transclusions to disable the URL-decoding formatting step and b) for the URL-decoding to be implemented in Module:Format link rather than glued-together in wikitext the way that {{format linkr}} does it; as long as we're making judgements about "inferior code", we can do this right. The core template should at least be able to handle making proper links to anything in e.g. Category:Articles_with_underscores_in_the_title, no matter that that category's small. Moreover, since the module is transcluded to ~2% of all pages, I'd like some review to try to check for edge cases before making those changes. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah sure, my main worry is getting rid of the two almost identical names. I'm not interested in how it's actually done, as long as it doesn't remain in the "to-do" queue for too long. FaviFake (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Though I've encountered pain with {{mfd}}'s usage of format linkr on WP:Scripts++ (cuz the + gets decoded to a space), I think there's far more scenarios where people want decoding, and Favi's statistics are convincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until y'all can nominate something at TFD without it breaking other templates in spectacular fashion. See {{Please see}} and how it's unusable right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and a technical reason not to right from {{format linkr}}'s "Usage" notes: This template is intended to lower editor workload when copying links from the URL bar and is not suitable for replacing {{format link}}, because of the changes it makes to {{format link}}'s output that could create ambiguity if automatically replaced.. Thus I propose a Speedy close with no action taken to prevent further damage to the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's broken; the notification does exactly what it's supposed to render.
What you mentioned was already discussed in the very first replies here. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at {{Please see}}, you're required to notify users and maintainers of Twinkle at WT:TWINK prior to nomination for breaking changes. This is a breaking change (inserting the TFD nomination). This is actively disrupting the project. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole This was a mistake. The template doc shouldn't have mentioned "This template should NOT be substituted", or the folks that built {{Please see}} shouldn't have substituted it, or the template shouldn't have been safesubst-ed, or someone should've checked the code before nominating it. This is no one's fault and the mistake has no relevancy in thiis discussion. FaviFake (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't placing blame with anyone. However, the relevancy was that at the time I wrote that, certain functions of the project were broken because of this nomination. As you can see, I've struck my oppose and now oppose for a different (and valid) reason. Unsure why you're replying to this. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposing the merger because the template... wasn't tagged for deletion properly?
@Aaron Liu Locke talked about it at Template talk:Format link § Template-protected edit request on 18 August 2025, you might want to take a look. FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. I'm not familiar with TfD templates but I'll see what I can do, if anything. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know either, but I do know there are a lot of details on how to apply the tag at WP:TFD, in the yellow/orange table. FaviFake (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like {{Please see}} is no longer broken by the TFD notification. I think someone added noinclude tags in a couple spots. Anyway, that's not really a valid reason to oppose (or support) merging, since poorly coded TFD notifications is a different issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since {{Please see}} utilizes the underscore preservation behavior of {{format link}} when invoked with the |keepunderscore= parameter. {{format linkr}} does not appear to have a way to do this. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a usecase for preserving the underscores? (If so, we can always add an option that doesn't replace the underscores, which should be easy with Lua, but I want to know why first.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm just noting that if this TFD is done as proposed, it will cause things to stop working unless measures are taken to resolve them prior to the merge. If we can make sure things aren't going to break, I'll happily support this. But the claims of the templates being identical are already proving to be less than accurate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case it wouldn't really "stop working". It would keep working exactly the same way, except that in the very rare case that someone uses the |keepunderscore= parameter, it will not keep the underscores. The nomination mistake was orders of magnitude more disruptive, and it didn't take long to fix it. FaviFake (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about stop messing around with the Project space for a bit? You have been told at least three times on your talk page to stop in the past few days. This is becoming ridiculous. – The Grid (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I intended users be explicit by using &UnderBar;, which I thought was marginally better because it allows people to decide which underscores to keep. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hapoel Be'er Sheva matches in European football

[edit]

Article content with no template parameters that was used only at Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C. in European football. The content has been copy-pasted there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support FaviFake (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FBG Duck

[edit]

Created by a blocked user with most of the pages in the template now being red links or redirecting to different articles (batman song). The remaining articles redirect to the main page or one of 2 other pages so I don't think there are enough articles to warrant a nav template for this topic. Moritoriko (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per nom FaviFake (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexagenary cycle

[edit]

Navigates only 5 pages and transcluded on only 3. The others are all redirects duplicated by templates like {{Chinese zodiac}} and are functionally duplicate as a result. Izno (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove links, and subst in if required. The template is not good for navigation, but it displays the cycle in a compact format. I think this is useful for our readers. Techie3 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my proposed solution is that it is a compact version of the table at the article Sexagenary cycle. It seems more ergnomic to me then scrolling down to the Sexagenary years table. Techie3 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Techie3's solution, or delete and move the Wood Rat link into the Chinese zodiac template as a subcategory of the Rat. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 12:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bare URL PDF chart

[edit]

Unused template using the graph extension which isn't coming back. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bare URLs chart

[edit]

Unused template using the graph extension which isn't coming back. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, migrating it to the Chart extension would seem the obvious choice here. I think there was a BRFA for it. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without digging too much, I would say these are not practical to reinstate even by bot (they look like they were charts for tracking category size over time). We don't need a bot performing that kind of work. Izno (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people find it useful, and want to convert the template to Charts and reactivate the bot, sure we can have a bot for that kind of work. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bot can no longer operate on Wikipedia with Charts. I also don't have any large issue with that, but I suspect it's going to take some work for MusikBot to get up and running again in a task like this one. For some categories it might make sense to track backlog over time, such as the one or two pages I know have tracked backlogs at XFD etc. I'm not convinced of the general value of a bot here for bare URLs. Izno (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they made the new extension require the data be on Commons. Sigh. Anomie⚔ 13:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much to many's chagrin. (I get the motivations in both directions.) Izno (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. FaviFake (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete sentence

[edit]

If a sentence makes no sense, it should be removed, not left behind. A live article should never be a work in progress that leaves the page incomprehensible. Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions appreciated, in particular if there is any preference (should it go that way) of deletion vs redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – "this sentence is being worked on"?! Makes no sense FaviFake (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(support deletion) FaviFake (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 17

[edit]

Template:Stub article part

[edit]

We already have Template:Expand section GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Political party linked

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Owidslider

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plan is to use it eventually to do this MDWiki:WikiProjectMed:OWID/List_of_graphs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still working on it then it should be moved to your draft namespace. A single edit and left for 6 months clearly shows that it is not being worked on. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have had three discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Improvements are being made on MDWiki:Main_Page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:NLL game log

[edit]

Unused module. Not used by Template:NLL game log. Gonnym (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:MediaWiki:Talkpageheader

[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. Deleted as G7 and general consensus for currently not needed KylieTastic (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module. Not used in MediaWiki:Talkpageheader. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and if there gains consensus to auto populate talk page header then we can restore. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:04, 17 August 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.

Module:Higher education task force

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Switcher

[edit]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems like it could be useful for simplifying Template:Switcher, but maybe not necessary to convert. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes are you working on this? If so I can withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, as far as I can tell, the module works fine and should be more efficient. I will boldly change the template to use the module. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will withdraw then. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:WikiProject Higher education task force test2

[edit]

Unused test module. This should not have been created separately from Module:Higher education task force. Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The development for this was put on hiatus but this can be moved into my userspace at this point. It was created so as not to disprupt production behavior, and because the module it's supposed to fix is protected. Tduk (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that statement, kind of sounds like this module should be at Module:Higher education task force/sandbox? Izno (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 16

[edit]

Template:Bundesautobahn X route map

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should not list every interchange, rest stop, crossing, border crossing, and tunnel in the infobox; instead, we should limit to 10 major intersections in the |junction= parameter. (see also: WT:HWY, WT:DEU, {{infobox road}}, all pages with titles beginning with Template:Bundesautobahn, and all pages with titles beginning with Template:Bundesstraße) 2600:1700:6180:6290:68D3:4E39:2F2D:24D5 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. drinks or coffee or prime *GET OUT* 15:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lua code

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per nom FaviFake (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Norwegian encyclopedias

[edit]

Delete. Overwhelming number of redlinks, many of whom might not pass WP:N; this violates WP:EXISTING and WP:CREATEFIRST. Moreover, per WP:TG #6, it has also been made redundant by listification: List of encyclopedias in Norwegian; and categorisation: Category:Norwegian encyclopedias. NLeeuw (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any red links? FaviFake (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. You can see the edit history. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're right, there are too many of them. For other editors, this is how it looked: [2] FaviFake (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swedish encyclopedias

[edit]

Delete. Overwhelming number of redlinks, many of whom might not pass WP:N; this violates WP:EXISTING and WP:CREATEFIRST. Moreover, per WP:TG #6, it has also been made redundant by listification: List of encyclopedias in Swedish; and categorisation: Category:Encyclopedias in Swedish. NLeeuw (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Finnish encyclopedias

[edit]

Delete. Overwhelming number of redlinks, many of whom might not pass WP:N; this violates WP:EXISTING and WP:CREATEFIRST. Moreover, per WP:TG #6, it has also been made redundant by listification: List of encyclopedias in Finnish; and categorisation: Category:Finnish-language encyclopedias. NLeeuw (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's basically all red links. FaviFake (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redlinks have now been removed. 62.113.178.32 (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with the article and the category. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:X for discussion

[edit]

These edit notices pop up when editing the pages Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and similar. In theory, they contain a small right-aligned text that links to closing instructions for the XfD page. But for some reason, the edit notices are empty when editing the pages they are applied on, both on mobile and desktop: https://imgur.com/a/VigDhwY. I suspect this has to do with how they're formatted, which would mean they may have never actually worked as intended. I suggest deleting these edit notices because:

  • It appears they don't ever actually show up, at least in the Visual and source editors and in the Android mobile app;
  • In all these XfD pages, there is the very same link at the top right, which is much easier to find and use;
  • It is distracting (especially on mobile, where it displays a big warning sign). All editors that edit the page don't need to see it, just the closers... and I'm sure the closers are more familiar with the top-right link;
  • Other XfDs don't have similarly empty edit notices.

FaviFake (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I edit Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 3 (this page), I see a small link just above the top right corner of my editing window. It says "Closing instructions". It is just below the links to "Group notice" (the nominated page) and "Page notice" (red link). I don't know that it is particularly useful, since any potential closers are probably using WP:XFDcloser, so it can probably be deleted without harm. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's another reason I hadn't even considered. --FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep CfD and RfD, which include additional information other than just a closing instructions link. Fine with deleting TfD, but I don't find the nomination statement particularly convincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. The only reason I nominated CfD and RfD (which as you say contain more info) it's because I couldn't get them to display in any article I tried. The edit notice always pops up, but on my devices it's still empty. Could you check on your end if they are displayed when you try to edit one of the articles it should be applied on?
Even still — I would argue the CfD notice is not at all worth keeping. If there's one thing a CfD nominator probably doesn't need to be taught, it's that they need to use a colon after "[[:" to link to a category. Especially considering the disruption to the user flow it creates. But I wouldn't mind it too much if it actually showed up. FaviFake (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them work for me. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While regular closers may be likely to use that script, it'd people who don't regularly close discussions that would most need a link and they're less likely to be using the script. Anomie⚔ 11:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notices all appear to work as intended for me. I note that the screenshot https://imgur.com/a/VigDhwY appears to show the source of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, where the notice is intentionally empty, rather than a page such as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 3 where it displays the link. On the other hand, I don't see any top-right link on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 3 as claimed, only on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion itself. The mobile behavior seems unfortunately designed to only handle first-edit warnings on articles rather than any other use cases, including lack of any obvious way to re-show the notice once it has been dismissed. Anomie⚔ 11:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we keep a notice that is intentionally empty? If we delete the intentionally empty notice, that doesn't mean that the non-empty notice won't work. Am I missing something?
I unfortunately don't understand your last sentence. FaviFake (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way the system currently works, if we want a notice for all subpages of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/ then a group notice must exist for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion itself to call {{editnotice subpages|Log}}.
OTOH, looking into things more closely, it looks like the notice for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion itself isn't coming through as completely empty like it's supposed to since Special:Diff/1246065812, instead it contains __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__. Other notices that have multiple invocations of {{editnotice subpages}} may have multiple repetitions of that. @Jonesey95: Would it break other things to revert that edit? Or do we need to make the emptiness check in Template:Editnotice load/core run the content through something like {{replace|...|__EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__|}}? Anomie⚔ 14:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this seems very complex. I still think the advanges to removing the "Closing instructions" edit notice everywhere (except RfD, where there is more meaningful text) far outweigh the benefits of keeping the notice on pages where it doesn't work for tecgnical reasons. Thanks for looking into it. FaviFake (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ... Considering that 344 other subpages of Template:Editnotices are still showing up on Special:UnusedTemplates, I'm thinking it wouldn't really break things much worse to revert that (adding 28 pages back to the list). If we really want to clean them off of Special:UnusedTemplates, we'd need to either ensure every editnotice individually has __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ or make a page somewhere that "transcludes" every editnotice similarly to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. Anomie⚔ 15:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use a different report to check for unused templates, so removal of that magic word wouldn't cause me much trouble. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now removed it. Looks like that has fixed the mostly empty popup when editing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion on the mobile site. Anomie⚔ 01:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Montenegrins

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Montenegrins with Template:Montenegrin diaspora.
Navboxify per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. I was trying to clean it up, but then realised this whole sidebar is redundant. The Culture, Religion and History sections are not about Montenegrin people, but all about the country Montenegro, and most links in it are redirects anyway (WP:BRINT). All articles that are actually about Montenegrins as such are already in the footer navbox Template:Montenegrin diaspora, making it redundant. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR, we shouldn't have sidebars unless there is no better option, but the navbox is already better. NLeeuw (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Dege31: I'd like you to know I'm proposing to merge these two templates. This shouldn't affect the contents of Montenegrins of North Macedonia (which we agreed to let you adopt as a draft), but it will significantly affect the article's layout. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, Dege31 has already removed the template from Montenegrins of North Macedonia, making the template even more redundant. NLeeuw (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, element 14:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. FaviFake (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wenard attribution

[edit]

Superfluous attribution template. It says that "This article is based on the text donated by the Wenard Institute under CC-BY-4.0 license" but all our articles are based on CC BY-licensed text, and attributed to specific contributors accordingly. – Joe (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems pretty popular, and we have many other organisation-specific (rather than source-specific) attribution templates in Category:Attribution templates. But agree that it'd be nicer to have specific source attribution, but that can still be done on top of org-attribution, imo. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an existing published source that text was taken from. The Wenard Institute is fundamentally just a group of editors, contributing text directly to Wikipedia. I'm not aware of a single other template that is like that. – Joe (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place of articulation templates

[edit]

Not used in any articles and redundant to Template:IPA pulmonic consonants, which has all the linguolabials which have an article about them. This template has a bunch of links to non-notable linguolabial/post-palatal/palatal.velar sounds found in no languages in addition to the sounds already in Template:IPA pulmonic consonants. Redundant to Template:IPA pulmonic consonants, and each of these templates will only ever be used on one page (e.g. Template:IPA chart of bilabial consonants will only be used on Bilabial consonants). As a result, we can hardcode these tables into their articles without these templates. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have a chart exclusively on linguolabials? BodhiHarp (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is used in no articles and redundant to Template:IPA pulmonic consonants – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep templates like this and the post-palatals focusing on specific places and manners of articulation in Category:Place and manner of articulation templates. BodhiHarp (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If these templates are not used anywhere and are redundant, there is no point in keeping them around. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should have templates on specific manners and places of articulation. For usage, just add them to articles. BodhiHarp (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BodhiHarp: I've expanded this list to include all of the unused templates. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we add these to articles? BodhiHarp (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the templates beyond the linguolabials, the template focuses on sounds that occur. BodhiHarp (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just added the velars to the article about velar consonants. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the post-palatals to the article about palatal consonants. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same with palatals BodhiHarp (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the linguolabials. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami Should these be deleted or not? BodhiHarp (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the unused ones. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tinc 2

[edit]

Unused in several months and could be if desired trivially implemented in {{tinc}}. Izno (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tinc, we have enough small templates FaviFake (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge unused templates. If utility is wanted, it should be proposed in the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 15

[edit]

Template:Solar system orbital period vs semimajor axis.svg

[edit]

Unused image template that is just an image and a caption. This is article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Louton family

[edit]

Navbox with no main article and not enough directly relevant blue links to useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authority control (arts)

[edit]

Unnecessary wrapper for Template:Authority control. Can be replaced with {{Authority control|show=arts}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Worth keeping

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created by SPA. — ERcheck (talk) 01:16, 20 August 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.

Old discussions

[edit]

August 13

Template:Use Antiguan and Barbudan English

[edit]

Propose deletion of this template which encourages the use of terms which are not suitable for use on Wikipedia in line with MOS:COMMONALITY. The Antiguan and Barbudan English#Vocabulary article is extremely limited and the primary difference with British English appears to be 'traveler' instead of 'traveller'. However, the reference for this is the word's use in a local news article and would appear more likely to be a simple spelling error. It also seems that the use of some Creole terms might create something called Antiguan and Barbudan English but these terms would not be suitable for use on Wikipedia. This template therefore serves no purpose and may actually be harmful. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I added to the vocabulary section. It should be noted that Creole is distinct from Antiguan and Barbudan English– in addition to nearly all Creole terms having a different spelling standard, Antiguan and Barbudan English is also explicitly taught in schools and is the only standard used by the Antiguan and Barbudan government. Terms like whitewood, bilbush, and bay can be easily understood by international English speakers, and more technical terms relating to daily life can also be easily understood. I am expanding the article at the moment and I will include more sourcing. CROIXtalk 23:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Croix. You might want to add 'keep' in bold to make your vote clear. I must say though, several of the terms that you have added to the article just now might actually undermine your point. They highlight differences with American English, not British English. Terms like 'chips' and 'holiday' are British terms. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder. And yes, there are some similarities between American-English differences, but many of the terms listed are unique to Antiguan and Barbudan English. I will expand the vocabulary section with more formal vocabulary shortly. I am currently searching for more educational style guides on the dialect. It should also be noted that Antiguan and Barbudan English is distinct from acrolectal Antiguan and Barbudan Creole, the most similar form of Creole to English– the terms listed in the vocabulary section are used in print media, state media, and legislation. CROIXtalk 23:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ENGVAR was established to stop battles between spelling such color/colour. It is not practical to expect every known English dialect to be used when editing a corresponding article. Nor would it be helpful since articles should be written in commonly used English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are spelling differences in Antiguan and Barbudan English and British English, for example spellings ending in -se and -ze. There are also minor differences in vocabulary that are normal between major English dialects. These Antigua-specific differences are not present in other Caribbean English dialects such as Trinidadian English or Jamaican English, that for the most part have identical spelling to British English according to their respective articles. Are these differences too subtle to justify a separate template? CROIXtalk 09:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lack of sources for these claims, which is half the trouble. But I've just looked at an AB Government document to see if they use '-se' or '-ze'. They use 'analyse', 'analysed' or 'analyses' 9 times. Whereas 'analyze' only appears once. Likewise, 'amortisation' as opposed to 'amortization'. I'm not convinced that any American spellings aren't simply spelling errors.
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf Dgp4004 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article is properly sourced with two local dictionaries, -ze spellings can be seen in legislation:
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2013-9.pdf
  • American words such as "license" being used in favour of "licence" in the same document (76 times) and legislation:
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2015-3.pdf
  • And spellings like "authorize" being preferred by state-controlled media:
https://abstvradio.com/cbh-issues-reminder-to-business-operators-on-protocols/ CROIXtalk 21:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Antiguan Standard English isn't an attempt to write British English if that is what you are trying to say. The academic writing style of everyday Antiguan English speakers is reflected the cited dictionaries and considering British English is not taught in Antigua and Barbuda in any form, why expect editors using this variety to have to adopt it on the articles they write about Antigua and Barbuda (MOS:TIES) – I presume British English is the variety you wish for the Antigua and Barbuda article and others to be written with. And yes, you will see various forms of English being used in certain documents as a very large number people are educated abroad. Antigua and Barbuda also has no official language and thus there is no one correct variety– at the end of the day the Antiguan government isn't investing too much into style guides in official publications. A third of the country’s population are also immigrants from other English speaking countries further increasing diversity in the variety of English used in official documents. I also recommend you check out the very recently created Template:Use Caribbean English which could replace this template while still allowing editors to use MOS-compliant local vocabulary and spelling. CROIXtalk 01:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template is an attempt to establish a new "variety" of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used. It also creates an unacceptable burden for the majority of editors, who have no reasonable way of determining what the characteristics of the variety are. —Quondum 21:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly explains Antiguan English spelling. I also imagine we may want to include other Caribbean English (and many other) templates in this discussion as they were also created without an ENGVAR discussion, which is a reasonable point. Templates such as Template:Use Belizean English were reasonably but unilaterally created in the last few days (additionally see Template talk:Use Caribbean English and the proposed policy linked in the main comment on that page). A centralized discussion on these templates would be more than useful and would hopefully allow for a consensus on what to do with Caribbean English-related topics. CROIXtalk 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A centralized discussion about a guideline prohibiting addition of ENGVAR templates is sorely needed, but it in no way obviates the need for dealing with this one here, now. And just because others exists does not justify this one. The existence of ENGVAR diversity is unfortunate: the creation of this creeping perceived free-for-all for every dialect on the planet is an inevitable consequence. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ping @Asdfjrjjj: as this mention of their recently created template may be of interest. CROIXtalk 01:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: This is the first time I've ever come across this guidance, and I have been through a whoooooole lot of these TfDs and ENGVAR-related discussions. If this is policy/guidance/consensus, would you mind linking to it (as it actually is relevant to some templates I just created)? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. A MOS is precisely to keep style uniformity, and its scope includes this. ENVAR did not arise without discussion. I think that it recognizes any distinct varieties is antithetical to a MOS, but surely you are not going to claim that acceptance of the two dominant ENGVAR varieties occurred without discussion? As I've said, IMO these discussions do not belong under TfD. You are not making yourself sound serious through the sarcasm implied by your emphasis. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: I apologise I really didn't mean to imply sarcasm (would've tagged [sarcasm] in that case) - was honestly just surprised and tired last night, given how much time and effort I put into finding previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates. To be quite clear though (especially since Dgp4004 seems to possibly share this stance), the only policy/guidance/consensus backing the stance "first gain recognition at MOS for a variant as an ENGVAR variant that may be used" is that (i) there was a MOS discussion to establish AmE and BrE as ENGVAR variants that may be used on Wikipedia, and so (ii) any new variants seeking to be used on Wikipedia must first gain recognition at MOS, like AmE and BrE did. Does that represent the position accurately? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that I'm being overreactive, so I owe you an apology in turn. Your summary seems a close summary of my stance, with the caveat that this is given the current ENGVAR (I personally do not think that the ENGVAR policy makes sense, but that ship has sailed). My "stance" is in fact not based on historical discussion, just on the common-sense-based perception that without some constraint, a few nation-proud editors can create chaos with the freedom to sidestep a proper discussion around acceptance of each new variety. —Quondum 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editors Quondum and Dgp4004: this is actually reasonable imo (if only a bit at odds with ENGVAR, possibly), and I'm sorry for not thinking of this (had thought the UBE discussion would do)! There's actually a MOS discussion atm that's very relevant to this, so I'll note this stance over there, and wait for the outcome of that discussion, then TfD nom the {{Use X English}} templates I created, and then prolly do as suggested here for the relevant dialects (but would definitely cite this discussion re propriety of even opening such a discussion on MOS talk).
    As regards this template though, vote remains keep (for same reasons), pending aforementioned MOS discussion. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quondum WP:ENGVAR literally says "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." There is no requirement for certain national varieties to undergo a MOS discussion before being used. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reading an orthogonal permission into something that was in no way addressing the idea of introducing new varieties, simply from an absence of a statement addressing your claim? —Quondum
  • Comment: To debunk the notion that ABE is too heavily influenced by Creole, here is a fictional illustrative passage I made to show the differences between Antiguan and Barbudan English and ABC, both examples following style guidelines on the respective dialect/language's article.
Antiguan and Barbudan Creole:
  • De X unu wan dutë pät Wilikë ë pan wie naigaändem lub fu um gudgud vyüändem de Deb'lbrij unu bigbig libtingändem gwän dai sün. Pan 2022, wan grüp owsaiting lublubändem së pan de bush an täk fätë fu wan-ändred de änim'ländem kud hab dey yäd gwän-wei.
Antiguan and Barbudan English:
  • X is a dirt path in Willikies, known for its scenic views of Devil's Bridge and a large number of endangered species. In 2022, a group of researchers analyzed the surrounding bushland, finding that forty percent of wildlife in the area was at risk of habitat loss.
Following the guidelines on the article, ABE is perfectly suitable to be used on Wikipedia under the Manual of Style– and is clearly very distinct from ABC. Even though the above passage contains two distinct Antiguan terms and more importantly, plenty of spelling conventions that differ from both British and American English, it is perfectly readable to an international English speaker. CROIXtalk 09:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strongly disagree with every single thing nom said, and with all but Quondum's delete votes (in case that's actual guidance or consensus). As an aside to nom and deletionists: pls, pls, plssssss do group TfDs for any unwanted {{Use X English}} templates, I beeeg. This piecemeal nomination campaign since the EngvarB saga is sooo, sooooooo tiresome and confusing. Nom's rationale applies to more than one current {{Use X English}} template - plsss just be consistent and nominate all applicable templates! (Reasons for my strong disagreement are the same as in my 5 Aug vote in the recent UCamE TfD - amended to add that I'd consider voting delete if this template were merged/passed to {{UCarE}} with all tracking categories preserved [ie {{UCarE}} code updated accordingly], but only in a group TfD b/c honestly that template's destined for TfD soon-ish from the looks of it.) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might send the same request back to you: please stop creating language templates without consensus. You know it's controversial but quietly proceed anyway. We have to discuss each in turn because some have much less merit than others.
    This is the first I have heard of this Use Carribbean English template. I have no doubt we will be discussing the merits of that one in a separate discussion so I don't want to get sidetracked onto that now. But I don't understand what you and Croix are suggesting. You want both individual English templates for each small island or island group because each variety is so unique, and you also want a pan-Carribbean template because they're so similar? You want to keep both? Dgp4004 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or are you each changing your votes to 'merge' into Use Carribbean English? In which case, we can always suspend this discussion until we've examined the merits of that one. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a read of the template. I must say, I can't see any merit in merging into that one. Rather than simplify, it appears to be an attempt to introduce a dozen different uncodified 'varieties' of English. Has there been a consensus I have missed to create that? I cannot understand why you would proceed knowing how controversial it would be. And without even discussing it here on a template it is designed to replace. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Dgp4004: I didn't really appreciate this, if I'm being honest, as imo I only created {{UCarE}} and {{UBelE}} after extensive discussion and readings of previous relevant discussions. Those were the result of a UBE discussion, where I tried my best to find previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates, and I likewise tried my best in creating the templates to meet everyone's diverging requirements/wishes (see UCarE talk). So we can for sure discuss the templates' merits/demerits in a group TfD for them (a consistent grouping though, with no illogical exclusions pls), but the charge that they were created carelessly, inappropriately, or underhandedly I'll not accept, given I know that a lot of time, effort, and thought went into their quite public creation (ofc they might still be TfD-worthy, but for other reasons, not this one imo).
    And for the record re this stance ("stop creating language templates without consensus"), this is not guidance/consensus I encountered before (else ofc I wouldn't have breached it!), and as I commented to Quondum above, I would actually appreciate seeing any relevant policy/guideline/consensus establishing this stance, and would ofc support deletion of any templates (regardless of author) which breached policy/guideline/consensus! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. There is nothing stopping you from churning out another eighty odd of these templates. The only way to combat what I consider this harmful trend is through the TfD process, which you deem a 'piecemeal nomination campaign' that is 'sooo, sooooooo tiresome'. I can absolutely assure you, I do not enjoy these discussions any more than you do. But if you won't discuss them beforehand, we have to discuss them after their creation. I'm sorry if that causes distress, but as I said above - you must have known what you were doing would be controversial and would trigger more TfDs, especially as you have read so extensively. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we haven't even got to yours yet! I would much rather we focus on the matter at hand: this template designed to protect such unique terms as 'holiday', 'upper house' and 'African'. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgp4004 @CROIX @Johnuniq @Quondum Just a note to alert all participants to the extremely relevant discussion currently ongoing at the MOS talk page. Please come and weigh in there if you want to. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Template:Undertale

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Undertale with Template:Toby Fox.
There is significant overlap between the Undertale and Toby Fox templates. I attempted to BOLDly merge the Undertale one into Toby Fox, but the merge was undone by another user, so I am opening this discussion. The only links that would be brought over are the characters. Everything else in the Undertale template either already exists in the Toby Fox template, or doesn't belong as not on-topic per WP:NAV-RELATED (e.g. Mother). TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.  novov talk edits 01:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Heavy overlap, and I see no need for both to be separate. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which way to merge, Undertale to Toby Fox, or Toby Fox to Undertale?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ringtail Raider: @Pokelego999: If you can, please indicate which direction you want to merge. Thank you TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Undertale template into the Toby Fox one. The reason for merging in that direction is that, while you can argue that some of the non-Undertale/Deltarune links on the Toby Fox navbox are too tangential to be included, he is strongly connected to at the very least Music of Homestuck.--AlexandraIDV 11:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole list of characters from the Undertale franchise would not belong in an individual's navbox. Nor would Undertale Yellow, of which he had no involvement. --woodensuperman 12:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far 2 are in support of merging to Toby Fox (novov, Alexandra) and 4 are in support of merging to Undertale (myself, woodensuperman, 1isall, you know her) with 2 ambiguous votes (pokelego, ringtail raider). I kinda feel bad about making this nomination such a mess by switching my opinion half-way, but I really think Undertale/Deltarune is the better subject to link under and would like to explain why. Almost all the topics involved (the games, the music, the characters) could theoretically be placed under either navigational umbrella, but I think the U/D box provides a more cohesive scope than a Toby Fox one. With U/D, we can include Undertale Yellow which Toby Fox had nothing to do with. Linking fictional characters also makes more sense in a U/D box as well than in a Fox navbox. Using a Toby Fox navbox only expands the scope within the realm of real world stuff, which right now would only mean including Music of Homestuck. The way I see it, navigating there from one of the U/D articles is too tangential, and certainly not worth forgoing the opportunity to link Undertale Yellow. In fact, most discussion about Fox's contributions to Homestuck are on his own page, not at the Music of Homestuck article. I've also noticed other editors trying to add Fox's other musical contributions to his template like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet, which barely mention Fox and are so tangential to U/D stuff that its difficult to see who would be navigating between those articles. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was in favor of merging to Toby Fox (implied with per nom though sorry that was vague), but I agree with all your points, plus since then someone has stripped all non-Undertale links from Toby's template. So I'm switching my vote to merge into Undertale. Ringtail Raider (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Undertale per above. Listing the Undertale characters in the Toby Fox navbox would seem a bit awkward. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox general election

[edit]

Per WP:TFD, this template is redundant to a better-designed template - {{Infobox election}}, which is longstanding and less bulky than this newer template. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this template should be deleted due to redundancy. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim that {{Infobox election}} is 'less bulky' is demonstrably wrong, as anyone can check by comparing the two. Number 57 22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They take up essentially the same height while getting rid of the seats before and seat change. And it's only the same height because the candidate photos are larger on the commonly used one. Plus this new template creates bars which are unecessary as the percentage is already given so it just takes up extra space. The existing one is as compact as it can be, except for the image sizes. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing one is nowhere near being as compact as it could be – there is a huge amount of wasted/redundant space in it. Number 57 23:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a way higher percent of wasted space in this new template, which also is less informative and again has these unnecessary bars which take up more space for something that could simply be represented by a percentage. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The seat change not being there was a bug, this has now been fixed. The elimination of seats before was solely taken for the article's sake, the parameter can still be displayed but was removed in the article as I saw it as irrelevant DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't show the original seats. People shouldn't be having to do math when they go on a Wikipedia page to see how many seats there were beforehand. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not showing the original seats was also a bug which has now been fixed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That correction makes the template even taller and leaves even more white space. Compared to the commonly used one yours has a way higher percentage of white space and the percent bars are completely unnecessary. This is still an extremely horrible template with egregious errors. Orca🐋 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry you feel that way but one’s aesthetic choices shouldn’t warrant deletion, you can always choose to not use it in your articles if you do believe its aesthetic isn’t to your liking DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an aesthetic choice, it's a waste of space. You could have easily just done the percentage on one of the many lines with empty white space but you decided to create these bars which increase the height of the infobox by 50%. This is a direct violation of MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE which states "As with navigation templates, the purpose of infoboxes is to facilitate convenient access to specific information; they should not prioritize a decorative appearance." Orca🐋 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don’t believe that small criticisms of the infobox design warrant deletion. If you’d like, you’re more than welcome to suggest changes on the review section DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules of Wikipedia disagree with you. You aren't above the rules. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask which rule you believe this template to violate? As you say, they should not prioritise decorative appearance, and I don’t believe this does that. It’s a functional template that displays the given information. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally said "aesthetic choices shouldn’t warrant deletion." Prioritizing aesthetic choices over convenient access to specific information is a direct violation of MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE as stated above. Orca🐋 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aesthetic choice of one editor shouldn’t warrant deletion. You have said it looks horrible and you seem to have no argument beyond that. The infobox does not prioritise aesthetic design over access to information. It can be used to display the same information as {{Infobox election}}, choosing a completely vertical layout over a horizontal and vertical combined configuration. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does so while creating an egregious amount of whitespace and creating unnecessary bars which take up more space. We can keep going in circles about this but just because you choose to ignore MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE and pretend like it's not applicable doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course infobox style is a relevant policy, but I don’t think having a greater amount of whitespace or composition bars than you’d like counts the template as unnecessarily decorative and therefore merits deletion. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does when there is a better version that already exists. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as template creator. I don't believe deletion satisfies any of the criteria listed in WP:TFD – the template certainatly meets the NPOV and template namespace guidelines, and it is used and has a likelehood of being used – there are lots of election articles on Wikipedia. What I believe is being argued is redundancy to a better-designed template, to which I also disagree; Template:Infobox election serves a similar but distinct purpose to this template and this template is intended to exist alongside it and Template:Infobox legislative election, not to be a replacement or a redundant copy. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep/dratify but don't use on actual articles). This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Looking for infobox reviews! because the current options, {{Infobox election}} (TIE) and {{Infobox legislative election}} (TILE) are both to found lacking and basically this has created Twitter drama some weeks ago. (On Orca's argument, all three election templates have mostly "has the same parameters and displays the same information".) This TFD was created as a result of that discussion, and now there are two discussions. I suppose the creation of this template was a result of a discussion I initiated earlier this year. I suppose also that the creation of this template may have too soon and there should have been a more thorough discussion before it is used on a live article. With that being said, I dunno if there's a draft system for templates, but I would suggest that, and prevent deletion of this template until it has been determined elsewhere (not on this TFD) on what to do with it, but prevent it usage from live articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck There isn't a draft system for templates (or if there is, it's certainly been kept hidden from me rather well...), I don't think that would work namespace-wise: the best match for what you're talking about is template ratings – {{Infobox general election}} is rated as Alpha, which on the template says It is ready for third party input, and may be used on a few pages to see if problems arise, but should be watched. Outside of this, I'm not aware of anything regarding the development/introduction of templates (e.g. does it need consensus by the wikiproject to introduce?) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is governed by WP:BRD, but considering WP:WPE&R has essentially been 57's show until the TIE vs TILE Twitter storm, considering there are indeed already at least 2 templates serving the same purpose (albeit with most people clearly divided on which between the two to be used universally), and since elections are of general scope, while I would say it does not need a WikiProject's consensus for creation, at least permission has to be sought before it used on actual articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good idea. It's easy enough to just add TIE back to the one live article where TIGE is used whilst it's still in development DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Template:Circular risk

[edit]

This notice does not seem to be needed as talk page banner. We have Template:Circular for the article itself, and if there is anything actionable, then either fix it yourself, or create a talk page discussion. Slapping on a permanent talk page banner isn't really helpful and just adds to banner blindess. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PZLA

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in May 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just added it to a few pages. Has potential for widespread use in external link sections and in references --Habst (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete if not added to many more pages. Please add it to more than 2. A citation or external link template should be created if it has usage in many pages. If you, the creator, can't find those usages, then it isn't as useful as you think. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, there are many more than 2, see Special:Search/insource:"https://statystyka.pzla.pl/personal.php?page=profile" for lots more usages. Also see this same template's use on the Polish Wikipedia where it has over 700 transclusions. I just added it to a few more, can you consider changing your !vote with the new results? --Habst (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about how many potential usages can be. When an editor creates a template, they should create it because they want to use it. If the creator of the template doesn't even care to use it, then it should be deleted. I'm fine with the minimum amount of usages you've added and fine with it being kept. Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, thank you. I did create it because I want to use it; the only reason I didn't yet was because of competing interests. --Habst (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Website builders

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has pages that it could be used on, but I'm in an opinion that if the creator of a navigation template didn't take the time to add it to articles, there is no reason to attempt to save it. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBL game

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can it only be used for the new season? Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can use the FIBA NBL links till 2014 roughly. Any older links that don’t use FIBA statistics won’t work. NBL have game ID's of each match like what the NBA does with their games. Alextigers (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why has this been created 3 months ago and still not used? Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will be using soon. NBL season starts in September. Alextigers (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frank 'Checker' Hughes Medal

[edit]

Minor award without an own article. No mention of the award in several of the players articles. The Banner talk 21:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in the linked game day article and in each of the actual winner's articles. I removed the retrospective list of "best players" in the relevant match before they created this medal. The-Pope (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; wouldn't have thought not having a standalone article should be a reason for deletion, either. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an alternative, maybe a section on this award to where the title can link to, which currently is just mentioned within Anzac eve section in just a single sentence minus a note that's not a note citation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonbar/exists

[edit]

Unused sub template. Can't find usages with insoruce also. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Template:Notebox

[edit]

This notebox duplicates existing templates for no real added value. Use {{efn}} and {{Notelist}} instead of inventing a new design. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notelist are reference list styled with required labels. There are countless local notes in articles that are placed under tables without serving as a reference, but only as explanatory notes of the content of the table. This template serves precisely this type of local notes in a style that is also used in academic research papers. Miria~01 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can still be achieved with {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, see those templates documentation. Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, sample labels (a b c; I II III; or 1 2 3 etc.) would still appear that are not referenced, because a footnote marker was not set. This would limit the editors' options for cases where this is not desired. The appearance of a label in a notelist/reflist without a reference point (footnote marker) would be considered poor design. Miria~01 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Template:Tire

[edit]

This template seems to violate:

  • MOS:COLOR because the links that are produced do not appear to be clickable (Links should be clearly recognizable to readers as clickable) and several of them have poor contrast ratios The visual presentation of text and images of text should meet a sufficient contrast ratio).
  • MOS:ABBR because most readers unfamiliar with the history of automobile racing would not know what the abbreviations mean (Always consider whether it is better to write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation).
  • MOS:EGG by appearing as simple graphics and obfuscating the links to the respective tire manufacturers' articles (If a physical copy of the article were printed, or the article saved as an audio file, the reference to the [tire manufacturer] would be lost).

See also this discussion and this discussion regarding templates for individual manufacturers. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There appear to be separate templates for certain tyre manufacturers which are used similarly to this template, see Category:Tire manufacturer templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's usually best to slowly nominate things like this, starting with the low hanging fruit (unused or barely used), then going for the rest. If this and other TfDs pass, that also gives a much stronger community consensus for the next batch. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with normal links. Colors and bad abbreviations are not only unhelpful but make the wiki worse. The guidelines above that are violated explain why. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit the template to fix the MOS issues. Per TFD reasons above: "Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing." – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such templates are massively useful on kart racing and multi-class discipline articles, where results are almost universally stated with tyre manufacturers in both our articles and secondary sources. MOS:ABBR should always be covered by an appropriate key next to the relevant tables. This should be added to the relevant template docs. It keeps the tables concise, without stretching them beyond the width of the page—which would be the case without them. They are not WP:EGG links as the columns are clearly labelled "Tyres" and, as before, should be affixed to a key. I agree with the MOS:COLOR concerns and already sorted the contrast for Template:Bridgestone; a lot of the colours used are far too harsh. This is not particularly relevant to WP:F1 in recent years and is more a concern of the wider WP:MOTORSPORT. MB2437 15:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire template is completely useless to any reader not familiar with the template. How is anyone supposed to know that "B" is Bridgestone if Wikipedia is the only place using that abbreiation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By having a legend wherever they are used. Tvx1 16:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia is not the only place using that abbreviation. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Bridgestone themselves use that abbreviation—their logo is a massive "B". MB2437 12:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issues are largely fixable. All it needs besides the fixes is for a legend in the articles it’s used.Tvx1 16:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issues, such as they were, have been fixed, and this is an appropriate template that is useful. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Original intent of the templates has been defined to be used in tables, have been commonly accepted by the editors and is in use since 2006, the category outlined the use case. Template Category already in use in thousands of articles and was not an issue where it is applicable since it has alternate navigation elements such as a legend for the table it is used on. Already outlined the templates colour importance for the subjected articles in WP:MOTORSPORT, differentiating and quick navigation with various alternate methods to the visual impaired in the prior discussion [[3]] that was left unconsidered for quick deletion of the follow ups. - User Talk:M1GHTY M4VS 17:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unconvinced by the need for this template per this discussion. In none of the uses of this template that I reviewed did I observe a need to abbreviate the name of the tire or its manufacturer. Izno (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates from this category, which can be merged into this one if it is kept, are used at Jaguar Racing#As a constructor and many other places, where the table barely fits horizontally in my window (which is already set wider than usual using CSS). Using full-text links will make the table scroll horizontally for many more readers and editors, which is undesirable. Using this template, which uses plain-text (no color) abbreviations with {{abbr}}, along with a legend, should keep the horizontal scrolling to a minimum while resolving the accessibility objections. If this template is deleted, the links will need to be changed template by template (painful) or the table will need to scroll horizontally for more readers. This may be a "pick your poison" situation, and I think Template:Tire is the least poisonous option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On my computer, the tables easily fit horizontally, and would fit even if full links were used. On my phone, the table does not fit at all, so I have to scroll horizontally a lot. The tables seem to be designed for computers but not for phones (bad design). --Stefan2 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, these tables are going to end up being too large for someone. We should stop using weird abbreviations in the meanwhile. We're writing Wikipedia for the generalist reader, not the racecar fan. Izno (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generalist readers are capable of reading a key. MB2437 00:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Template:Subjsec

[edit]

Almost a duplicate of Template:Section link that saves a few more characters. These templates aren't used so intensely that an editor can't write the page name when needed. However, this does add an additional maintenance burden, as can be seen by the fact that almost a year later, there is still no documentation (just to be clear, I'd propose deletion even if there was documentation). Usages should be replaced with Template:Section link. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with both {{article link}} and {{part section link}}. Note that {{article link}} and {{part section link}} do not preserve links after discussion archiving, whereas {{subjsec}} does, eg. at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 56 § Remove citation tools from this page. Daask (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you wrote after discussion archiving, did you mean after a talk page discussion linked to with this template gets archived? If so, how exactly? I don't see anything in your code that handles archiving. Or did you mean after the discussion which uses this template gets archived. If so, that isn't an issue with {{Section link}} as you give it the article name, not a relative name. If you think Section link can be improved with any feature, suggest it there. I oppose any backdoor merger via this TfD, without showing any actual issue with the base template that this solves. Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: By "After discussion archiving", I mean after the discussion invoking this template is moved from a page like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to a page like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 56. It does this by using {{ROOTPAGENAME}} by default rather than {{PAGENAME}}, as these other templates do. Daask (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Template:Talk page of disambiguation page

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Talk page of disambiguation page with Template:WikiProject Disambiguation.
Both templates serve a similar purpose (namely, to tag talk pages of disambiguation pages), so I see no reason why both templates should exist. Also, both templates already categorize talk pages into Category:WikiProject Disambiguation pages anyway. GTrang (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 34-transclusion template really doesn't matter compared to the other one. Its content only has one extra sentence which warns against using barely watched Talk pages. This is why we have WP Disambiguation tagging - so that RMs proposed there automatically appear on article alerts where people are watching. The documentation for the other template says it should never be the only thing on the Talk page of disambiguation page, which means it's mostly useless anyway. The alerting facility currently provided by WP Disambiguation tags needs to be maintained. If someone wants to volunteer the work needed to implement it automatically in the banner shell or wherever, and replace it automatically, that's fine, but it's largely orthogonal to the idea of dealing with the barely used template which triggered this TfD. History seems to indicate this was basically a failed experiment, and it was partially reverted once already. This all strikes me as making of a mountain out of a molehill. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, that project is a WikiProject, delete {{Talk page of disambiguation page}} instead. useless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ten transclusions, all redundant? What's all the discussion above necessary for? Just delete it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of {{Talk page of disambiguation page}}. It has exactly 11 transclusion in the Talk: namespace, and all of the pages that contain this template also have the WikiProject banner as well, so this template should just be manually removed from the 11 pages where it exists. The WikiProject Disambiguation banner is fine as is, as a mark of the WikiProject that these pages fall under. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Oppose since when do we merge project templates with a non-project templates? P.S. AFAIK, we're not even meant to add the project template to talk pages of dabs, so I'm a bit concerned that there's a misunderstanding here, and I would advise wider project discussion. Widefox; talk 17:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support replacing the dozen or so transclusions of "Template:Talk page of disambiguation" with "Template:WikiProject Disambiguation" (if it doesn't already exist), and then deleting "Template:Talk page of disambiguation" afterwards. I firmly oppose redirecting "Template:Talk page of disambiguation" to "Template:WikiProject Disambiguation", because having a non-WikiProject template title redirect to a WikiProject template title is just nonsensical! — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1305041414"