This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed byAnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in thetemplate namespace andmodule namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed atCategories 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 atMiscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Templates that are associated with particularWikipedia policies or guidelines, such as thespeedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
The template is not used, either directly or bytemplate substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks),and has no likelihood ofbeing used.
The template violates a policy such asNeutral point of view orCivility 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 byconsensus 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.
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Donot include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.
If you have never nominated a template for deletion or usedTwinkle 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
Instructions
Step 1
Tag the template
Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:
If the template is designed to besubstituted, 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, replacingdiscussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing thePAGENAME 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, replacingtemplate 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 nominatingTemplateStyles 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/2026_February_14#Template:template_name.css */
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 asAdding 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 thepage history ortalk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
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 anyWikiProjects 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 toArticle 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 useDeletion 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
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 withWikipedia'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 thecriterion 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'sArticle Alerts automatically, if they aresubscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with{{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion inWikipedia: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 thepage history ortalk 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 theHolding 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.
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand thedeletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommendsubst,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 behistory-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Administrators should read theclosing instructions before closing a nomination. Note thatWP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Comment: both templates seem to lead to links that don't support the "defunct" group so it's hard to really comment on this.{{Defunct Chinese provinces}} does seem to include most of the links, but again, I have no idea if the entire set of links is even correct.Gonnym (talk)08:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's bad practice to quote policies in templates since the policies can change. It is preferred to link to the policies like{{Pronoun editnotice}} already does. Plus having a lot of text in the template induces the "wall of text" effect, where no one actually reads the template. Less is more when it comes to warning and notice templates.Nosferattus (talk)14:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity that the Chinese article that this relates to is so poorly sourced, otherwise the English version of the article could be restored and improved. It is obviously a significant line. Somebody listed some sources, but made no effort to improve the article.--Grahame (talk)10:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The other two were merged, soprobably this can be merged with them also. I haven't checked the code, so if it can't, then restore template.Gonnym (talk)10:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this more, I'm not sure what should be done. The page has been defunct, but what should be done with the data? Should the template be deleted with the data, or should the template be deleted while the data merged?Gonnym (talk)10:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also unsure here. The data is imo more interesting than the shorter term page views and should reasonably accurate for a long time but the page is also. Merge or delete are both better than the status quo.Trialpears (talk)11:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Since I recently substituted it into the only article it still was being used in. I did a lot of editing of that template in the past. --Timeshifter (talk)14:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep (as de facto POTD coordinator, who scheduled this). Firstly,WP:TOOSOON is an essay, so not binding. Secondly, it refers to article pages, not project pages such as POTD. And thirdly, this date has been selected specifically for the 100th anniversary of the event depicted, which happened on 24 May 1941. Could we run it earlier? Of course. But is it doing any harm? Not really; there are plenty of other pictures that can and will be pictured between now and 2041, and IMHO it's a fitting tribute to those killed in the incident to feature this on the anniversary. It will come around soon enough, anyway - 2041 is the same distance away from us as 2011 now. — Amakuru (talk)17:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there should be a limit how far in advance we are creating what are in essence, useless pages. For me, 15 years in the future is at least 10 years too far.Gonnym (talk)09:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no negative impact caused by keeping this and nominating it for deletion is a waste of time. I do not want TfDs that are a waste of time to be encouraged.Trialpears (talk)15:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in July 2025. This template appears to have different content from the template that was previously deleted. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in September 2025. Appears to be an abandoned experiment or false start. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent article content with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in October 2025. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I created this because the particular chapter had different authors for different pages within a chapter but haven't figured out how to get the switch to work properly. It has transclusions now. --Reconrabbit16:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd created this template as a map of theteams of the Women's Pro Baseball League to go on that page (similar to those of theWNBA,PWHL, and other leagues), but it looks like someoneremoved it last month because it didn't include the temporary stadium to be used by all four teams in the first season (this year). I'm on a slightwikibreak and haven't had the time to add the location of the stadium to the map, but I'll do so this weekend and add it back to the WPBL page. This is my first template, so please let me know if I need to add any documentation to it! Thank you!The Sands of Time✉✎21:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) - it has no transclusions as it is a seasonal template, it is in a category and I have now updated the documentation as requested on the template page.
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. Templates like this should be created only when needed. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to have found that edit. The template and the module had zero edits since they were created over a month ago, and the template outputs a big red error message. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent article content with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent article content with no transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blank template with no transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent article content with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no transclusions, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago by an editor with 17 total edits who has not edited in a month. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent article content with no transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template of a formerly professional football team which is now deep in the amateur ranks. None of the players listed still play there, and none of the current players have their own articles.C67912:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template was part of a shameless attempt to promote the self-published author and some of his many books. As the nominator mentioned, all articles were deleted for being non-notable at a recent AfD, so this template no longer serves any navigational purpose. I do not often participate in deletion debates for templates, but I assume that #10 atWP:DEL-REASON ("Redundant or otherwise useless templates") is our policy justification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)21:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
These templates extract a color component in decimal from a hexcolor. If you wanna read about their mundane 2010 creation seethis discussion. The only usage is in the creation discussion and some sandboxes so no substantial usage. If we actually need this functionality in the future we should centralize this intoModule:Color where we don't have to use these hacky solutions.Trialpears (talk)19:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has not commented nor has any of the users who have this on their sandboxes. For code that has been around for 16 years this seems to either not have been used, or has lost its usefulness. I'll note thatTemplate:NCAA timeline color does use it, but that also is code that isn't used anywhere except a sandbox and should be sent to TfD as well.Gonnym (talk)07:09, 10 February 2026 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Underwhelming navigation box with only 2 articles here. With that warranted, this few little articles here shouldn't warrant a navigation box in my opinion.ConeKota (talk)18:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This template has lost its navigational utility after recent community consensus. Except the71st Annual BFJA Awards, all the other annual award entries listed in this template were redirected to the parent article,Bengal Film Journalists' Association Awards, following AFD discussions the last month. PerWP:NAVBOX, a template should facilitate navigation between several related articles. With only one standalone article remaining, this template no longer meets that threshold for a navigational tool. Navigating from a template that only points back to a single page (or its own parent) is redundant and creates unnecessary clutter.BhikhariInformer (talk)07:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every link in this sidebar goes to the same article, which is the only article using it. Completely unneeded and far too specific to be useful.Mclay1 (talk)05:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete. Since the author of both modules is the same and is the same as the user who marked it as deprecated, then I'll follow their notice.Module:Mapframe uses this module and might be one of the main places it is used.Gonnym (talk)14:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Judging by the page history, it was forked from the original purely because the creator wanted to change "persons" to "people". It's not needed. There should be one wording, decided by consensus, not multiple versions depending on personal preference. If the creator wishes to change the wording, that should be discussed for the original. If there is a particular reason to have a slight variant in some circumstances, that can be done to the original with optional parameters.Mclay1 (talk)14:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are designed to be added to categories like maintenance templates; however, they don't have tracking categories and there's no clear information given on the categories that use them on what exactly the problem is or how to fix it. The documentation states that they should be used "If it seems clear to you that there are "inappropriate" articles in the category". That's just encouraging people who disagree with a category to tag it with an official-looking notice, but that doesn't help in any way and is often purely the subjective opinion of one person. Rather than this, issues with a category should be immediately addressed by removing inappropriate articles from the category or bringing the category to CfD. Currently, nothing is being done to address the issues, and it's not clear why the notices have even been added. For example,{{Categorization of people disputed}} was addedCategory:Occitan people in2007, and there is no discussion on its talk page.Mclay1 (talk)06:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Created by a new user who likely does not know our norms relating to LLMs. The template has multiple issues and is LLM generated with little use - there are an abundance of better designed welcome templates that give the same look. This shouldn't be in template space due to that.HurricaneZetaC15:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New welcome template should be automatically deleted in my opinion. We have more than enough and ideally, we should have one template. All this leads to is a maintenance nightmare.Gonnym (talk)10:18, 8 February 2026 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Used by just nine articles. Not popular enough, and "sad" is... well, sad to watch. (Did ask the creator about this template, but then was told to list this template first before doing anything else to it.)George Ho (talk)18:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No more complex then using no template, and no substantial reason to use the template in place of basic wikitext. Our use of table templates also confounds the likes of TemplateStyles and VisualEditor and so from that perspective I prefer deletion also. Low use is an additional reason to delete.Izno (talk)18:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other 2 should be kept since they are on 2 article pages each. The data is unlikely to be changed, but the formatting may be changed since they are complex sticky tables. So those 2 templates should be kept.
I can think of few tables on Wikipedia with more important historical info in such an easily accessible format for readers. I have edited many tables, and I have helped edited all of the manyHelp:Table pages.
Keep all- I actually liked the 2025 navbox better, since each region could be individually expanded and collapsed. This was actually discussed atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 9. I don't think that deletingTemplate:Simon Property Group is a good idea, because there are six articles for SPG ifTaubman Realty Group is included. We could always discuss whether or not a new navbox entitled "List of Simon Property Group properties" should be created. There are no articles entitled "Simon Property Group West", "Simon Property Group Midwest", "Simon Property Group Northeast" nor "Simon Property Group South". For this reason, a split might not be feasible. Additionally people in Ohio might be interested in malls in Pennsylvania, which is an adjacent state in a separate region. --Jax 0677 (talk)00:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is this perWP:Leadsidebar? That's about sidebar placement, not whether they should exist, no?
I personally think the sidebar is useful given how many related articles there are on this topic you might want to quickly navigate between without scrolling to the bottom of content, but then I have bias.BlackholeWA (talk)00:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged." It is being used in that way as such. But its placement still makes it redundant. When the navbox is already covering ground for article linking, it does not mean a sidebar is required or needed at all. Scrolling to the bottom is hardly an issue. I do not see any evidence that going to the bottom of the page is such an issue for readers or editors that makes sidebars almost a necessity.WikiCleanerMan (talk)01:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that theWP:Leadsidebar rationale actually means what the nom seems to regard it as meaning; that is to say they seem to be regarding it as advice against including a sidebar at all, in general, rather than placement guidelines for an existing sidebar.BlackholeWA (talk)15:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The name comes from the Wikidata property, which is named after the new URL format Disney+ has been using.{{Disney+ movie}} and{{Disney+ series}} both still work, and redirect to the new format. I should have been clearer that the URL formats are deprecated, not necessarily the templates.Trivialist (talk)20:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary template. If anything the title is more of a line used in an article. We don't need templates to specify which subdivision of a country became or was a state or province on a certain date. All links are covered by numerous other templates. And the template for a specific date is pretty random.WikiCleanerMan (talk)20:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a fan of any sports team navigation template, as a lot become outdated and forgotten, but as Frietjes said, this doesn't seem any worse than the others.Gonnym (talk)08:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a need to delete, but rather to further develop. This template functions as a central gallery for the physics userboxes (specifically for the main branches of physics) that I created. It’s new, so the absence of transclusions or categories is expected, and both can be added easily. The userboxes are listed atWikipedia:Userboxes/Science/Physical#Physics, but this serves as a more focused side gallery for editors specifically looking for domain‑related physics userboxes.Xyqorophibian (talk)05:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose any move. Completely pointless page that no one will ever look for and no one other than the creator will ever update, which they too, will abandoned pretty fast.Gonnym (talk)08:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: consensus to not keep, but move to WPspace per Jonesey95 or delete per Gonnym? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HKLionelTALK07:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.
If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.
Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.
Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been receiving a lot of these notifications in my talk page as of late, but once again, my stance is alsodelete per nom. I think making them up to date into 2025 is impossible. A cleanup is a necessity.MarioJump83 (talk)17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would encourage to move that to Commons' Data namespace, datasets with graphs now go there. There are already examplesc:Category:Tabular_data_of_COVID-19_cases.
Usage on an page is not a reason to keep. Plenty of templates get nominated even if used on a page. If we move the data to commons, then these template still have no reason to be kept on Wikipedia itself.WikiCleanerMan (talk)00:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, of time-truncated copies. I maintain that Covid is an event of historic and not merely historical significance, so data is warranted to be kept.
Perfect shan't be the enemy of good. It is perfectly reasonable to keep a chart copy of the first year or few years or so, up until a cutoff point (e.g. for China, shortly after the announcement of the end of zero-covid).
Sure, perhaps nobody cares how many cases China or South Korea or Italy has on this present day. But to say virtually nobody cares about how many cases China or South Korea or Italy had by the day in February 2020 is a severe understatement that I'm willing to bet significant fortune against.Rethliopuks (talk)10:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though I disagree with constantly updating these in 2026, I’m sure these templates will still be valuable for the historical record, especially 20 to 50 years from now.Somerset999 (talk)02:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.
If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.
Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.
Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these.WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.
If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.
Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.
Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these.WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They aren't adding much value at this point. Their original purpose was to be able to follow the evolution of the virus, but this isn't something we keep track of anymore, so their use has run its course; they are outdated and will likely never be updated.Nsophiay (talk)07:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some stats: tiw is used on 360 pages, tl2 (Template link interwiki) is used on 9200 pages, tlx (template link expanded) is used on 2.6 million pages. Mostly on template doc pages, none seem to be used in mainspace.
The superfluous template is tl2 - it should be replaced with tlx (identical output in simple usage). tiw is an obscure utility template - it could be converted to tlx perhaps but this would have to be evaluated manually.Mathnerd314159 (talk)06:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTemplate:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases +Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship as these mostly remain verifiable;KeepTemplate:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases chart, as statistically, along with all the other charts,at least for the purposes of understanding intrinsic and administrative clustering, the C19CCTF medical cases chart data appear to be the better curated version of the national daily SARS-CoV-2 infection counts as reported by official agencies.[1]There was consensus in 2020-2021 to (implicitly)overrideWP:NOTDATABASE andWP:NOTSTATS. Most of the sources here by me and (I think) one other major editor for/Poland medical cases and/Poland medical cases by voivodeship mostly have archives of the sources, mostly atarchive.today. This is a hand-curated set of archival, historical data of encyclopedic values that remains (to a fair degree) verifiable thanks to the archives. It is also a historical record of the Ministry's official policy of posting daily information only oncentralised US-based social media instead of on the Ministry's website in Poland in a plain-text accessible data file. Thechart only has generic URLs written as sources, but AFAIR, at least in the Poland case, the values were in reality those of themedical cases tables, but stored in a more convenient form for automatic retrieval. A hypothetical alternative tokeep for these templates would be to transfer the data toWikidata, but a debate would be needed over at Wikidata if the data are notable enough, and a volunteer to do the transfer would be needed. I'm not volunteering for either. Wikipedia is not just aboutcurrent knowledge - encyclopedic coverage of past events is part of the mission. Keeping these three templates will help preserve encyclopedic verifiable knowledge.Moreover, as quoted above, the evidence is that the Wikipedia curated data isbetter curated than the corresponding WHO data set.[1] It would be a pity to destroy a high-quality human-curated dataset because it's no longer a popular topic. I wouldkeep these templates for all countries, because they are evidence that human-curated, crowdsourced data has been, in at least one notable event, of higher quality than official data. The repeated infobox wars forquantitative NPOVing of data to include unreliable government data (justified by NPOV based on the difficulty of distinguish which govt data are reliable vs unreliable) are circumstantial evidence that the essayWP:ROGD remains an unsolved long-term problem for Wikipedia that is not going to disappear.If we want to block future Wikipedia crowd-sourced curation of data, then better block it next time it starts (and maybe propose that it be done directly in Wikidata, based on consensus over at Wikidata), rather thanafter it's collected.Boud (talk)21:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats. WhatWhat Wikipedia is not is a policy that we can't ignore. None of these templates are up to date. They have been abandoned for years now. A templates having a citation does not mean it is worth keeping and certainly not what the nomination is about. There have been two discussions already resulted in other country templates like these to be deleted in October 2024 and December of last year. These are supposed to have up to date information. Some have been dormant since 2021. It's clear they have no use to be kept around. And all data is able to be found and added as part of the article instead of having to be transcluded from template space.WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was ade facto consensus by the people doing the editing work to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats at the time those pages were being heavily edited. I don't remember a whole bunch of TFDs in early 2020 for these pages. This is not just the case of "a" citation; this is part of the history of effective crowd-sourcing of information, where the crowd-sourced version is (modestly) better than the officially curated version. I agree that it would be good to make sure that nobody incorrectly thinks that they're updated, and some decision is needed what to do next time an analogous situation comes up. As theclimate emergency progresses, there'll be all sorts of world events where a mass of people may decide to push tables of open government data into Wikipedia. Two alternatives to deletion would be (1) toarchive these pages, to make it clear that they're not updated, or (2) change them intoredirects to their corresponding main pages in mainspace, so that the editing histories are preserved.Boud (talk)18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but vast majority of editors no longer update these. So the de facto consensus is no longer relevant all these years later. I do not mind redirecting the templates to the main pages, but it is not an appropriate redirect because ideally templates that are redirected should be redirected to other templates. Preservation is still a waste of template space if it were still kept in template space.WikiCleanerMan (talk)00:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom below. Specifically for Poland though they can be preserved elsewhere. Wikidata would be a good start, as someone who also edits there, but I won't be volunteering. And to be honest I really don't support userfying especially if they use the Graph extension.MarioJump83 (talk)23:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.
If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.
Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.
Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like before,userfy if amedical cases chart is not kept. On the other hand, I noticed that Iwasn't notified about the recentDecember 2025 deletion discussion and, as such, wasn't able to cast my "Userfy" vote. Therefore, it would be nicePrimefac if you could amend this issue and undelete/userfy those charts for me 😊.Alexis Coutinho (talk)03:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, clear violations of NOTSTATS. Most if not all of them are also severely outdated, and give a misleading picture of accuracy since little testing has been done for years, but for the record I don't think these should ever have been created, not even in 2020. Why would Wikipedia be the place for meticulous records of disease spread? If god forbid there is another pandemic, this sort of cruft should be nipped in the bud.Crossroads-talk-22:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked [...] to prevent you from using your IP address to add external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist.
However,add[ing] external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist isnot a blockable offense.WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it; it only mentions spamming.
Not every attempt to add blacklisted links is bad-faith. (For example: I once tried mentioning some webpages in an AfD, only to learn that they are blacklisted. I hit the blacklist several times, because my comment linked multiple blocked domains.)
I strongly believe that edits should be judged on their own merits when blocking users. Using the blacklist to stop insertion of problematic URLs is acceptable. But it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist. I think this is common-sense and already the best practice. The text of this template of this template just doesn't reflect that.
I also don't see why to distinguish blocks for unsuccessful spamming attempts from blocks for successful attempts. A separate block template for spamming already exists at{{uw-sblock}}, and I believe it could be reworded to be inclusive of unsuccessful attempts to spam.
Support merge. Essentially per nom, these are redundant. If they truly are spam links, we can block whether they're blacklisted or not, just like we block for "repeatedly triggering the edit filter" even if few or none of the edits actually go through.Toadspike[Talk]19:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Janhrach no, this is a block for persistently hammering the spam blacklist logs, making the log useless due to excessive amounts of similar or the same links (see e.g.this set, you will have difficulty to find a good faith entry in these 1000 related hits performed well within an hour; also seede.wiki). Nowadays less seen, but in the past we had spambots adding hundreds of links per IP, with IPs operating simultaneously. We even had an adminbot detecting IPs that performed these actions and block them. It is a blockable offense as it is disruptive, and because they are unauthorized bots. I would keep them separate (keep / no merge), though I can maybe be convinced that it is now obsolete.Dirk BeetstraTC19:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Janhrach this template is for temp blocks, and it says so. I know there is overlap, but this template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log, which lacks on all others, spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses. Same as edit filter, you have blocks for vandalism, en blocks for insisting to trigger he edit filter on a filter that blocks vandalism, both are disruptive, but it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform.Dirk BeetstraTC20:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually go through the logs I linked and considered yourBut it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist in that respect? Do you understand that those logs are useless and that we need(ed) to stop those IPs from even attempting to hit the blacklist?Dirk BeetstraTC20:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log – I didn't know that; it is hidden from non-admins. This means that the blocked user also won't see this note.
which lacks on all others – Then, it should be added to the other templates. I don't see any downside to adding it to{{uw-sblock}} and{{uw-spambotblock}}.
spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses. – From the point of view of the blocked user, it isnot important whether the spammy domain is blacklisted, or whether they have been successful in spamming. The reason for the block is important.
it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform – I think it is informative. It is certainly more informative than saying that they were blocked for hitting the blacklist. Hitting the blacklist isn't (inherently) a blockable offense. However:
Spamming is a blockable offense (and for spamming, there is{{uw-sblock}}).
Deliberately hitting the blacklist is also a blockable offense. However, the spam edits you linked above didn't hit the blacklist deliberately. The edits' purpose was to add links, not to hit the filter. Spammers don't hit the filter just for the sake of it. Vandals might do that – in that case,the block message should specifically emphasize the deliberate intent of the hitting the blacklist.
Using an unapproved bot is a blockable offense. Any unapproved bot can cause massive damage; this is not limited to abuse logs. (For this case, there is{{uw-spambotblock}}.) When it comes to spamming, edits like this are an exception, not a rule; for the vast majority of editors (both good-faith and bad-faith), I still think thatit doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist.
Did you actually go through the logs I linked and and considered your [...] – I did. You linked the logsafter I had written that sentence. I understand that the logs are useless.
If there is an editor who happens to trigger the blacklist a lot, but they clearly aren't a bot, I would warn them, but certainly not block them without prior warnings. If this is particularly frequent, the logs should be fixed by fixing the software (by adding an option to exclude entries generated by specific users/IPs/ranges), not by broadening the block criteria.
There is a difference in hitting the blacklist (which I agree is not a blockable offense), and (intentionally) hammering the blacklist. Hammering the blacklist is blockable not only because the user is intending to spam (which is a blockable offense), but also blockable because of the disruption they cause. And sometimes it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors better instead of sweeping them all under the same rug. I would not warn an editor who is hitting the blacklist.Ever. The hit is either in good faith or in bad faith. If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block. And an SPI (with block) was just performed on an editor who hit the blacklist after their spamlink got blacklisted. Note that warnings against spamming are inherently acknowledged the moment a 'Publish changes' button is pressed.Dirk BeetstraTC09:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think a merge with{{uw-spambotblock}} could do, but I think there is still value in keeping them separated as the reason for the block (then mostly performed by an adminbot) is then easier to administrate/categorise.Dirk BeetstraTC10:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if we understand each other correctly. To clarify:
By "hitting the blacklist" I mean (unsuccessfully) inserting blacklisted URLs, without regard to the editor's intent or the count of attempted edits.
By "deliberately hitting the blacklist" I mean willfully/knowingly hitting the blacklist, just for the sake of it (for example to annoy other editors). Is this the same what you mean byhammering the blacklist? When someone intentionally hits the blacklist, they do it because they want to hit the blacklist. For spammers, it's the opposite; spammers want their edits to go live, not to get caught by the blacklist. That means I don't consider spamming to fall underintentionally hitting the blacklist.
If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block. – Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was refering to situations where the edits are not clearly bad-faith. I used the word "warn" broadly, akin to when you warn an editor for inserting nonfree text, or for other (possibly good-faith) actions.
it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors – I don't understand how you delineate the meanings of these three templates. I think we both aggree that{{uw-spambotblock}} is for unambiguous spambots. But are you arguing that:
Or are you arguing that{{uw-sblock}} is for spammers, while{{uw-spamblacklistblock}} is for editors who are not unambiguously spammers or spambots or act in bad faith, but they are disruptive because they hit the blacklist too much?
First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist, possibly in a hope to overwhelm it. Though there the word may also be wrong, since it is clear that it were botscripts. It may be close to attempts towards Denial of Service. It strikes me otherwise senseless to write a botscript which is only intending to attempt to add links that you know are blacklisted, I mean, there are no successful attempts, it is only blacklisted stuff (they could have claimed new domains and be successful ..). For the good faith/bad faith situation, if a regular hits the blacklist, that is in good faith. If a 'newbie' hits the blacklist, the situation is dark grey, nearly black .. it is very unlikely that the previously spammed and now blacklisted 'yourobscurecompany.com' is now being added by a good faith editor (not impossible .. but). Those editors have already the failed the AGF-way-out before it got blacklisted, and as I said, I just saw a report about a new editor that tried to add a now blacklisted link, and that new editor was immediately checkusered. And I draw a distinction between warning (formal) and just talking, maybe on the 'don't template the regulars' side of definition. I see three situations:
spammers = humans who add links, successful edits -> uw-sblock
spambots = bots/human assisted scripts that in short succession add links to multiple pages. Successful edits. Non-approved. -> uw-spambotblock. Generally applied to IPs.
the hammering bots = clearly bots that only add already blacklisted links -> uw-spamblacklistblock.
The reason for distinction is that the first ones are 'human', and just get indeffed generally (they generally don't respond to warnings, and sometimes complain for 20 years that they cannot make money by having their links on Wikipedia). That is where you gauge your unblock requests on. Spambots are generally on IPs, and the IPs get reassigned, there may be reason to unblock after some time. The last ones, the hammering bots, get (or got, I don't know if the adminbot still monitors) mainly blocked by an adminbot, with a larger chance of error. Moreover, these blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits. They do not have contributions (or only good contributions in another life), no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter), and no regular logs (seethis, nothing there, it is the first one inthis one from above!). An uninformed admin may easily oversee this, and unblock the editor 'because they did not do anything'. So for that reason, I think we need the three different ones. The reason that we may not need it anymore may be that WMF has adapted the MediaWiki software (captcha or so?) so that we don't see (so many) of these botscripts hammering anymore. But well, the template in existence or in the deletion logs takes the same space, with on the other side that undeletion is also cheap.Dirk BeetstraTC19:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter) – I didn't know that; thanks for clarifying. Do admins see the content of edits that hit the blacklist?
First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist – I thought that that was a futile attempt to spam, but that makes more sense.
With that in mind, I agree with you that having a separate template for hammering bots is beneficial. But I think that{{uw-spamblacklistblock}} needs some changes to fulfill this purpose. I would change its wording so that it refers to "deliberate disruption" or something similar.
Moreover, these [uw-spamblacklistblock] blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits. – I disagree with this practice (using the same template for hammering bots and editors with no immediately visible spammy edits). As I have originally proposed, I think that these users should be blocked under{{uw-sblock}}, and that the wording of{{uw-sblock}} should be changed to be more clear about blacklisted edits.
But I would also accept a compromise solution – creating a separate template for users whose all spammy edits have hit the blacklist.
Question Now that they've hidden the IP addresses, is this relevant anymore? Would we block an account that's hammering the blacklist in this manner? I've never seen this template before, and I've never heard of a human raising "repeatedly hitting the blacklist" as a reason for blocking; I've only ever seen it in the bot-reported section ofWP:AIV, and all the incidents I've seen are either false positives or people who also succeed in disrupting other things.Nyttend (talk)11:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template is worded as if it is intended for IP blocks. When one tries to edit from a blocked IP, are they shown this template, or just the logged block message? If the latter is the case, this template is likely to be of little use.
Also, from searching old talk pages, it seems that when registered users were blocked under this template, they were blocked for ordinary spam (which got caught by the blacklist), not for hammering.Janhrach (talk)14:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The twin of this template is{{uw-efblock}} and that template does get used quite a honkin bit for only-has-filter-hits (though I've been moving the direction of issuing a block for the substantive issue, which in this case is spamming, with an additional "see also filter hits"). Perhaps this template could be redirected to that one for a joined "your edits were blocked and we think you're still being obnoxious" block template.
Propose mergingTemplate:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo withTemplate:Sarajevo. Per precedent ofTfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. And there is already a section on the main Sarajevo navbox for this. Redundant to have two navboxes. Just keep the blue links into the main navbox.WikiCleanerMan (talk)01:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for now (although, I'm inclined to support); the Neighborhoods of Sarajevo (NS) is huge, and even now has more than 30 blue links, and potentially 3 times as more if all red links get their articles. It could swell to enormous proportians, as evident with current size of the NS. We can leave only blue but it will grow, and when that happens what then? (I suppose this is the case with all the templates considered in this thread.)--౪ Santa ౪99°18:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found atthe "Holding Cell".
, and then select "XFD".)
