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/2025_October_27#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 This template is derived from Template:Infobox military conflict, which has a longstanding consensus about limitations on the numbers of combatants/participants/commanders included that have not been followed on this iteration of the template and completely ignoreMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is *grossly* oversize and this will still be a problem even if it were to be substed into the article. I have no opinion one way or another about whether to keep this or refactor it back to the parent template (I'm not a fan of substing an infobox into an article directly, particularly in this case where the parent template is *not* single-use); but any such solution must address that issue. See further discussionhere.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the issue about this Infobox being grossly oversized and ignoring MOS, while I do not disagree with you, that is not my area of expertise and I would not really know where to start with what info to remove and what should stay. That sounds like a separate discussion to whether this single use infobox needs its own template.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand; I'm not suggesting any changes to{{Infobox military conflict}} either, just noting the history. But your rationale for deleting *this* template is that it's a one-off; while I agree that you're correct in that assessment, I disagree in your suggestion that if deleted it be substed into the article. See, e.g.World War I,World War II, etc. Most conflict infoboxes on major articles, particularly those of any significant length, are not subst'd, they're transcluded; they do not "live" on the same page as the article text. In the event that this template is deleted, it would be better to start from a clean slate in full compliance with the MOS; this will not harm the article because perMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the article must be complete even without the existence of the infobox. And I disagree that the extreme size and ignoring of the MOS are a separate discussion -- this is a formal deletion discussion and two of the explicitly valid reasons for deleting a template areThe template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance andThe template is redundant to a better-designed template. One could reasonably conclude either of those to be the case here.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A terminology mismatch I think. I agree with you that thatWar against the Islamic State should call{{Infobox military conflict}} directly... Not call a single use template that in turn calls{{Infobox military conflict}}. I do not agree that it should be substing that template instead of translcuding it. I'm not a template expert so take this with a grain of salt in case I explain some part of this wrong. When Page A (e.g.World War I) calls Template B (e.g.{{Infobox military conflict}}) using the twin curly braces, that is a transclusion, not a subst. It is calling a template that exists in a separate location, and transcluding it into this article. That template never actually lives on Page A. In contrast, a subst would require one to include {{subst:TemplateB}} somewhere on Page A. Instead of calling that template from TemplateB each time at runtime and displaying it within Page A, a subst is a one-time only operation that adds the content of TemplateB as text into Page A at the location it is located; i.e. instead of transcluding in the template, it substitutes it permanently into the article. See, e.g.User_talk:Stateside_Steve_Happy#Blocked for an example of a subst: of{{Checkuserblock-account}} (we commonly subst user warnings and talk page notices because of the sheer number of them across thousands of pages). Note how much unnecessary formatting and how much longer the subst'd version includes. Now for comparison, seeUser:Swatjester/sandbox/Templatesubst and look at the source. That's{{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} when subst'd. All of that text would be on the article page itself *before* the lede of the article. That would make the article effectively unreadable for an source editor who has no idea what any of that means and just wants to add some content.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I was interpreting what you said in the nom, as taking that edit you just made, and putting subst: in front of it, which it sounds like wasn't what you meant. Based on what you just showed, I would supportdeleting{{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}}; but I'm not in favor of just replacing it with the same size and MOS problems on a different template. I would rather see it simply deleted outright and a new infobox (which would use{{Infobox military conflict}} just like your version does) can be rebuilt in a more slimmed down and MOS-compliant fashion.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used to transclude or subst theWP:CRITERIA directly into a RM. A link to WP:CRITERIA is sufficient for that purpose, and we shouldn't encourage dumping large portions of PAGs directly into discussions: that is just adding a bunch of noise.Subst the ten transclusions and delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful to quote the (relatively short) section when referring to the criteria in an RM discussion. Example: [[1]]. Linking to CRITERIA is not sufficient, as you can't see the list and the references to it in a comment simultaneously. --В²C☎06:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now there are five, but a template like this will almost certainly grow in size and deleting it would be a bit pointless.Number5720:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All non-winning teams. Teams that are not winners of a championship do not deserve a navbox. This violatesTemplate creep andWP:NENAN. We are left with a bunch of clutter not just for articles where they are stubs but not tagged as such and concerns about those article are indeed a separate Xfd discussion. We have too many navboxes for teams from all over the world that are not championship teams. Non-winning teams are not notable enough for an article and by default the same has to be said for teams that have such navboxes.WikiCleanerMan (talk)14:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails navigation from the last Tfd. Only three links. No other articles exist for this navbox subject to keep for basic navigation. All keep votes from previous discussions did not address the issue at hand. Template does not meet basic navigation and never did since creation back in 2009.WikiCleanerMan (talk)14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is for redirects to Wikispecies. They don't have articles here because it does not meet inclusion for English Wikipedia but it does meet inclusion on the sister site Wikispecies. –The Grid (talk)22:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As much as I am not a big fan of this template, it is necessary because Wikispecies and Wikipedia have different notability criteria.WP:NSPECIES states that"In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body oftaxonomists are presumed notable, and all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority),subspecies,hybrids,cultivars, andmorphs are notable only if they meet other applicable guidelines, such as thegeneral notability guideline." These latter cases are what this template can be used for. I've mostly seen it on articles about taxonomists and scientists (for example,Jakob Hallermann), so not all of the articles this template is applied on are on species.element01:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used on over a thousand talk pages, mostly category talk pages, this is being used on the wrong spaces and takes up a majority of the space on the pages it's used on. There is no useful navigation this template provides and is very intrusive. When accessing any Judaism category page, it does not in the same sense operate as a navbox or other tree templates providing navigation with links on a subject where you can directly access by clicking the link. If it were to be reformatted, then it needs a massive overhaul, but as it is now, I don't see any use here for navigational purposes. Best to just go manually through categories for now to find something specific. Also, if its meant to navigate on category pages, then why is only one category page transcluding the template instead of over a thousand category talk pages?WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but red links are also useful as pointers to create future articles. Some of the work is already done, in fact, by disambiguating the titles. --Habst (talk)15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All templates have less than five links needed for navboxes. Three templates, Greek, Yugoslavian, and Czechoslovak navboxes have no links to articles. None of these are needed nor meet basic navigation for navboxes.WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template." Three templates have no links - being used does not mean it avoids deletion. It serves no navigational purpose.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a merged template at {{User:Habst/National athletics championships editions}} per the explanatory essay linked. It can be split by continent or region as well should the template be too large, and the formatting can be fixed up so you don't have to expand twice. Would that be an acceptable ATD? The navigational purpose is to move between national championship editions, even if there are only four or five of them, and to know exactly what years national championships were staged (not all of these navboxes have corresponding overview articles where these are enumerated). --Habst (talk)13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that's a P&G-based reason for deletion. If the reason is technical (e.g. clicking expand twice), it can be fixed by someone knowledgeable with templates. If the reason is conceptual because it is large, it can be split by continent or further collapsed as in{{COVID-19 pandemic}}. --Habst (talk)14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's different and are not addressing the fact that 3 templates are just a sea of red. This putting a band aid over a hole in the wall. It does not address the failures present and yes hard to navigate is an issue. The more you argue for policy and guidelines from me, the more you are bludgeoning the conversation. I would ask for a policy and guidelines from you as to how that fixes the issue. The pandemic template does not combine respective country navboxes into one.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only responded briefly to people that have directly addressed me by my username; that is not bludgeoning, and on Wikipedia, we generally do need policy or guideline-based reasons for deletion. How is it a failure to have red links on a navigation template? The links serve a purpose as pointers to create new articles, and some of the work is already done (i.e. disambiguating the titles) that wouldn't be done with unlinked text. --Habst (talk)15:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 templates have no articles at all. The rest have less than the basic five. No, they don't. That is aCrystal argument. These navboxes have been around for a while, if articles were not created then after all this time, it is unlikely that they would be created before this nomination. It is not the responsibility of Tfd nominators to create those articles. Tfd nominations are based on the now and if someone is willing to create the articles to help these templates meet the requirements, then they can, but we can't wait around just because one day someone will. You haven't provided a policy or guideline for these to be kept. And NENAN is a long-standing precedent and not going to change soon.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Habstprocedural keep doesn't really make any sense. These all fall under the same category and the same reason for deletion. It is MUCH easier for them to all be nominated as a batch as is routinely done atWP:TFD as opposed to having to copy and paste the same comment 15+ times. HIGHLY unlikely anyone is going to !vote to keep one and not another in this batch, but if that were to happen (and it has in the past) you can simply say "Keep these 3 because they are useful and delete the rest". But having 15+ duplicate nominations just gums up the process and makes it harder for everyone involved. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've changed my !vote to keep per your comments. For a mass nomination to succeed, generally there needs to be demonstrated some type of appetite for deletion of these types of templates among Wikipedians, and that plainly hasn't been demonstrated yet. I'm open to any solution including one I disagree with as long as there's consensus. I think it is highly likely that Wikipedians will have different opinions about these templates -- some have at leastfive four links (including plus the overview link) while others have only one or two, and some editions are more likely to be created than others.
Re: NENAN, as I said atcomment I honestly do not have a position on the navbox debate but either way NENAN"is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted byWP:NBFILL". --Habst (talk)13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my above comment to say four links plus the title instead of five. I think the argument still stands. --Habst (talk)14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was quite ahead of the facts before they were confirmed. While it's true that it isn't confirmed for now, we can't deny there could more crossovers inPower Rangers Prime with other Hasbro/Saban IPs. I turned the article into a draft again.Fico Puricelli (talk)15:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one use (Kavalactone), and the numbered captions of the images in it make it only really usable in that context to correpond with that article. Proposing substitute and then delete.DMacks (talk)22:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unused map. Concerns of OR two years ago. Not sure if they were resolved. If maps OR concerns can be fixed and used then we can keep, but if not - delete.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unused sidebar with a deleted article link and mostly plain text. Article had been deleted early this week for copyright infrigement. Highly unlikely this will be used at all.WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to nominate this template for deletion myself. Even the one blue link it has is off-topic from the subject of this sidebar. --DB1729talk15:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Controversial issues withTemplate:Controversial. These two templates are strikingly similar, withControversial being far more widely used. I think either the two should be merged, or elseControversial issues should be deleted, as the latter honestly presents information that is common sense to most experienced editors.Newbzy (talk)13:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. There is no reason to keep these two separate, especially as we risk them both being added to the same page. If for some reason the language has be different for ArbCom actions, then create a|arbcom= parameter. But don't keep them separate! If there was one thing participants in the previous discussion could agree on is that they shouldn't appear both on the same page, and, in my view, this is the only solution which can guarantee that. (Istill think the Controversial template should be deleted to help fight banner blindness, but it seems that ship has unfortuntely sailed.)FaviFake (talk)15:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe both should bedeleted as prime examples of banner blindness. Second choice would be merging and requiring an explanation of exactly what is controversial. We don't need lots of boilerplate on articles. Again, neither template hasanything to do with ArbCom; they just allow editors to labeltheir articles as controversial without doing anything to help editors edit better.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)16:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MergeTemplate:Controversial issues intoTemplate:Controversial, as the latter has better documentation about when to use this banner and appears in other templates.Template:Controversial issues appears to have been moved fromTemplate:Controversial-issues, by userNewbzy, without taking the documentation atTemplate:Controversial-issues/doc with it. This page has a longer title appears to have been an attempt to clone theTemplate:Controversial, which I still think is needed. But I am not clear why we need to have two different templates that appear to say the same thing. The labelling should imply that the article is considered a controversial one, not just an article about a controversial topic, although the article might not be controversial, e.g. I see the topic of Crime is listed as being controversial, but its articles are generally not. -Cameron Dewe (talk)07:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is time.WikiProject College Basketball had agreed to migrate from a college specific template to the basketball-generic{{Infobox basketball biography}} templateover a decade ago. While college players were touted asstudent athletes to avoid paying "amateurs" (pre-NIL days), their notability has little to do with their major, either then or now. Save us the annual tedium of coverting infoboxes when a college player turns pro.MOS:INFOBOX says:
Infoboxes, particularly infobox forks for the same category of articles, should maintain a consistent appearance with related infoboxes, particularly in relation to layout, colour and structure.
Mergeonly if "Class" is added to the main template. In college football, whether a student is a redshirt or not, or what year they are is important.TrueCRaysball💬|✏️21:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but omit|major=, as that is usually not even mentioned or cited in the article body and is irrelevant anyway for 95% of professional players.|class= would only pertain to college players and we should avoid time-sensitive parameters like this; the basketball infobox also omits these two. Would|college=/|pastschools= be merged? On a side note, could somebody please try and fixModule:College color so it properly displays in dark mode? I've tried in the past but its beyond my level of Lua knowledge and all my previous requests have been ignored or unhelpful. —Dissident93(talk)16:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template hasabout 250 uses, so the nominator is mistaken that it is unused. Of course visually impaired editors should be able to access all articles, but we have limited editorial resources, as evidenced by e.g. the fact that we don't have alt text for 100% of the images we use. And common sense dictates that visually impaired editors are more likely than the average reader to be interested in topics likeVisual impairment given its direct relevance to their lives. This makes it, as the template says, particularly important (not "only important") to follow accessibility best practices there. This editnotice provides a helpful reminder of that.Sdkbtalk14:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on looking at the template, I see that its wording had changed since I'd last visited it: @Waddie96changed, so it is especially important that it conform to the guideline toand must adhere to the guidelines. It is entirely understandable that you'd object to the template with the changed wording, @Pigsonthewing, as I do too; it indeed implied that other articles do not also need to be accessible. I have reverted back to the "especially important" wording, which is hopefully a better ATD.Sdkbtalk14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unused on articles or talk pages, where I expected for find it, I now see that it is used on other templates.
Contrary to your edit summary it was not the reverted wording specifically which prompted this deletion proposal.
It is aneditnotice; those are always going to be in templates.
I'd love to be in a world in which everyone abided by accessibility guidelines all the time, no matter how cumbersome, but that's a fantasyland. In the practical realm, I would be surprised if you've included alt text with every single image you've ever added to an article, and even if you have, 99% of other editors have not. What this notice does is, for an editor in the process of editing an article likevisual impairment, give them a nudge so that they think, "oh, I normally don't bother adding alt text, but for this article where it's especially important I guess I will". Or, "I've never heard of these accessibility guidelines before, but it seems especially important for this article, so I'll take this opportunity to check them out." That's a useful nudge (and it might even get them in habit of abiding by the guidelines more generally once they realize it's not hard).Sdkbtalk17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sdkb — articles about disabilities should at least be readable by those with said disabilities. It is quite reasonable that there be a notice for such cases. --Opecuted (talk)02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should be readable, but that doesn't require an editor-facing edit notice because it should be the default for all articles.Izno (talk)05:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept.Firsfron of Ronchester04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its only used on one page. No reason for this to be in template space if it can't find more uses. But overall, it is not needed. A timeline for a list of shows on a network, what value does this serve to have? It provides no information for readers. Its just a chart. On article space, you can find this information in simple list prose.WikiCleanerMan (talk)14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a templatemust be used in more than one article is nonsense.WP:TFD#REASONS says that reasons for deleting a template are the following: 1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. 2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template. 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. 4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing. This template (and the one you nominated below) does not meet any of these criteria.Firsfron of Ronchester17:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept.Firsfron of Ronchester04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: consensus seems to be moving towards delete, but I can't officially say anything Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This characterization appears to be a misunderstanding of the sidebar. This is not linking to sections within a single article, but rather between different articles that cover the whole of the characters derived from the Brahmic script, with many of the Canadian Syllabic characters having their own place within that historic context. The fact that the content is not forked into a separate article is irrelevant, the sidebar is for navigation between different pages, and the pertinent information is found at a particular section within those pages. Several other characters, on the other hand,don't have well documented context like that and AFAIK Wikipedia lacks that content currently. But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives. Lastly, the redirect objected to is aredirect from other capitalization and only exists because of a technical limitation of mediawiki.
I would have no objection to creating redirects from the base characters to the appropriate article sections and then link to those, ala the Vowels and Syllabic Consonants sections of{{Devanagari abugida sidebar}} if that is somehow deemed more proper. But this related content is not otherwise linked together in any way, so the sidebar has clear and non-redundant purpose and needs to remain. However, I'm going to add links toCree syllabics,Eastern Cree syllabics,Western Cree syllabics, andInuktitut syllabics for additional related content, and I would encourage any other pertinent content others can find.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout16:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its good you added more links for the subject, but sidebars are not immune from navigation requirements like those of navboxes. "But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives". Sidebars like navboxes are not created just so a need can be created or be in a position for an article to be created so it can be linked for the subject. That is aCrystal argument. Either there is enough articles to navigate for or there isn't. And I did not mischaracterize my nomination about links to article sections. Those are links to article sections as in sections of articles. It does not mean I said a single article's sections. Prior to your edits those were the only links, and following the addition of four articles, they still outnumber direct article links.WikiCleanerMan (talk)17:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When this was nominated, there was content ateleven different articles being linked. That is current needs, not even remotely "when the need arrives" - navigation between that content is unavailable by any other means, and WP:Crystal is completely non-sequitur. Even if there are an additional 7 possible future targets, their non-existence does not negate the now extant 15 articles for which this sidebar provides current internavigation. Navbars and navigation sidebars routinely contain full lists of category members for which many may not have extant content for linking.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are to link to articles directly. We only have four links to articles outside the main title link for this subject. Links to article sections especially when they out number direct article links fail the navigational purpose a sidebar is for. And links to article sections do not count as links to articles because they don't count even if related. Content is not the right word to use. Content can mean anything outside of articles. It can even mean links to Wikipedia sister projects. I would say if there is a fifth article for the sidebar, then it can pass the bare minimum to be kept and I don't think the characters should be hidden.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you are getting that from, but its application runs completely contrary toWP:Splitting for content splits. Are you perhaps misreading guidance on navigation links among sectionswithin an article? Because that would actually make sense. You know exactly what I mean by content here, and it has nothing to do sister projects or whatever else you are implying. I am not a strawman. I don't even know how to respond to an argument so baffling - that somehow the intricacies of internal article organization would make a link to completely separate pages somehow not count for the purposes of navigation because that content isn't found in the lede. The link subject is clear for every single one of these. The content linked in these sections would make an independent stub/start class article with two references - but splitting the content would strip it of context, remove pertinent content from the current article, and is specifically discouraged by the actual guidance Wikipedia has on splitting content. So no, we had 11, and now 15 articles linked, and I do not accept a counterintuitive and anti-policy interpretation deflating that number.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout22:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through that list, probably only Ojibwe and Carrier. Ostensibly Blackfoot as well, but there's a confounding alternate syllabic script that is based partially on UCAS that I don't know enough about. Paging@Kwamikagami: to see if they have some idea how to get that article in a position to handle that mess. As for the Unicode blocks, those pages are about computer technology, and while it is right up my wheelhouse as a Unicode contributor, they are more appropriate in a Unicode technical context than navigation within graphemics.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout23:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template is primarily used in locations where a navbox is not appropriate. A companion navbox might have some alternate use case, but it will not work as a replacement for the primary purpose of this sidebar - navigating between information on the derivation, usage, and variations of archetype letterforms of the Canadian Syllabic script - which is found in context with the related letters of Indic scripts.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout03:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've not checked the edit history, so perhaps someone's improved the template since this was nominated, but now it adds significant value over the language template: it's formatted to appear higher in the article (and maybe would appear on mobile, unlike the navbox; I'm unsure), versus all the way at the bottom, and more importantly it shows the letters instead of merely providing their transliterated names, as the navbox does.Nyttend (talk)19:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either merge toTemplate:Georgian language or convert this to a navbox (whichever is better). These pages already use an infobox so the addition of the sidebar creates a massive block of boxes at the top of the page, which isn't reader friendly.Gonnym (talk)09:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in July 2025. There probably are not enough valid blue links to make this navbox useful. Some of the listed people may or may not have been monarchs of the Isle of Man. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked all four of the bluelinks on the template. None of them seems to indicate that the king in question was specifically a ruler of Man —Báetán mac Cairill andÁedán mac Gabráin sought to conquer it and include it in their broader ricks, andEdwin of Northumbria andTutgual of Galwyddel ruled kingdoms of which Man was merely a part. None of them ruled only Man, or ruled Man as a separate entity from another domain, so I dispute the inclusion of all four on this template. (Otherwise we might as well expand it by adding Charles III, Lord of Man, and his predecessors.) We can't know anything from this template about the remaining rulers, and I'm uncomfortable assuming that any of them belongs here. Unless I'm misunderstanding badly, this template's flaws really can't be fixed without deletion.Nyttend (talk)06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's often something that can't be fixedby deletion, but we can pretend it didn't happen. We should certainly add the Stanleys and maybe a generic link to the monarchs of the greater entity after them. Lord of Mann is a simple renaming of King of Mann. As for the question of the parent kingdom in earlier days, it could be made as clear as possible when one polity is subsumed in another. It's certainly the case that further south a king could be the king of more than one kingdom, or kingdoms could be divided or united.
Simplyrenaming this (with the better name anyway, since most of the rulers weren't Manx)Monarchs of the Isle of Man would obviate the semantic component of the issues you raise. Sectioning by parent polity can also help. As for the red links, it's a question of creating the targets.
I mention the redlinks because we can't easily know whether those people belong here; of course it's fine on principle to have redlinks in these places. This template really ought to concentrate on monarchs for whom Man has been the sole domain, or for whom it's been a significant component of the entire rick; that's definitely not the case for Charles III or for any previous UK/GB/English monarch, unless I'm forgetting about something. Man is a bit of a protectorate anyway, hardly a completely separate kingdom, even though it's not strictly part of the UK; it's more analogous to Anguilla or the Falklands, not like Tuvalu or St Lucia, let alone Australia or Canada. We probably wouldn't make a template for "Monarchs of the Falklands" without monarchs for whom the Falklands were a significant territory.Nyttend (talk)02:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: no post-relist discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with a rename to a better title and one that makes sense for the subject matter, still too few links for navigation purposes. If one more link/article is created, then keep, but for now delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)17:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found this during the clean up of{{AircraftCost}} which was deleted atthis TFD. In principal I love the idea of this template, the problem is it isn't maintained (thecurrent value given is from 2023) or really used (131 transclusions). What's more there is a FAR superior and far better maintained template at{{Inflation}}. Suggest deleting this and replacing its instances with{{inflation}}Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)07:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you call it inaccurate? A lot of time was spent on this. If there's no maintenance it's because nobody reported any bugs. They do no do the same thing, otherwise I would not have written them. Stop asking to delete things that you don't understand.Trigenibinion (talk)20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trigenibinion: I think you are taking my criticism personally. That is not my intention. I do not doubt that a lot of time was spent on it, but this template is not maintained, the other is. The fact thatnobody reported any bugs is not the point. You are using data from 2023. If you are going to maintain a template like this it needs to have the latest up to date data or it is not serving its purpose. You have not in anyway address why this template cannot be replace with{{Inflation}}.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)19:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is other templates called by this one that would have to be updated. This is a general presentation template that can be called by normalizing ones like the one you deleted, AircraftCost. Inflation is a lower level building block. The point was that in infoboxes Inflation was being called directly without consistency in the display of information.
To EUR now takes advantage of the To USD and INRConvert 2023 data. The last time someone updated its own data was for 2021 so I will have to take a look at that too.Trigenibinion (talk)20:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: no post-relist participation Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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).
However, the more I think about it, the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates.
After all, the guideline (WP:OWNTALK) specifically states "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." and it also states "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." (Back in 2016 when this template was created, the guideline was not clear on whether the 75K limit then in effect for regular talk pages applied to user talk pages as well. Some editors probably did interpret it that way. More specifically, the guideline did not have anything resembling today's clear language)
But if we remove the "officialness" of a user warning, we remove any specific requirements, we remove "you need to archive"... what's even left?
{{please archive}} is what's left, I say. Which is why I'm nominating this template for deletion. It appears to be wholly and fully redundant and non-compliant.
Clarification (added 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)): Me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Our guidelines quite clearly say:The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. To me that means we should use a template that in no way implies the user has done anything wrong, such as{{Please archive}}. Please don't oppose this nomination because you disagree withWP:OWNTALK. Best regardsCapnZapp (talk)11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please take into account that both for this TfD and theone five years ago, both !votes did not address the causes for nomination, and/or based their !votes on irrelevant criteria. The closer of the 2020 TfD appeared to ignore the poor relevance to the nominated action by the goven !votes. At the very least, I suggest a relist to gain actually on-topic !votes. Thank you,CapnZapp (talk)21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update, as the nominator himself had as a first instinct. Whether it's user talk, article talk, other area talk, or all talk pages in general, the issue of large sizes is an issue that should be avoided (some user talk pages are hundreds of thousands of bytes in size, are extremely slow to load are just ridiculous to navigate), and if this template is reworded to suggest archiving in a manner more palatable to the nominator, that is better than nothing. -\\'cԼF10:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, that older TfC only got two comments. Both ignored how this template is solely meant for user talk space, at least initially. And now you too include talk page size issues in general? Secondly, our guidelines havechanged since that last TfD, so I believe having a new discussion is perfectly reasonable. (I repeatedly tried to have the guideline updated, but apparently discussing it first instead ofjust making the change was my mistake) Thirdly, why do you say "better than nothing" when I quite specifically point out there already exist an alternative that seemingly avoid all the problems of this template I have brought up? Can you go into more detail about what value you feel this template offers over Please archive,User:Thewolfchild, and what updates you would make if this template remains? I'm asking because, as stated, I don't see how there will be anything left if we address all the issues listed for this template.CapnZapp (talk)11:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2.The following is copied verbatim fromthe talk page to keep everything centralizedBecause after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, whatspecific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !votekeep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Regards,CapnZapp (talk)11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you are suggesting that talk page length doesn't matter, it seems that you are talking from a place of being lucky enough to have a new and fast computer and thus having it not matter to you. For those who aren't lucky enough to have one, it does indeed matter and should be called out. I would also assume that an incredibly long talk page would be a challenge for those who require assistive technology. Wikipedia should endeavor to be more, rather than less, accessible, and suggesting that the very slight "offense" taken by people who cannot set up an incredibly basic archive system is more important is a bit ridiculous to me.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your !vote,ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. However, you appear to post based on "this template is what keeps user talk pages from being overly long" (I could be wrong). You do not address my concerns with the template: guidelines no longer warrant an user warning, as opposed to a normal ask - and we already have a template for politely asking users to trim their user pages: Please archive. That is, me nominating this template for deletion doesnot mean I am opposed to editors such as yourself asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Keeping this template would assume you are arguing there is still a case to be made for warning (or notifying) users. I don't see that's the argument you're making, but if you are: on what are you basing this? What makes you want to keepthis template as opposed to using{{Please archive}} or just a personalized message? CheersCapnZapp (talk)10:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that I misinterpreted the purpose of the nomination. Nevertheless, I don't think Please archive is as good because it doesn't point to the Wikipedia guidelines. Pointing to the guidelines is important to show that it's a policy and not just a personal opinion. If one is to be deleted, the text of this one should be copied over to Please archive instead.
Thank you. Let's just say it together now: itisn't a policy! All right? :-) (the whole reason for my nom is precisely because this template is created on the assumption the user is warned/notified about policy, and now that this is gone, any template that asks you to trim your talk should be clearly seen to be a personal preference ask!) You are free to contest any change, but please, don't let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. If you do start an RfC or somesuch, I guess you can ask for this TfD to be postponed until such time a consensus has been hashed out, but not sure how the TfD community feels about that strategy for delaying TfDs? Maybe better is for this TfD to run its course. Templates can after all always be undeleted if that is what the community wants. Regards,CapnZapp (talk)12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It essentially is a policy. "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." These exceptions are fairly narrow and generally speaking one is expected to abide by it. It's not considered fully optional like, say, a highly opinionated essay might be.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the guideline used to be even more specific and in line with this template, but it was unilaterally removed by a group of editors working solely on that page. Right now it is continued to be removed for the reasons of "maintaining the status quo" even though it was changed from its decade+ long status quo fairly recently.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to misunderstand each other,ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. In no way did I mean to argue OWNTALK isn't official guidelines. I was instead telling you that the guidelineno longer contains the 75K limit. That is what I meant by "it isn't a policy". It used to be, it no longer is. Historic guidelines no longer active are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. You appear to base your !vote on disagreeing with the current guideline. That is not appropriate. If you want the guideline changed, go fight for that. If you want it more widely discussed, go set up that wider discussion. In the meanwhile, though, please base your !vote on the fact thatthere is no limit set by the guideline. I would not nominate this template for deletion had the guideline not been changed. But it has been changed, which is why I consider a user warning or notification template to no longer be appropriate, hence this discussion. Once more I am asking you to not let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD.CapnZapp (talk)13:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the longstanding guideline was bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements, so it is absolutely relevant to changing this template as well.Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people aren't obliged to start a domino chain of major changes simply because of an order "from the top" that may or may not be correct. It's worth it to go back and ensure that the removal of the idea of a page size limit is actually beneficial to users or whether it is the product of someone assuming that their setup is representative of all Wikipedia users.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)13:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with "bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements" I'm not preventing you from taking steps to further change the guideline. But for the purposes of this TfD it is not unreasonable to assume the guideline is as written. I'm not nominating this template on a whim - the current guideline has been stable for 7 months. Please do not base your !vote here on disagreements about the underlying guidelines. Can I ask you to reevaluate your !vote based on the guidelines that exist, rather than the guidelines you want to have,ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ?— Precedingunsigned comment added byCapnZapp (talk •contribs)16:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can I ask you to specify which of Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments you base your "per" rationale on,User:FlightTime? Because I can't pick up any hints you saw how I have tried to point out how little relevance their arguments have, and how they both appear to ignore the actual circumstances that I based my nomination on. Super-quick summary: This discussion covers user talk space only. Changes to our guideline makes a user warning template inappropriate. If you dislike the change to that guideline !voting "keep" is the wrong way to go about that - the guideline has achieved consensus and been stable for several months. We already have a template politely asking users to archive their talk pages. If you disagree with any of my objections, it would be helpful if you addressed them. Alternatively, if it is easier for you, maybe you'll simply give the closer a bit more detail on your reasoning for your !vote without relying on Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments? RegardsCapnZapp (talk)20:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasoning for deletion, as far as I can tell, comes down to aWP:IDONTLIKEIT that the language used in the uw- series of templates is a little more "official"-sounding and that "uw" stands for "user warning" even though it also encompasses informational notices. The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative{{please archive}}. If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline, that's an easy fix for the template. I also caution the nominator againstWP:BLUDGEONING based on the above discussion.Anomie⚔00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative{{please archive}} What do you mean by "even",Anomie? I quite specifically am arguing that{{Please archive}} contains the right amount of "do this" which is no amount at all.The guideline changed. It now quite specifically tells us that the length of user talk is entirely up to the editor. This means any user warning or notice template is entirely inappropriate. Insofar as us having a template at all (WP:DTR and all) the template we do keep should be outside the "uw-" group of templates.CapnZapp (talk)21:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you apparently don't disagree with the idea of a template about this, you've apparently decided you don't like this specific title for some poorly expressed reason. You're also continuing toWP:BLUDGEON this discussion.Anomie⚔21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote...the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates I find it genuinely unfortunate if you find this "poorly expressed",Anomie and I wish I had chosen wording you would have found better or more easy to understand. You are correct I do not disagree with having *a* template for asking users to consider archiving (I'm not TfD'ing{{Please archive}} after all). If this realization makes you reconsider your !vote, that'd be helpful. Best regardsCapnZapp (talk)11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This commenter appears to be another one that base their !vote on disagreeing with guideline, which is not appropriate. I will however pingUser:Anomie: Please correct me if this isn't an accurate reading of you sayingIf there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline. In short, if there weren't consensus, we wouldn't be here now - I obviously waited to see whether the guideline change would be stable before making this nom.CapnZapp (talk)21:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both this andTemplate:Please archive are redundant and we should have one single template notice. However,WP:OWNTALK says this:User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier an extremely long talk page hinders that. Large pages take longer to load and sometimes even can cause the browser to stop responding.Gonnym (talk)07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off,Gonnym, no template in the world can force users to do anything. Second, in the very few cases the user's page gets so long it breaks browsers(!) a more personal approach is definitely warranted. Either way, templates in the user warning and notices group are issued based on the assumption action will eventually be enforced. But as long asWP:USERTALKSIZE statesThe length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. having a "uw-" template feels inappropriate. There just isn't anything to comply with since the guideline change.CapnZapp (talk)21:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather an annoying template be added to a user's talk page letting them know that their actions cause problems and they should fix it. And as I stated, long talk pages do fail the guideline. That the guideline itself contradicts itself between two paragraphs, that is a different issue. You choose to follow one part, I choose the other.Gonnym (talk)09:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say "possibly" because at this time, it is not entirely clear whether the RFC creator is targetingWP:TALKSIZE,WP:USERTALKSIZE or both. This TfD is of course relevant only to user talk space. I've left a message to the RFC creator asking they clarify their RFC.CapnZapp (talk)11:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oreocooke: I'm not seeing what the point of relisting this was. It's a long read because the proposer keepsWP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, claiming that no one is "properly" addressing their complaint since no one is agreeing with them in their focus on one sentence of a guideline over another. But it has already been relisted once and the result was just more "keep" comments.Anomie⚔17:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Thedocumentation does try to draw a distinction between them — it says PAR is forarticle text or language pronunciation whereas PRA is forarticle title pronunciation only — but because the current wording of both references the article title, this clearly isn't happening.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not enough participants to fully determine consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)16:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on the possible redundancy of{{copyright violation}}, but I (and I am sure many others) would be wholly opposed to redirecting it to{{copyvio}}. The former is an annoying and poorly used maintenance template; the latter a template that requires specific usage scenarios and instructions for those adding it. –Isochrone (talk)10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ioppose for this reason too; to address concerns about the naming of the templates, I would suggest renaming{{Copyright violation}} to something like "Copyright violation inline" or something similar, as it would be easy to confuse the two templates as they are currently named.Gommeh📖🎮17:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with the following above suggestions. This template should be kept as a means for a few sentences, where a notice such asTemplate:Copyvio on the top of an article would be overshooting a minor issue, which could be fixed in simplicity. Additionally, Having a redirect name similar or equal to "Copyright violation inline" would not be a bad idea, as to reduce confusion for users of the template. —Alex26337 (talk)05:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright violation: remove its uses and retarget to the page version, which is not quite a merge. Any sentence suspected of failure to comply with our copyright expectations should simply be removed on sight, not tagged meaninglessly for what could be a Long Time. (And if it's a sufficient question, move the text to the talk page.) It has few enough uses as it is.Izno (talk)16:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first template and redriect per Awesome Aasim. Short excerpts are unlikely to be infringing. In most cases, the infringing text makes up a large portion of an article or section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The shows listed here are simply too loosely related to merit a navbox. They do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" as is the guideline inWP:NAVBOX #3. It is also obvious from the ludicrous and continually growing amount of shows thatList of programs broadcast by Syfy is more appropriate.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not at all too loosely related. If navbox size is a major concern, then the first step is to do an Rfc or just a plain new discussion on the template's talk page to see if a split is warranted based on consensus. Netflix original programming templates have been split off and contain many articles for original shows on the platofmr --WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the size concern, but I don't find the nominator's relatedness concern to be persuasive. Readers very well might have a SyFy subscription (or whatever it is they're selling these days) or an affinity for their programming and be looking for info about their shows.Sdkbtalk01:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox Idaho State Legislature district withTemplate:Infobox United States legislative district. Low-use (on 3 of 35 district pages) state-specific template with no unique utility to it. The only substantive difference I see is the voter demographic label 'Unaffiliated/other party', which makes more sense than the 'No party preference' label in the standard U.S. template since Idaho has closed primaries. Perhaps there could be a custom/alternative label in the U.S. template to accommodate this? (if the difference is deemed significant enough to accommodate). —LifelongDisciple (Talk)06:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exercises occur during peacetime, not war or conflict. They are COMPLETELY different things. For example,Exercise Talisman Sabre is an exercise. But a "civil conflict" is something that involves conflict. Exercises are TRAINING. They do not involve live fire, unless there is no one being fired at.
However, I'm confused because there aren't any modules in the infobox. I was just going to put it into a couple of pages, but without any modules it's useless. When there are modules to include important information, it belongs on all of the pages included here:Military_exercise#List of military exercisesGuylaen (talk)22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this template does is remove the word “civil” from{{Infobox civil conflict}}, but as I mentioned, that parameter was removed almost 3 years ago. It COULD be rewritten as an infobox for military exercises, but at this time it does nothing to that effect.Phuzion (talk)18:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 – either keep or delete, but in no cases redirect. It is completely contrary to logic to redirect this to any page involving conflict at all.
@Guylaen: I think you are focusing on the name while I am focusing on the technical side of this...
For example{{Disappeared date and age}} and{{Death date and age}} do exactly the same thing which is why I'm currently working to merge them. Disappeared is ABSOLUTELY different than Death, but if the result for the end user is the same thing....
I won't speak for other editors, but I'm certainly not suggesting that an exercise is the same as a conflict... But if I can use{{Infobox military exercise|name=Foo|...}} and get the exact same result as{{Infobox civil conflict|name=Foo|...}} then from atechnical side a redirect makes sense.
Hmm... I just think we have some sort of duty to the curious minds who read this website to provide links so that people who go down the wikipedia hole can learn about the world.
If it is pointed to another infobox (which I'm fine with), THAT INFOBOX WILL NEED NEW MODULES. If we want to do the redirect toTemplate:Infobox civil conflict ORTemplate:Infobox event, these are the modules that I believe need to be added for an exercise to function properly.
These are modules that specifically are not found in either event or civil conflict, and should be added to make the infobox appropriate for use on an exercise:
•Blankdata (about 10)
•Blankname (about 10)
•Equipment/Transport and deployment/training aids
•Type of exercise (e.g., command post, field training, tabletop, computer-assisted, live-fire)
@Guylaen: so what I'm hearing is that this template needs a complete overhaul. FWIW, if the decision is ultimately made to merge, there is nothing to stop you from later recreating the template in a new way.In its current form it isn't doing anything to make it worth not redirecting... If you add the parameters listed above, that changes the game. I'll ping you on your talk page, but I would recommend letting this TFM run its course, and instead focusing on creating a new incarnation of the Infobox..Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: noticable amount of recent activity Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)03:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images suspected to be a hoax should be removed from mainspace until it is confirmed that they are not a hoax. No need to tag anything. This template is not used and there is no need to ever use it.Polygnotus (talk)14:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is not for article space. It is for File space. The code to link to the relevant talk page has "File talk:" hard-coded. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PerJonesey95 and the templates documentation that very clearly saysThis template may have no transclusions. This is because it is substituted by a tool or script, it is used as part of a short-term or less active Wikipedia process, or for some other reason.. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)04:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: It is added, and then removed once things are verified (or the file in question deleted)... So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories... your search doesn't really tell us anything of value. Plus, as has been said, The template is SUBSTITUTED, not transcluded. Your search ONLY looks at transclusions, but still there is no way to look for files where this has been substituted, the file investigated, then cleared (determined NOT to be a hoax) or deleted because it IS a hoax.
@Zackmann08 No, I don't like it is about liking/disliking, not understanding/not understanding.So unless you were able to do a search of all file histories I am, although the dump is rather big so it would take some time.
Can you imagine a scenario in which this template is useful? Or do you just assume that it is? Someone finds a file, and thinks it might be a hoax. They can tag it as such, which does nothing, or remove its usage from mainspace (which seems like the correct thing to do until they can confirm it is not a hoax). But let's say they tag it. How does that help anyone? The template seems to invite drive-by tagging.Polygnotus (talk)22:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: seriously... READ the code. Do SOME kind ofWP:BEFORE... The template places the image inCategory:Wikipedia suspected hoax images... It is literally the FIRST LINE of the documentation.This template will categorise articles into Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images. Those maintenance categories are monitored by people... I don't PERSONALLY monitor this particular one (look atmy userpage for all the categories I monitor), but I guarantee you that others do. A 5 second look at the history showsthis discussion about the category which has been around since at least 2009 and is clearly used by people.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)22:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 If you claim that there is a dedicated team of CIA operatives who check and doublecheck if a file is indeed a hoax when the template is used then that would indeed be a benefit I hadn't considered. I doubt it, but there is the theoretical possibility. I might give it a try if I ever find a hoax image. But it would be nice if you could maybe, you know, relax a bit? We are disagreeing about something that is incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. A "comment out usages" or "uncomment usages" button would be cool.Polygnotus (talk)22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just because you don't like something or don't see its usefulness doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is clearly a driveby nomination from someone who has not bothered to look at what the template does or how it works.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1 entry or 1 English entry. Not useful for navigation. Note that the blue entry for Japanese embassy in Bolivia is actually a redirect.LibStar (talk)02:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every world leader or politician. Only seven links are of relevance to the subject matter. Such a small grouping of links for the subject and for a sidebar. 15 pages are in Cain's category. This can be converted into a navbox. 3 can be removed since they are related to Cain's 2012 campaign and not to himself directly, but nonetheless, a sidebar is still not needed if adding in those links from the category.WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A navbov exists for Rick Perry,Template:Rick Perry. We don't need a sidebar for every politician or political leader. The navbox is much better to navigate for articles about the subject matter. If it needs work, then it can fixed. We shouldn't create sidebars just to supplement a navbox.WikiCleanerMan (talk)20:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Following my read on the nominator's side, as well as looking into past discussions, I agree that navboxes referring to the accolades of a person or work can quickly spiral out of control and unnecessary for a page, considering how many publication companies and organizations are out there. —Alex26337 (talk)20:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every world leader or politician. Only seven links are of relevance to the subject matter. Such a small grouping of links for the subject and for a sidebar.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are only six articles in the subject's main category. There are 5 links to article sections and another five to articles. We don't need a sidebar for every world leader. Such a small grouping of links for the subject and for a sidebar.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 5 articles of relevance are linked. The rest are links to article sections and some redirects to O'Malley's own article. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from O'Malley's category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After removing unrelated articles linked in the sidebar. We are left with 3 links to article sections and 4 articles to any relevance to the subject matter. Just another sidebar that adds clutter as there are too few links to justify a sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every politician or political leader.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vast majority of this sidebar leads to article sections. Only seven articles of relevance are linked to the subject of Harold Washington. Not every political leader needs a sidebar. There aren't enough articles for there to be a sidebar let alone any template for this subject.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fourthords: you arepartially corrrect, see below:
{{death date and age|3 Oct 2025|5 Dec 1990}} → October 3, 2025(2025-10-03) (aged 34)
{{death date and age|1990-02-12|1980-03-12}} → February 12, 1990(1990-02-12) (aged 9)
Basically{{death date and age}} overridesOct withOctober. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. I'll put that on my todo list for this afternoon as regardless of this merge, that should not be the case.
By my count this is only used 16 times.. It is also mostly not in english and doesn't even function as a standalone Infobox... It has|child=yes hardcoded in it so it can ONLY be used as a module in{{Infobox sportsperson}}.
Keep the sidebar, it complements the main navbox by providing quick, consistent navigation across Michael Jackson related pages. Many major celebrities have similar sidebars for context and ease of use. Accessibility or overlap issues can be resolved through editing, not deletion.FreddyFrazier (talk)21:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This sidebar is evidently overgrown; a problem which I myself substantially contributed to (7%) over the years. Splitting it after the Hundred Years' War model is in line with the policies, guidelines, conventions, precedents and suggestions I've gathered atUser:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes, more specifically the1 war rule. The idea to split this infobox was also previously discussed atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns. Technically, discussion is not necessary, as I could split this whole sidebar myselfWP:BOLDly as proposed, but the sheer number of pages involved and the fact that it was discussed previously makes me think it would be courteous to talk about it before I do anything. If nobody objects, I'll proceed anyway, but if there are objections, this is the time to discuss them.NLeeuw (talk)19:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unused and unneeded sidebar. Most of the links have very little to do with Kahane himself. The ideology section is a Synth grouping. The category for the subject is enough.WikiCleanerMan (talk)14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete, duplicate navigation. better to use the footer navbox for navigation. navboxes, unlike sidebars, don't crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes.Frietjes (talk)19:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well crafted. However, I also agree we already have the footer navbox. This should apply to the recently created Template:Michael Jackson sidebar IMO. Regards,Apoxyomenus (talk)20:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not violate any policy on sidebar or template navigation. It doesn't have all the links like those of US presidents or UK PM"s, nor should it. It isn't meant to do the same thing as navboxes. And not every person with a navbox needs a sidebar. If they have a navbox that meets basic navigation requirements then that is enough. Just because we can create, doesn't mean we need to. Navboxes should be the first step in my view, sidebars can come if they warrant it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)20:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree the articles need improvement but the SIGCOV sources are there, and the number of articles linked isn't a reason to delete the template. --Habst (talk)12:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking a stance on the navbox issue in general, but you have to admit what you just linked is an essay, not a policy or guideline, that's equally refuted byWP:NBFILL. I agree with the goal of cleaning up unused templates, but there's no P&G-based rationale in this case. --Habst (talk)02:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been cited longer than that essay and has been a standard bearer. You can't just create a navbox with so few links to articles, that you can argue there is a benefit with just three links and expect the template not be to called for deletion after all this time. PerWikipedia:Navigation template "A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections or relevant main article and see also links within the articles' sections, as well as be merged into a larger template."WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not an Olympic team. There was no one team and all of these athletes listed were involved in different sports. Normally, one team is involved in one sport. Not multiple as this template alleges.WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus supports this, then I support deletion, not redirect. This redirect will be misleading as it does not change the text size.Gonnym (talk)16:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus supports this, then I support deletion, not redirect. This redirect will be misleading as it does not change the text size.Gonnym (talk)16:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace all{{smallsup}} cases with{{sup}} outright. Smallsup and sup give the impression of different sizes, so it (as a potential redirect) would be misleading or confusing as it wouldn't actually be a different size. Also, if smallsup violatesMOS:SMALLTEXT, it shouldn't be promoting the idea of going smaller than sup that is already on the smaller end.Zinnober9 (talk)06:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will also note that there are a number of varying names redirecting to this:
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.
To be clear this will NOT be an easy transition, but I think it needs to be done. Maintaining Infoboxes this way is just terrible practice. These should all be replaced with actual calls to{{Infobox LDS Temple}} with the data passed to parameters on the article page, just like how literallyevery other Infobox is done.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)23:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you can show that the entire family of templates will continue to work. The system is quite intricate. Please look for previous TFD nominations of LDS Temple–related templates for links showing the complexity of this family. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95 the only TFD I could find wasthis one from nearly 7 years ago that was about merging it with{{Infobox religious building}} which resulted inNo consensus. I'm not suggesting a merger with a different template, just that we eliminate the many sub-templates in favor of actual transclusions in articles.
While I get that this is intricate, I just think it is terrible practice... It would be akin to creating sub templates for every instance of{{Infobox building}} to maintain those transclusions ANDList of tallest buildings. If someone tried to do that today we would quickly put a stop to it. Another example would be creating sub templates of{{Infobox MLB player}} for active players to maintain current roster information of individual MLB teams.
Help me understand though, what am I missing? I really did try to doWP:BEFORE, but if I'm missing something... Why can't (for example)Asunción Paraguay Temple just have a true instance of{{Infobox LDS Temple}} and thenList of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be maintained? If you look at that list, most of the table's values (area, date of dedication, etc.) are not values that are likely to ever change... If the table was listing current leader(s) of a particular church then maybe it would make sense... But I say substitute these values into the table on the list page and then do true transclusions on the individual temple pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this isn't a quick and easy substitution as with a traditional one-off tempalte, but technically it is just a mater of copying data from one location to another... Again unless I am missing something there is nothing blocking creating a standard wiki table on the two pages you linked to.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)20:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. the data pages are used for more than just the infoboxes. I could see replacing the entire system with something likeModule:Solar eclipse, but right now, the data pages are used to populate both the infobox and summary tables.Frietjes (talk)19:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the nomination. This is way too many subpages. We don't specific parameters for each location. It will be a long process, but that shouldn't prevent us from doing so. This is like every McDonald's location that has an article having their own parameters when one can do. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The data pages (template subpages) are used in multiple locations, not just the article infoboxes. (Referring to them as "single use" is just wrong.) Copying the data into the infoboxes in the hundreds of pages for the individual temples and then deleting the data pages/template subpages would destroy several other major pages/lists that depend on them as well. However, updating the data pages updates the information in all relevant pages calling on the data pages. The system might be complicated, but it doesn't break any rules/policies and it works. No need for the upheaval.Jdaloner (talk)05:27, 27 October 2025 (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).
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.
I disagree. The main point of this template is to explain to both editors and readers when those elected will take office, i. e. the day after the final results are declared. That stops overly eager editors showing the mayors-elect as having succeeded the incumbents, for example. I created the template based onthis discussion.Schwede6616:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While I agree withGonnym that we do not want a template for each country, I don't think{{Current election}} works here. What we need is a template that saysThis page is affect by the results of a recent election or similar.{{Current election}} (in its current form) is really for articles specifically about a certain election. I'd argue find a way to either merge the two, OR abstract this one out into a new tempalte that works globally, not just in New Zealand. How about a{{Recent election}} that would essentially combine aspects of{{Recent death}} and{{current election}}? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)09:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep. My initial thought was to rescope this to be a{{Recent election}} template per Zackmann, but I'm not sure whether the message at the end about the period incumbents remain in office for would still apply in international cases. If a way to cover all the existing information is found then I'm happy to have the template rescoped to cover international instances, but I think in the absence of that it still serves a purpose and shouldn't be deleted.Turnagra (talk)08:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra: so that's the one part that I don't understand of this... I'm an American, not a New Zealander... but to me this would be akin to putting a warning on top ofJoe Biden's page in November of last year that says essentiallyHey this dude is still president until the next guy takes office. (obviously I'm being a little sarcastic here, we would NEVER put a messagethat unprofessional, but you get my point.)
But is there something about New Zealand elections we aren't understanding? Isn't it a given that incumbents remain in office until the end of their term? Why does a notice need to specify that particularly for New Zealand? Why isn't it enough to sayThis article is affected by a recent election?Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)08:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that peakbagger.com meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source since it allows user generated content (for example seehere where the website states that the information was provided by a registered user). While the content is labeled as "provisional" before it's approved by peakbagger.com admin, the site is run by one guy called Greg Slayden so it shouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway.Wilderness trespasser (talk)13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There was a very extensive discussion about the reliability of peakbagger at theReliable Source Noticeboard in 2021, resulting in "no consensus". My argument at the time was that peakbagger wasused by other reliable sources. But I don't think we should relitigate this here. This template should be kept because it is used on 5,300 pages and if we delete this template, it will leave thousands of pages with unreferenced data.
Instead, I think the original proposer should bring this up atWP:RSN and see if we can get consensus, and if the consensus is that it is not reliable, come up with a plan for how to remove the data. Simply deleting this template is not the way to do it. —hike395 (talk)14:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per no consensus discussion above. Start a new RSN discussion. This template is obviously used and usable, so TFD is the wrong venue for the nominator's rationale. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep this is a highly-used template for a source that does not have consensus as being unreliable. I second hike395's comment onTemplate talk:Cite peakbagger that this is a borderline disruptive nomination (I became aware of this discussion after seeing a citation muddled by the TfD announcement).mdm.bla22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep - Information Peakbagger is overwhelmingly sourced to organizations like the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Anyone, yes anyone can cite the USGS. As long as the citation is accurate, a citation from User Rando007 is just as accurate as the USGS.23.129.0.30 (talk)16:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar toHamas history andHamas Group. Unncessary template. Created by a banned user for sockpupptery but this is really article content on template space and violatesWikipedia:TG. If you want history of Hamas, you can view the articles. A template is not meant to carry this sort of information. It states Hamas biographies on the top of the sidebar and that already implies this is not a template for navigation but for details that go on an article. This template's scope is still unclear and not really suitable for what templates are for.WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Algebra page has no navbox at the top unlike the geometry or mathematics page so I though I should add one since the algebra page looked unfinished without one. If you could help me find a preexisting navbox for this purpose that would be excellent. I named my navbox General algebra by analogy to the navbox General geometry. I don't mind if there is a better option but the Algebra page deserves a navbox near the top just as much as the geometry page.Redfoxtaily (talk)20:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is some terminology I haven't learned yet, but inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry there are nice boxes for Geometry and Mathematics series topics near the top of the page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra does not have these boxes so that is what I was trying to add. Its seems like the algebra page deserves to have boxes like that near the top of its page just like the geometry page. I looked but could not find a algebra template equivalent to the General geometry template for algebra. Also, I don't get why you removed the Part of a series on Mathematics template link since that is standard practice to include it in major math articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why these additions I made to the algebra page were wrong.Redfoxtaily (talk)01:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to know they are called sidebars. But is there a good reason for the Algebra page not to have sidebars? I could accept if you just think I must have a sidebar perfect before publishing one. But at any rate I'm not aware of any good algebra sidebar template.Redfoxtaily (talk)01:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: It's a valid question as to why the Algebra article doesn't have sidebars comparable to the Geometry article (and other mathematics articles). Perhaps you could give suggestions rather than just criticize/antagonize?BetsyRogers (talk)10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose redirectingTemplate:Disappeared date and age toTemplate:Death date and age. This template functions exactly as{{death date and age}} except that the later has been moved to Lua and has error checking for invalid params and dates that are not possible (age over 130). In fact in the documentation for this template it saysNote: This template is based on, and has exactly the same syntax asError: Need valid death date (first date): year, month, day. I checked inSpecial:ExpandTemplates and the only difference between the two is that Death date and age adds a hidden span with a machine readable date. I don't see any reason that this template cannot be simply redirected...Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)05:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, only if the instructions for how to correctly use the death template for people who disappeared are explicitly added to the documentation. If that's not possible or would be confusing, then the disappeared template should be converted into a wrapper instead.Thryduulf (talk)16:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: can you clarify? There is no additional documentation that is needed. They function EXACTLY the same and produce the EXACT same output (except for the "See TFM" of course).
{{Disappeared date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→‹See TfM›October 5, 2020 (aged 30)
{{Death date and age|2020|10|5|1990|6|2}}→October 5, 2020(2020-10-05) (aged 30)
@Gonnym: This template does not hide text; it hides the bullet in a bulleted list or the number in a numbered list (using<listyle="list-style: none;">). I've fixed the documentation to make this clearer. The use case I mentioned above for the DCWC coordinators was to hide the number when two participants on the leaderboard were tied with the same point total, which you can also see in the diff I linked.(pleasemention me on reply; thanks!)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not need any template and is much clearer:
I think this is a valid alternative for representing the same information in this case. It isn't, however, a reason to delete the template, so my !vote above stands.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)23:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Probably, I'm not clear on what you mean though... Can you be more specific or point me towards an example in the testcases? Are you referring to the location relative to other places? For example in thefirst testcase where it says207 km (129 mi) NNE ofSydney...? Is that what you mean?Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you mentioned on talk, can we implement location, adjacent communities and weather box and not drop them? I appreciate the technical aspect of your change a lot, but I don't think it's a good idea to conflate those practical issues with those content issues in this one migration. It would probably be much easier to get this passed if we kept as much useful content as possible, and then had separate migration processes to figure out what to do with that. --Joy (talk)19:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: Partly done The temperature, rainfall and list of location data (# km from some_location) have been restored. I will not be restoring the large box at the very bottom of the current incarnation of{{Infobox Australian place}} however. I stand by my previous comment that that sectionby convention does not go in the infobox but in a navbox (see{{Adjacent communities}} and its 28,000+ transclusions.).
Joy tagged you in a test I did in my sandbox.Technically it works, but it really looks horrible.{{adjacent communities}} is not designed to be that small and nested in an infobox. It is really designed to be a navbox at the bottom of an article or floated in the article body. How about this, let's see if there are any other objections to this content's removal? If it appears this is going to be a sticking point, I will investigate further implementing it. Sound reasonable?Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like we'd need an implementation without those arrows for that to work. Maybe it's possible to just extract the Australian place's compact implementation to a separate template. This would also make it easily countable. --Joy (talk)06:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also made a note about local_map/mapframe mapping in the Talk page, I'm sure it's fixable relatively easily. At the same time, now that the main template logic is used, we do get automatic mapframe on other test cases, nicely demonstrating a general benefit of this change - the Australian place infoboxes get to benefit from improvements done in the settlement infoboxes in general.
Looking at the test cases, I see no other significant issue remaining. The removal of about 8 kilobytes of extra code seems worthwhile. (Merge) --Joy (talk)10:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the time and effort you are putting in to this proposal. I'm sure it is not a trivial exercise. I think it isnot ready yet. I've made more detailed comments on the talk page. Show stoppers for me at the moment are:
Population drawn from Wikidata
Local_map using OSM
Disappointment but not showstoppers are
The prominence of County if it's populated
The replacement of the state name with "town" or "suburb" in the second line.
@ScottDavis: follow up on the comments on the talk page. Yourshowstoppers are not intended consequences and are in fact bugs in the code I have written. If you can provide me with links to pages where you saw the issue I will fix it. Unfortunately the nature of Wikidata is that it is very hard to test in a testcase. It really needs to be tested on an actual article so any assistance you can provide via linking me to pages would be greatly appreciated!Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08:@Dgp4004: - sorry for my delay, I currently don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to. Both bugs look like they have been addressed, thank you. County prominence is also improved and acceptable. The prominent link tosuburb is still odd in an Australian context on some pages, maybe some of the pages that use it are wrong anyway and should use town. I think the available choices for place type were only town or suburb. Ideally, we'd have LOCB and LOCU for bounded and unbounded localities. The entire country ispartitioned into non-overlapping LOCB and SUB areas. I found a pageSuburbs and localities (Australia) which may be a better link target. An example I noticed it on isAllendale North, South Australia. Thank you again for your efforts. --Scott DavisTalk08:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confused by the implementation of theproposal to merge viarewriting the template as a wrapper template. That is not a merge because the template will continue to exist, won't it? There may be benefits regarding code maintenance, but there may also be drawbacks regarding undesired flow-ons. By and large, this seems like a mainly cosmetic exercise. --Michael Bednarek (talk)02:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: so I went back and forth, and discussed with a few admins about the best approach for this.Technically it isn't a merge, but I decided this was the most appropriate avenue forward. You are correct that the template will absolutely continue to exists afterwards. We are doing a lot of testing and some issues have already been flushed out. The good news is that since no changes are being made to transclusions (I.E. removing of any parameters) anyundesired flow-ons that are discovered down the road can easily be fixed. I encourage you to look at the testcases and feel free to{{ping|zackmann08}} me if you find any issues or have additional questions/concerns! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)03:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My basic arguments are unlike other countries, Australian places have crucial information such as federal electorate, state electorate and local government area ETC. Note that Australia is a Federation and not a Unity state. I would actually support creating more seperate templates rather than a merge.Servite et contribuere (talk)20:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08 Actually... Uh no. My bad. I am likely going to change my vote, but first, I want to raise a concern. About the top, I do honestly think having state at the top and not having to look down to find it is better, but I do also like the suburb/town/city thing. Is it possible to have both maybe? With like state below? I know some might argue it it is just which state boundaries they are in (Like which is the capital city of their state, examples, the capital of the state Cairns is in is Brisbane, using for no reason as that is one of them I saw not the side by side one) but in my perspective, politics is truly everything. Also, your argument is right. One thing I don't agree with is not having federal and state divisions on cities, same for local government areas. I know links on the articleSydney are outdated and might be inaccurate, but for smaller cities such as Cairns or Hobart, this can be useful.Servite et contribuere (talk)18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere: MAJOR kudos for admitting your mistake. Not many people on here are willing to do that. I appreciate that you are willing to consider this merger on the merits of the actual changes being made. The nice thing about the conversion is that sinceNO parameter names are changing or being removed, changing how/where things are displayed down the line is easy. IMHO, this infobox should follow the conventions of{{Infobox settlement}} regarding where to display the state. BUT that is absolutely something that can be looked at. Can I make a suggestion? Let us see if we can get this merger to happen at all... Then discuss improvements (I have many ideas)? As I said, since no information is lost in the process, it can very easily be moved to the top later. I just don't want to make that change based on a single editor's request. I think it warrants a larger discussion and consensus. Make sense?Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin I hope you will note that the arguments against this change boil down toWP:OWN and the fact that there is a desire that no one other than people from Australia edit this infobox.Zero information has been removed so the arguments that this doesn't take into account Australia's unique features are also invalid. Finally there have been a number of comments that have pointed out minor issues or typos that have since been corrected. Despite being pinged to let them know their issue has been addressed those users have chosen not to return to comment andpotentially change their opposition vote. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Few days late, but changing vote toMerge after realising no content or history will be lost. One thing that is confusing is that one example of cities shows cities federal and state divisions, and LGA'S and one does not.Servite et contribuere (talk)18:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Did you look at the testcases? EVERYTHING has changed.. This is a wrapper and all functionality is kept. No previous attempt has actually created a wrapper. Rather than simply stating thatnothing fundamental has changed could you possibly provide actual objections to the change? There are a number of issues that have been addressed. Would be helpful to know what your issues are. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)20:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look atthe 2020 TfD to see to what extent the idea of a wrapper was discussed. The most fundamental difference from then and now is that people were rightfully suspicious whether it can be done - yet we now actually have a reasonable working prototype. I think this makes this discussion significantly different on the merits.
There was a complaint from @AussieLegend sayingyou have to edit two infoboxes to make changes to the code. This is technically true, but it misses the point of sharing code - if Australian-related features are mainlined into the main template, while their testing infrastructure is kept, it's fairly safe to estimate that they will be maintained because a larger base of template editors are interested and can take care of any issues that may arise.
There was a complaint from @Ymblanter saying there was an example of a Russian template wrapper where nobody was interested in correcting errors. I would appreciate more information about those errors, and an assessment of whether the current engagement of template editors matches this sort of disinterest in correcting errors or not.
Finally there was a call from @Jonesey95 to demonstrate a wrapper. Has the nuance and customization so far been addressed in a satisfactory manner here? --Joy (talk)07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The objections in 2020 seemed valid to me, and nobody was willing to put forth the effort to create a wrapper, so I thought it was unwise to recommend an untested merge of this nuanced template. I have seen people say "sure, merge, it will be easy" and then watched either (a) nothing happen or (b) the merge fail because it was not easy, so I was wary at that time. If a wrapper has been created this time, and stakeholders in this template pretty much agree that it works well enough to replace the existing custom template, then a merge is probably a good way to go. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The documentation in the sandbox saysThe infobox has been extensively customised for Australia. When even the template acknowledges that it contains extensive customisation, we shouldn't merge it with another template.Nyttend (talk)19:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: once again, have you actually examined the testcases or read the discussion about this? You clearly haven't because you sawwe shouldn't merge it with another template which is NOT what is happening. This is a conversion to aModule:Template wrapper. None of the custom code written for Australia has been removed.
If the proposal doesn't involve merging, why does the nominator begin with a big boldPropose merging? Let's rephrase this another way: this template is heavily customised for the Australian context, so leave it alone.Nyttend (talk)05:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is heavily customised for Australia because Australian editors at that template have decided to do so due to theirWP:OWN andWP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues. And the suggested merge actually incorporates most of the reasonable Australia-specific changes anyway.Joseph2302 (talk)16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From the very minor example provided on your sandbox I dislike the way the structure of the infobox is changed. I would also like to point out thatTemplate:Infobox Australian Place is used for ALL Australian places, not just towns and this will not map well onto everything. I have issue with what I would call the overly complicated and arguably American-centric structure thatTemplate:Infobox settlement uses and I don't think maps onto Australian places very well.
I especiallyStrongly oppose this change in relation to local government areas as I think the formatting does not map at all well onto Australian LGAs (or frankly local governments generally but that's another discussion).
While no information is technically lost, the changed structure I think does lose usefulness and ease of information in the current infobox structure. I'm absolutely open to tweaking and playing around with the infobox because it definitely has its issues but I don't like this sweeping conformist way of doing it and I feel a much better middle ground can be found. –Lord Beesus (talk)04:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to make Infobox settlement less American-centric, for the benefit of everyone? Could you please clarify which parts of the structure should be more flexible, so we could perhaps draft changes to address that in Infobox settlement? --Joy (talk)07:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Beesus I've tried to re-read and understand this comment better again. Is this about using|leader_*= for LGAs (which shows up under the subheading "Government") instead of|subdivision_*= (which shows up above, with no subheading)?
So if we moved the LGA display into|subdivision_(type|name)5=, so it appears together with Parish/County/City/Region, would that fix it? --Joy (talk)11:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to do this, but sadly this then created a new issue, because subdivision_* only goes up to 6, there's no room for the Location field. Do we want to add support for subdivision_* level 7 for this purpose in Infobox settlement? --Joy (talk)11:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that county and parish, being purely cadastral, go to blank_name_sec1 and blank1_name_sec1, and move the others in the section down. There's room for 8, and we are currently using 5.Innesw (talk)23:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looking at the objective changes here, the testcases show that no information is being lost, and there are very significant benefits in terms of consistency across the encyclopedia and maintainability. (I also added a cadastral testcase and tweaked the sandbox very slightly so this is well-represented for completeness). Subjectively, I think the layout is nicer, but this isWP:ILIKEIT against a number ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints above. ThanksZackmann08 for your efforts.Triptothecottage (talk)01:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convertion The thing preventing me from supporting the convertion last time was no higher levels of government infomation in IS. This has been neatly addressed using leader fields, and no other infomation has been lost, so I can support this now.Techie3 (talk)21:44, 19 October 2025 (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".)
.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wow... just wow.... That being said, after looking at them, I think my initial comments still hold. Unless one of these temples undergoes a major remodel, I don't see any of the values in these tables changing very often if at all, most of them are set from the time of construction (again unless a major remodel is done). Back to my example ofList of tallest buildings, why can't we just substitute the data into the tables? The ONLY value that causes me any concern isStatus onComparison of temples... which does presentWP:ASOF concerns but I don't think that one value should block this. TechnicallyList of tallest buildings has the same As of issue since the current tallest building changes every so often. Using my other example, the roster of an MLB team absolutely hasWP:ASOF issues, but we don't create separate subtemplates for each player and pull from that... We put all the data for the roster in one place. If a player gets traded, you have to update that player's biography page AND the{{MLB roster}} AND the{{MLB roster navbox}}...
mention me on reply)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done The temperature, rainfall and list of location data (# km from some_location) have been restored. I will not be restoring the large box at the very bottom of the current incarnation of{{Infobox Australian place}} however. I stand by my previous comment that that section
Done. I caved... I abstracted it out to{{Infobox Australian place/table}} to keep the code a little neater. But check theTemplate:Infobox Australian place/testcases now.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)07:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It looks like{{Infobox Australian place}} is also used for protected areas such asGrampians National Park. In those cases, it should not wrap{{Infobox settlement}}, but{{Infobox protected area}}. This should be possible by changing