This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed byAnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in thetemplate namespace andmodule namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed atCategories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories,unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed atMiscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Templates that are associated with particularWikipedia policies or guidelines, such as thespeedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
The template is not used, either directly or bytemplate substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks),and has no likelihood ofbeing used.
The template violates a policy such asNeutral point of view orCivility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it,WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted byconsensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Donot include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.
If you have never nominated a template for deletion or usedTwinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW, and then select "XFD".)
Step
Instructions
Step 1
Tag the template
Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:
If the template is designed to besubstituted, add<noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example:<noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with{{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or{{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacingdiscussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing thePAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste{{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacingtemplate name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier:{{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominatingTemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_November_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.
No longer used since graphs have not been working for a while. Not needed and frankly its current uses are for an interactive chart, but something like that is no longer supported. If someone can convert its uses for something for the three articles can use if it requires this template, then by all means go for it and I will pull back this nomination. If deletion is the result, please be sure to delete the doc which is not linked through the main template page.Template:Graph:Major League Soccer Season Records/doc.WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it has no transclusions is because I removed the last of them yesterday... I'm still trying to figure out if this can be used. This book is cited on nearly 1000 articles (seehere - doesn't catch all of them). It would have been nice if you reached out before nominating this... I might look into having a bot transform the citations to this book into this template. I can add a bunch of transclusions right now if you really want me to.MediaKyle (talk)18:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just delete as this is only used in a stale sandbox from 2012 with 11(!) edits since then only having to maintain this abandoned page. Amazing that we don't treat user sandboxes just like drafts...Gonnym (talk)07:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not need a template or a sidebar. All links can be merged if not added into Pope Francis' navbox. Outside of the background section and the main title link, only three articles of relevance. The main category has three articles outside the main article. Not including the subcat of 2025 papal conclave.WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in September 2025, with no edits since then. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 thanks for the nomination. it is meant to be a wrapper for{{FXConvert}} for the IDR currency. Should have continued working on it but it slipped away. Don't mind if I restart on this and get ready? I remember I was stuck at some data collation.– robertsky (talk)19:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you start using it somewhere, and I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. Unused templates are typically deleted, but if a use can be shown for them, they almost always get to stay around. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of links to articles. Not a typical structure of a sidebar of navbox. All links can be found in other navboxes or the main article. This is not a typical structure for a sidebar and not one where a sidebar is warranted.WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:15, 26 November 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Now used in one article. Thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used in only two locations, insufficiently complex. One of the uses should probably be a simple link to the section on the primary page.Izno (talk)18:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what? Tables like this are part of every team article. It's a standard used WikiProject wide, not just for the Canadiens. At the very least, if you're going to make an actual argument about it, bring all 31 other team lists to the table, though I expect you will only invite far greater resistance. Whoever currently plays for a team is an essential part of the subject of the article.I also understand that scrapping this would make your life easier to deal with a certain LTA, but we'll just have to live with that.mftpdanoops19:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this would make your life easier to deal with a certain LTA Not actually a motivation, no.
Tables like this are part of every team article Yes, that's known. That's not the point of a TFD nomination, which can resolve not just as "keep" or "delete" but also "subst".
bring all 31 other team lists to the table It is pretty common when seeking deletion to have a test case. This helps avoid trainwrecks of discussions, as you noted just after.
are you arguing for substitution When the template hosts content in the template space, that's the most common end state, and users are free to say as much in their comment, regardless of what I'm arguing for.Izno (talk)19:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can subst the table into the team article then do{{#section:Montreal Canadiens|Current roster}} in the list page. That way you aren't placing article content inside templates.Gonnym (talk)19:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the way they've always done it. I'm sure there was a reason they did it that way, what exactly I am uncertain. Are we not supposed to place article content inside templates for any reason?mftpdanoops19:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines:Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. If a piece of content is really used in multiple places sometimes templates are really the best option. Here however, where it is used only twice, and there is another way to display the content, then having it in a template isn't really the best option.Gonnym (talk)19:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really sort of disagree on the "difficult to edit" argument. There's this big "edit" button at the top of the table that you can still click from the page it's displayed on, and automatically takes you to the page it's located at to fix it. Not all that hard or inconvenient in my opinion. Plus, how should "article text" be interpreted? This is a table, not plain writing.mftpdanoops21:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I kind of like having content that is being used in multiple articles to be in a template, as that's a clear indicator that any changes should be validated in all articles using it before being submitted. In the case of team rosters, this approach also reduces churn in the article history by moving roster updates to a separate page. This makes it easier for those not interested in validating roster updates to focus on non-roster updates to a team page, and vice versa. Additionally, reverting vandalism to a team page, not an uncommon occurrence, is simpler when roster updates don't happen amongst the poor edits (and any other good ones).isaacl (talk)22:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what this is about and why it is nominated. See above, common for NHL and even more (NBA and so on...) IF deletion is wanted a wider discussion would be needed.Kante4 (talk)20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PerWP:TG, the template should be kept perTemplates used in articles are designed to provide information toassist readers, such as navigation aids,formatting - I understand most of the preceding arguments areWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I bolded the wording which I think applies to keeping the template. Without the template, different pages which carry the same information could list different things without the upkeep, confusing readers and the template allows the pages to keep consistent formatting.Llammakey (talk)14:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have no issue to withdraw for now and come back to this at a later date to see if this is actually being used (maybe with adding a hidden comment to the subst?).Gonnym (talk)17:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to the main ISIS navbox. All these links can be covered by the navbox. If any links are missing, then they should be added. For as large as the navbox is already. A sidebar of this type does not aid in navigation and not everything needs a sidebar. Plus, there is really one article related to the history of ISIS, it is the main article. The rest are general topics.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any missing links and delete. Editors who create this duplicate system don't realize that it makes maintaining these twice the work.Gonnym (talk)07:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would go further, and merge the tables directly into2026 Men's T20 World Cup and use section transclusion on any other pages that may require these tables. At present no other articles use any of these templates, so they are all redundant and just obfuscating article content behind templates.Spike 'em (talk)10:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add to the talk pages. While I remember somewhere there was objection to adding it to the talk pages I can't find it though there was discussion withUser:Scolaire atTalk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 21#Ireland naming discussions where they suggested usingTemplate:Ireland naming discussions but that template only gives those that tool place at Ireland Collaboration and not the others and it doesn't give specific links to each discussion along with the result so if anything I'd get rid of that template instead. If there is consensus not to do this then it could be moved to something likeTalk:Ireland/naming but otherwise given how controversial this was and the requirement for discussions to take place in a different place than the article talk pages I think this template should be kept and added to the talk pages.Crouch, Swale (talk)14:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. To any admins, please do not close this discussion until the one linked above ends so we know if it should be kept and added or not.Gonnym (talk)19:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on one article. I don't think subst is the solution. The article already has this information on there. Plus, an infobox that summarizes the conflict as well.WikiCleanerMan (talk)16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would beok with subst to article, but this is practically an article itself. Really not useful as a sidebar and should really be removed and the contents transferred to the body of the article.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)04:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After removing links that were not at all related to the subject as such as the main article links to British territory and former colonies that are irrelevant to the scope of the template, i.e. current dependencies. We are left with just three articles of relevance. Fails navigation and a template like this is not needed.WikiCleanerMan (talk)03:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another template that has been mass created on multiple wiki projects. (Note the same user has created this same template on the Latin Wiki and Commons). There is no need to have animated SVGs directly animated in an article. If you need to view an SVG animation you can open the file.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is not limited to animated SVGs, but allows to create SVGs with variable properties that depend on template parameters (as in{{My SVG|red|145px}}). It also follows the news/suggestions introduced byWikipedia:Tech news#Tech News: 2025-45. P.S. Creating templates on multiple projects is not an issue, not sure why it is mentioned. --Grufo (talk)18:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mention you creating templates on multiple projects because it is a pattern of behavior. Taking code that you think works on one wiki and pushing it on other projects without any discussion or attempts to reach consensus on your changes.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)21:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template was created on the projects I contribute to. On English Wikipedia first, to be precise, and then elsewhere (but even if it had been first created elsewhere, it would not be a problem). --Grufo (talk)21:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: can you link me to an example of that? I always thought we just included the standard file in articles and then to animate it you must click to open it. I've never come across a GIF that is animatedin the article. If you can link me to an example and/or the template we use to animate GIFs, this might be one that I have to withdraw... To be clear, I'm don't mean to imply you are lying! I just want to see for myself what you are describing before I withdraw this.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)03:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you finding an example. So yea, this is exactly what I was thinking it was. Yes we support using Gifs in articles but you do so using the standard method of calling an image:
[[File:FileName.gif|thumb|Caption...]]
We don't create a massive convoluted set of code for each gif and then wrap that in atemplate to insert the gif into an article (seeTemplate:Zamboni's pendulum.svg).
If you could do[[File:FileName.svg|thumb|Caption...]] and have that animate, I would have no objection to the fact that the image moves in an article... What I object to is the way that this is implemented. It is not tenable or helpful.
I agree with you that including the SVG source code in a template is unideal (I said as much down there), but right now it's technically impossible to do it any other way so our choice is this or nothing.* Pppery *it has begun...04:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue use a tool likethis, convert it to a gif and use regular wiki markup. I agree with you that it would be ideal to insert an animated svg directly in the article but I just think this is a nightmare of a way to get around the lack of svg support. We've lasted this long without it...Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)05:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Convert it to a gif”: A quick reminder that although it canalso display animations, this template can do things no GIF can do (and neither can reading SVGs from Commons): constructing images “on the fly”, based on template parameters. The latter can change the colors, the texts shown, the sizes, and so on – which I believe is the main reason this approach was recentlypromoted upstream. --Grufo (talk)05:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is mainly a substitution template whose purpose is exactly that of breaking lineswithout employing the<poem> tag. --Grufo (talk)17:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no issue with employing the<poem> tag, exactly like there is no issue with employing the the<br /> tag instead (which is what{{Break lines}} uses). --Grufo (talk)18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grufo does kind of have a point that poem tags being used for non-poems is awkward, but the current uses fail to prove it.
Delete. A lot (most?) usages of br tags are incorrect usages according to our MoS. The example used in the /doc of this template fails this exactly. Pppery has shown that current transclusions are also incorrect.Gonnym (talk)19:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this template has never existed on Latin Wikipedia (though, even if it did, it would not be a problem). The link I provided is that of the Latin version of the{{para}} template. --Grufo (talk)21:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have absolutely no idea what the point of this is; it seems to be a godawfully complicated way of accomplishing a simple task where it's extremely unclear what purpose the complexity serves. The entire{{Template journal}} tree seems to be of questionable value - use<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> to highlight wikitext, don't reinvent the wheel.* Pppery *it has begun...03:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We currently have the{{tlx}} to show the template code. If that should be updated or changed, then bring it up on that template's talk page. Lets not create parallel systems for no reason.Gonnym (talk)19:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Often modules have large documentation pages, and this template offers the possibility of linking only the required documentation section. --Grufo (talk)17:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another unhelpful and unneeded template that the creator has bulk imported from another wiki. If you need the page title, just extract it from the URL. I see no scenario in which this would be used in a template to extract the pagename.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)16:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a substitution template (whose usage cannot be inferred from the transclusion count) that facilitates the transcription of page titles when we only have their URLs:
{{subst:url to title|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history}}
If you cannot figure out the page title from that URL you are not going to have the knowledge to use a substitution template to generate the title... Seriously what is the ACTUAL use case where you have a URL but don't know what the title of the page that URL goes to it?Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can figure out the page. But if you have, let's say, this URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24, you currently have three options:
Take theWikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24 part and manually replace (one by one) all the underscores with spaces
Copy and paste theWikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_24 part into a text editor and globally replace all the underscores with spaces (usually not feasible on mobile devices)
When the URLs are many, avoiding the third solution can become cumbersome. Furthermore, this template can be exploited as a metatemplate by other templates that require a full url (the diff templates are good examples). --Grufo (talk)18:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I keep using it, and probably other people too, but we will never find out, because it is normally used in page previews only and it is not supposed to be transcluded in a page. --Grufo (talk)08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no other way to transclude templates in the templatedata object. With this template you can do| example 3 ={{#time:Y-m-d|now}} to show"example": "2025-11-27", but you cannot do the same via"example": "{{#time:Y-m-d|now}}" --Grufo (talk)08:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can use{{#tag:templatedata|...}} for what Grufo suggested. You don't need this baroque template efffectively written in a custom language rather than standard wikitext to do that.* Pppery *it has begun...03:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep thinking about the main namespace and the HTML displayed in articles, but this is a metatemplate, it is meant for template programming: there sometimes you might want an actual space and is absolutely a no-go. The most typical example are if/else conditions in which you want to display the first condition if non-blank, AND the first condition is computationally expensive, AND it contains fixed leading and trailing spaces (these can be a collection of newlines, tabs, whatever). In this case would be considered as non-blank, whereas a space is by definition “blank.” --Grufo (talk)09:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is effectively unused.{{if}} can do the same basic thing of preserving spaces. Especially since people prefer to use Lua rather than complex series of metatemplates these days I find the chance that enough people will end up finding and using this to be worth it low.* Pppery *it has begun...03:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi* Pppery *. I have been reading your comments here and so far they seem well balanced, even if most often they don't go in my favour (so thank you for your contribution!). Here however I must correct you on a technical note: although it is technically true that with the{{If}} template you can achieve the same result, you would normally prefer{{If then show verbatim}} to{{If}} because of the same reasons you would normally prefer{{If then show}} to {{#if}}: a.k.a. the condition{{{1}}} and the text to show{{{2}}} being the same text, and that same text being computationally expensive/long. To be more specific, exactly like you would probably prefer writing
{{If then show|{{VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT}}|something else}}
Yeah, I know how if et al. works. My point is that the number of templates that will want to do this specific thing is going to be negligible. And in many cases you can refactor so that "VERY EXPENSIVE/LONG WIKITEXT" doesn't happen to start with a space fairly easily, limiting the utility further. TLDR while you have a point this seems too nich to be worth having a template for IMO.* Pppery *it has begun...04:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is designed as metatemplate to be used by other templates, in those cases in which there is a deadline, we want to show the time passing, but we don't need to be too precise. Contexts like this one:
This discussion lasts one week; it started{{Rough age|{{#time:Y-m-d H:i:s|{{{1}}}}}}} ago.
↳ This discussion lasts one week; it started 2 days ago.
MOS:DONTHIDE applies to the main namespace, this template is not meant for the main namespace. Furthermore this template does not hide text (again, you keep nominating for deletion what you don't understand). --Grufo (talk)08:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to{{show by}} which does the same thing in a less bizarrely and counterintuitively magical way. The idea of automatically changing text is useful, but attributing that change to the next editor to edit the page is bound to cause complaints. Fun coding project, but I don't think we want it on enwiki.* Pppery *it has begun...03:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why would you prefer to manually copy and paste a wikitext (with the risk of making mistakes), over a template that does that for you? --Grufo (talk)08:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“TLDR I don't see why one would want this over{{demo}}”: It's quite different though, isn't it? This is not for expanding a wikitext, but for experimenting with it. I do believe it has a lot of potential usages in template documentation pages, especially for simplifying users' life in understanding how a documented template works. The biggest obstacle I see against it is that writing documentation pages is, in general, extremely boring. --Grufo (talk)04:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are these better ways to sanitize HTML attributes? Can you show me an example? I will be happy to vote for deletion at that point. --Grufo (talk)08:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do that. See how people will react to that bloated page (which is the reason why we create templates in the first place). --Grufo (talk)08:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it done? You asked to insert the template's source code into theGiuseppe Zamboni page, and I invited you to do so. Probably you realized it was an absurd thing to do, and so you didn't, but insteadremoved the animation from the page altogether (which technically qualifies as a disruptive edit, since there is no reason to remove an illustrative animation from an article). --Grufo (talk)20:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to display a serial comma. We've already been through this with other useless templates you have created. Been around since September and yet you yourself have not found a use for this tempalte as it has zero transclusions. It only has so many links because you spammed other templates with links to it.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. But the ground for that deletion was not the serial comma, but the fact that after only two weeks since its creation the template did not have enough transclusions. --Grufo (talk)08:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's becauseModule:Separated entries does not offer technical ways to add a serial comma. And that is also the reason why this template was created in the first place (again: because there were no alternatives). On English Wikipedia the citation templates normally use the serial comma (so it is not something unheard of over here). --Grufo (talk)08:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Not even sure what the point of this template is”: Again, I see you aren't sure of what the templates you are nominating are. --Grufo (talk)08:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current mechanism to search for errors on English Wikipedia is based on transclusion count of the{{Error}} template in the main namespace (other Wikipedias don't have this problem). Due to this, the templates{{If then else error}},{{Error if empty}}, and{{If then verbatim else error}} are necessary to avoid false positives when parser functions are not used to determine the error conditions. --Grufo (talk)08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so necesssary why is it still unused?? Just use parser functions to achieve this. Just because other wiki's use it, doesn't mean English Wikipedia needs it. You need to start discussions before you start pushing other wiki's templates...Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)08:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Probably others solve the issue in more inefficient ways (of which I am inaware). What I do know however, is that if you create a template on English Wikipedia and you write{{if then show|{{some very long computation}}|{{Error|Some Error}}}} (and other similar syntaxes), you will generate false positives. If you ask me, I think that the{{Error}} template is badly designed here, and tracking categories should be used instead. On Latin Wikipedia (which is where I contribute the most – I am an admin there), we have no need for these three templates. --Grufo (talk)08:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you are taking stuff that you wrote on the Latin wiki and trying to impose it on the English wiki. Just because it is useful there, doesn't mean it is useful here. If you want to make such sweeping changes you need to discuss them not just create templates, edit policy pages and start dumping your code into tons of articles.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)21:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat this for the zillionth time:this template exists only on English Wikipedia and has never existed on Latin Wikipedia (although, if that were not the case, that would not be a problem either). --Grufo (talk)21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you are in fact correct. I got overwhelmed and confused by the massive dump of code you made recently importing code from the latin wiki and basically using Wikipedia as your own code repository. You are correct, this one was NOT taken from the Latin wiki. I apologize for my mistake.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)03:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the tons of templatesyou claim I have imported from elsewhere (which, by the way, would not be an issue), although it is actually not true? --Grufo (talk)04:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this suite of templates after being made aware bythis message of the way{{Error}} works. I resolved that by creating{{Error if empty}} (which is “the error version” of{{If then show}}). Then however I realized that unless we finally change the way{{Error}} works, we would need also “the error version” of {{#if}} and “the error version” of{{If}}: hence the three templates. Without this template the suite will be somewhat incomplete. --Grufo (talk)04:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. This brings up a little-known way the parser works. Normally template parameters are evaluated lazliy so my self-demonstrating example doesn't call{{error}}. However, if a module does something likepairs(frame.args) either directly or indirectly (whichModule:Params does and must do) then that expands all arguments eagerly. So that explains why that complaint on your talk page happened. However it still doesn't justify creating a huge series of templates that wrap{{error}} for special cases when the builtin if statements (or anything not using the pairs(frame.args) style) can handle it perfectly fine.* Pppery *it has begun...04:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@* Pppery *:“Normally template parameters are evaluated lazliy”: On this point, are you sure template parameters are normally evaluated lazily? From what I can recall, only {{#if:}} and {{#switch:}} evaluate their parameters lazily; with everything else (including all templates) parameters are always evaluated in advance. --Grufo (talk)21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating after three years. There hasn't been much improvement or purpose for these template to remain as is. All three templates are unnecessary and violateWikipedia:TEMPLATECREEP andWP:NENAN. We already haveTemplate:History of Thailand navbox. And all articles to some extant are already covered by other relevant navboxes such as monarchs, prime ministers, elections, protests, coups, wars. More navboxes are not needed and certainly not for every period for every country. How are PM's relevant to a history navbox when we don't even have the same for other heads of state or government for history of a specific country? A main country history navbox for an overview of general topics are enough.WikiCleanerMan (talk)19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries in Protests in Iraq are not protests. Uprisings and rebellions are not coups nor protests. The coup navbox is more accurate to what it is about and contains all links of relevance. All articles on rebillions and uprising should be moved to their own navbox and remove coup articles from it as well. And there is plenty of protests in Iraq articles.WikiCleanerMan (talk)17:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with the now deleted Use Malaysian English template, this template is redundant to Use British English. As stated on the template page, it is an instruction to use 'Kenyan English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.'Dgp4004 (talk)01:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates like this serve no purpose other than to create confusion with the suggestion that editors with minimal understanding of Kenyan English should not edit the page. The UK/US distinction is useful so editors know whether to usecolour orcolor.Johnuniq (talk)02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. I know a lot more about our policies, guidelines, and practices since creating this template, and they have also changed. This template is not needed. It could be a good idea to redirect it to prevent recreation but I don't know enough about template deletion to opine on that.
Hi@Coffeeandcrumbs: long-time no see, I hope you're well. On this point I'm curious, what are these "policies and guidelines" you mention which support taking away the English variety from an independent sovereign African country and labelling it as "British"? I knowWP:WORLDWIDE is more of an essay than a policy, but there are certainlyWP:NPOV issues at play here... Cheers — Amakuru (talk)22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.Kenyan English is most definitely a variety of the language, with English being one of the official languages of that country, and forcing all Kenyan articles to use a template called "Use British English" would be a bizarre, backward and colonialist step. I'm very sympathetic to the notion that we should have one template to cover the different English spelling varieties that are similar to the one used in the UK, indeed for many years we had just such a template at{{EngvarB}}. I would be extremely happy if we could work towards re-establishing a template like that, or even just moving the existing{{Use British English}} to a more neutral title that covers all the localities across the Commonwealth that use the same sorts of spelling. But until such a unified neutrally-titled template is created, we are stuck with using those for the individual nations where English is an official language. PerWP:AINTBROKE, keeping this doesn't harm anyone, but removing it brings a lot of problems. — Amakuru (talk)22:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to argue for the renaming of the 'Use British English' template, that's a proposal you should put on that template's talk page or a TfD about that template. But not liking the name of that one is a weak argument for keeping this one.Dgp4004 (talk)00:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are for administrative purposes only, and are not meant to imply ownership by any given country over a given page. I agree that EngvarB's deprecation has caused many problems, but opposing deletion here on the basis of some kind of nationalistic argument is not helpful. If no one is capable of identifying any distinction between written British and Kenyan English in the encyclopaedic register, while also takingWP:COMMONALITY into account, there is no reason to retain this template, which may give people the false impression that there is a difference.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎00:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute any of this, but we are where we are. A wrong-headed decision was made to deprecate the template EngvarB, which covers this topic withWP:COMMONALITY across all the countries, and we're left with trying to shoehorn all these topics into a template which refers to one country and one country only. Kenyan English may be lexicographically almost identical to British English, but that doesn't mean it *is* British English. Kenyan articles should not "use British English" becauseWP:TIES mandates us to useKenyan English for those articles. My first choice would be to revive and rename EngvarB, but assuming that's not possible, it's far better to simply keep the existing nation-by-nation templates which tell editors the actual rule they're supposed to use than force them to use a template which doesn't match theWP:TIES guideline. So the fundamental premise of this nomination that the template is "redundant" is not true, and the situation as we have itWP:AINTBROKE. — Amakuru (talk)11:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kenyan English is a spoken dialect, not a written standard, which you can glean from reading that article.WP:TIES does not mandate that we write in dialect. The de facto written standard in Kenya is 'British English'. If you would like to propose a revival of EngvarB, I should be most happy to provide my assistance and support. Until someone can provide evidence of an independent written standard known as 'Kenyan English', however, this template should not exist.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎11:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you concede that one template could and should cover both, and as EngvarB was deliberately redirected as opposed to deleted, you can simply use EngvarB if editors on a particular article feel it more appropriate than Use British English. It still works and it remains in use on 85,359 articles.Dgp4004 (talk)21:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Kenyan English is not redundant to British English, as much as there are lots of similarities in spelling with the British English since it's mostly derived from British English which is also taught in schools, Kenyan English is just a dialect on its own, with lots of other different spellings and pronunciations, and also vocabulary. Using British English will be forcing articles on Kenyan-related issues to be based on just a single country's dialect, which would lack the originality and context it ought to have. The template should thus not be deleted.Akili88 (talk)15:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template. A few similarities to the British English don't justify redundancy as you are claiming. Kenya being a sovereign nation has its own dialect, which is based on British English but has evolved and developed to become an English variety on its own. You should spent some time reading articles written in Kenyan English before you start making such a baseless claim.
Unnecessary and single-use template. Subst on main article and delete. Article does not have an article size issue that warrants a separate infobox template. Not to mention this was created back in May when the conflict began.WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see the point of this. The "Quisling regime" was not a country, and Norway as a country has never, ever used the red and yellow/gold flag.Geschichte (talk)22:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unused moving image template that should never replace the image in any of our templates. There is no reason for this distracting moving image to appear for the purge link (which is never the main feature of any page, but hidden tool).Gonnym (talk)11:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving images are distracting, unlike a static image. The purge button isnever the main part of a page, so it shouldn't bring attention to itself.Gonnym (talk)16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely pointless in wikicode. If you want to create a newline, use enter. If you want to create a list, use a list template such as{{Plainlist}}. If you want to create a visual break that doesn't violate the MoS, use br tags.Gonnym (talk)11:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a metatemplate created to facilitate code clarity and preserve indentation in complex scenarios. Normally it would not be used directly in a page. Compare writing
I'm completely fine with the second scenario. Even more so when you learn you can use comments to preserve spaces, which don't require calling pointless templates that eat up the post-expand size.Gonnym (talk)06:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
right? But, most importantly, how does this template forbid you to write a new line when you want to write a new line? And why do we have the{{br}} template and we are not rushing against that template to claim that everyone should write<br /> instead? --Grufo (talk)00:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Well used". You've created templates, modified a policy page without any discussion, and then added them to those pages. That is completely backwards. Unless an actual discussion is held (RfC) which supports your vision, that vision should stay in your sandbox.Gonnym (talk)06:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As perWikipedia:Editing policy, there is no requirement to discuss before editing policy pages, and as perWP:EDITCONSENSUS, “Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit haspresumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.” Policy pages are not sacred pages, they simply have higher standards on the amount of “bold” changes that can be done. In this case however no changes at all in the policy were introduced, only a clarification was added, in order to point outwhat was still allowed according to the existing rules. --Grufo (talk)07:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's at all advisable to add extra characters to the rendered page title which don't match the actual title. The principle that titles match is quite a fundamental one. This is different from mere italic or initial letter capitalisation changes, and certainly requires full community buy-in rather than being added straight into a policy page without consensus. — Amakuru (talk)08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no characters are added: the quotes are only the shown (via the<q>...</q> tag), but they are not selectable with the mouse. The {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} parser function would not even allow to add characters that are not in the title. --Grufo (talk)22:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a preload and subst template, I couldn't find any usages of it in aninsource search. It also has no incoming links and no documentation which might have added any insight to where it might be used. This might have been used somewhere in the past, but currently it seems it isn't.Gonnym (talk)11:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was a template that I created evidently in 2020 and found some use in at the time, but I do have a question@Gonnym:. That search you linked...wouldn't the template never show up as it was substituted? Outside ofmy test just now which has it because it was usedafter the nomination, there is no reference to "preload" at all in the page text as it is essentially a shortcut for a rather prolifically used substituted template. I don't necessarily object to this deletion (and had forgotten the template existed), but just wanted to flag that the validation method for its use might be flawed unless I am misunderstanding something. --TheSandDoctorTalk07:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor Usually when a template is a preload template it appears in other template code. See for exampleTemplate:RMassist/preloadinsource results. Since this template has no regular incoming links, no hidden usages found with an insource search, and no documentation, it seems that this template is hidden from everywhere and everyone which more than likely means it isn't used by anyone. I of course can't be 100% sure about this, which is why this TfD is open to present facts that disprove the above.Gonnym (talk)13:32, 25 November 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]
@Zackmann08 That seems a viable alternative. But would you recommend the same for the Hundred Years' War campaignboxes? Or is there a reason to treat them differently?NLeeuw (talk)19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: I'm less worried about the campaignboxes inCategory:Hundred Years' War navigational boxes as they are MUCH smaller, but I certainly wouldn't object to them being navboxes. Full disclosure, I am generally of the opinion that sidebars suck and should almost always be converted to a navbox... That is just my personal viewpoint. I can expand on why if you want, but I don't think that is really helpful to this discussion. IMHOTemplate:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War is massive and really not helpful in its current form. I do see the value in having a navigation box to link these related articles, but I think it should be in the form of a navbox, not a sidebar.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 Oh I largely agree with that perspective, but certain sidebars are useful if concise and practical. I'm curious what you think of my essayUser:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes? I'm trying to make clearer and stricter rules for campaignboxes, to make them either useful or to get rid of them. Navboxification, as you are proposing, is often indeed a better option. Cheers,NLeeuw (talk)19:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly links to the Russian Wikipedia. Outside band members - only one link is to an album on this Wikipedia. The rest are text or links to related articles that have too little connection. Fails navigation.WikiCleanerMan (talk)21:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unused (not transcluded) template that is linked to from a few category pages. If this is a help page and is still needed, it should be converted to one (moved to the help namespace with the redirect deleted). If it isn't needed, it should be deleted.Gonnym (talk)07:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't a T5able case, but that I would decline a T5. My reason is as above. Just because something qualifies for a criterion doesn't mean it should be deleted for such.Izno (talk)05:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this at first glance may seem like a good idea, in the end it will only lead to have all sibling categories from all parent categories listed at the category pages themselves as well, creating lots of unnecessary content at the top and pushing the actual category contents down.
I wouldn't say it is pushing content much further than similar established templates such as{{navseasoncats}}. The basis of the template/module only works for a limited pre-defined set of search teams – it wouldn't be possible to imagine all populated places in Germany or all possible occupations to put in the base module. The possibilities are therefore not endless. The question is then whether to have templates that may repeat content from the parent category, such as this one and{{navseasoncats}}, or not, where I would say these two examples are helpful.Kaffet i halsen (talk)17:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The possibilities are endless though (well, not endless, but as described), there is no requirement that these get autopopulated and they could just as well be hardcoded. And it seems weird that we have one for the other states, but not for e.g. the other occupations, as if one is more important than the other.
Keep, facilitates navigation between a limited number of interlinked categories without taking too much of space (some larger sibling templates may be discussed separately or become hidden for mobile like navboxes). Also helpful in category maintenance such as finding poorly categorised categories and stray categories.Kaffet i halsen (talk)18:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that it seems technically impossible at the moment to put these at the bottom of category pages (similar to where navboxes are placed in articles), even though that would seem a possible compromise (still there for maintenance and for who really wants it, but not taking the place of what the page is really about, the categories themselves).Fram (talk)09:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Compared to the corresponding templates with maps in French and Chinese Wikipedia, this template facilitates a limited number of interlinked categories without taking too much of space --Htmlzycq (talk)13:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have found templates like this to be very helpful and time-saving when working with categories. These 16 states don't take up much space. I don't think this template's existence is suggesting we use this scheme in cases with very large numbers of members, but 16 is a very reasonable number.DB1729talk12:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As well-intended as this template is, this is not Commons. Over there it makes more sense, but if an issue exists like finding poor categorization of caategories or stray cats, it will be found. It's not as if CFD does not have a shortage of such renaming or merge nominations. But the cats that are part of this template's navigation scope can be found without it as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template is being used at the bottom of the article as a navigational template but isn't designed to be so. Therefore, I'm not sure what purpose this template fulfills.Logoshimpo (talk)03:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template apparently used to just be called "Anime games", but that is obviously now far larger than this. However, its current focus is no less random. The "Distribution" section contains a highly specific game label that doesn't seem notable, and "Dojin soft", which can encompass far more than just visual novels or dating sims. The "Genres" section also lists certain genres, like erotic game, that are more than just dating sim-specific. And regarding the "Engines", half of them aren't independently notable with NScripter's notability also being unclear. I think this should be put out to pasture as not very helpful.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:19, 22 November 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.
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.
No objection from me, as the creator. When I made the llmtalk template the multi-level version didn't exist; now that it does, it makes sense tomerge.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)23:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This navbox will essentially never be completed (and it shouldn't have been created). There's five existing articles: two state-specific MUTCD, one that is list to signage in Puerto Rico, one that is a list to signage in the US, and the federal MUTCD. The same list is explicitly mentioned inManual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices#Adoption and serves the same purpose of the navbox. –The Grid (talk)22:59, 21 November 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 various protection-specific edit-request wrappers should be redirected to{{Edit protected}}. These wrappers once served to work around the absence of automatic detection of protection-level, but that limitation no longer applies and keeping them distinct actually makes the situationworse.
They are already functionally merged (they all call the same module), but not redirecting them creates avoidable errors. Editors assume that transcluding a specific wrapper guarantees the banner for the level they chose ("If i choose{{FPER}}, the template will always create a fully-protected edit request" → wrong!), but they're often unaware that their "choice" is always disregarded (such as when the page has a different protection level, or when the requested page is specified only in comments). In other words, using{{TPER}} or{{FPER}} or{{SPER}} outputs thesame exact result, regardless of which is used.
A single wrapper would be clearer and much less likely to be accidentally misused. To the best of my knowledge, no features would be lost if they were all simply redirected right now.FaviFake (talk)18:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in last year's TFD, one feature would be lost: the different templates default to different messages if the auto-detection of the protection level fails. The result of the proposed merger, if it were to happen, would be that all these different names would have to have the same default or would have to display an error message when autodetection fails.Anomie⚔22:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like any case whereModule:Effective protection level returns "*" (including when the title tested is not protected), or if there are multiple pages checked and they don't all have the same level returned by that module, are cases where that might happen. There's also a|force=yes parameter to override the auto-detection, which would presumably have to be changed to something like|force=level.Anomie⚔13:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears{{Edit protected}} already supports this, so no change would be necessary:{{Edit protected|level=level}}And are these use cases really that common? I'd argue the confusion and misuse caused by these separate wrappers creates more harm than an incorrect default in these situations.FaviFake (talk)14:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, but the belief that these templates do different things is widespread. I can imagine people needlessly trying to remember the name of a specific wrapper, or checking the documentations (which all still say: use this one for this level, this other one for this other level, etc...)FaviFake (talk)14:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the fact that the documentation doesn't mention the auto-detection that tries to DTRT, that would be easy to fix.Anomie⚔18:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the 2024 discussion, and the proposer does not provide a demonstration sandbox template that addresses the technical concerns of the opposers in that discussion. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:25, 23 November 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.
This barely used template is a simple link that creates anMOS:EGG link. This should be replaced in article with a full link and not one that displays only the number as the link.Gonnym (talk)16:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – this is used in citations, and I disagree that it's a MOS:EGG violation in that context. It's similar to what{{cite book}} does with|chapter-url=: the link text doesn't include the name of the overall work, it just identifies the portion being linked to. Similar citations in these articles are formatted the same way (e.g. "Thucydides,2.65"), whether or not a template is involved. But this template doesn't actually work, sinces:Athenian Constitution doesn't have any anchors with numbers alone; I also find it strange that it doesn't produce the whole citation.jlwoodwa (talk)01:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This overly complicated barely used template should just be replaced with direct image links. Unless I'm missing something here which this template does.Gonnym (talk)16:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – as far as I can tell, the purpose of this template is to get the lead image from another article, and to automatically update whenever that article's image is changed. I could see this being useful in some circumstances, but it breaks unpredictably if there's a filename-looking thing in ahidden comment or if the article at the given title is replaced (e.g. with a disambiguation page), is likely to confuse editors who want to change the image, and allows for something similar totemplate vandalism.jlwoodwa (talk)00:39, 23 November 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.
This is basically an outline for an article, not a proper use of a template. If a user or project wants to make this page and use it to create articles that is one thing, but this def doesn't belong in the template namespace.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)21:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will restate some of what I said at the other TFD that Pppery linked to:
This opens the door to literally thousands of article outline templates that are not appropriate uses of templates. Why just Saskatchewan communities? Next one for each province in Canada?{{Infobox settlement}} alone has 31 wrappers (seeCategory:Templates calling Infobox settlement (29)). If this template exists, why not create one for each of those places? What about settlements in general? Then the 2,200+ different infoboxes we have on wikipedia (seeintitle:/Infobox/i -intitle:/\//).
I will further point out that the body of the template has not been updated since 2018 and means you are inserting stale reference andin multiple cases broken links into new articles if you use this template. If this is going to exist in ANY form (as a template, or a wikiproject page) it needs to be maintained, which it clearly is not being.
I would hazard a guess that this was created bySriMesh back in 2007 to help with setting up new articles about communities inSaskatchewan... Isanyone else using it? SriMesh hasn't edited in multiple years... I doubt this template is even in use. Additionally, how often are new communities in Saskatchewan popping up? At this point I would imagine there is pretty universal coverage on Wikipedia (certainly more so than there was in 2007 when this was created).Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)03:50, 25 November 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).
Unused and no other such template like this exists. Plus, digging through the articles, at least some of them, I found no evidence of them being flag bearers for Germany. No real navigation is presented and such being a flag bearer for a nation at an international sporting event warrants a navbox.WikiCleanerMan (talk)16:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, no others of this kind exist, and I don't think any are needed. However, I feel the need to state that for at least the first section of flag bearers for Germany, those entries are all correct and are 100% consistent withList of flag bearers for Germany at the Olympics, a list I've personally gone through and checked and double-checked the sourcing more than once over the last few years. Some of the individual's article may not mention them being a flag bearer in the prose, but most if not all contain links to sources that mention it...last time I checked anyway. --DB1729talk16:58, 20 November 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.
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).
I understand Wikipedia already has stuff better than this, but this is not meant to replace Wikipedia's stuff. It's just a cool design i wanted to release as a template.Gioyous (talk)13:56, 20 November 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.
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).
Seems to be some attempt to create a dummy article outline.... This is a pandora's box that we don't want to open. If a user wants to put this in their userspace or if the project wants to create a project page, that is one thing, but having templates to setup article outlines open's the doors to thousands of unused templates.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)07:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if people are actually willing to write stubs for them frequently enough to warrant a template. The number of topics this can apply to is small enough that I don't see the worry.* Pppery *it has begun...22:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I respectfully disagree. I would say any topic that is worth of having its own custom infobox, could also have its own article template...{{Infobox settlement}} alone has 31 wrappers (seeCategory:Templates calling Infobox settlement (29)). If this template exists, why not create one for each of those places? What about settlements in general? Then the 2,200+ different infoboxes we have on wikipedia (seeintitle:/Infobox/i -intitle:/\//).
Comment/lean delete. We've all used existing articles as our outline for making new articles before, to save some time and ensure consistency. Though I'm not convinced that this should be in the template namespace. I tried searching for other examples and found some old and recent tangential TfDs about{{SCOTUS-case}}, which generates Supreme Court case articles and apparently is in frequent use. Is this template used enough to warrant its existence? From what I could find the template appears to only have been used by its creator in the month after it was created in 2020, and on only 4 occasions[2][3][4][5] (and perhaps 4 other times indirectly[6][7][8][9]), all revisions of existing articles and not new article creations. The template appears to not been used or updated since. Given that, what's the harm in keeping it? But what's the use either?Οἶδα (talk)23:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my issue with such article templates is that for them to begood, they need to stay updated with any changes to the MoS or project guidelines. Has this? The article text saysAs of 2019. Is that the latest year of population figures or has the article not been updated since?Gonnym (talk)10:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author, I am indifferent. The idea was to start an article on a Brazilian municipality (there are hundreds of them, very poorly covered}, take standard items of information from standard sources such as Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics,, and plug them into the template, then save. The{{subst:Brazil municipality}} usage means that the template text-plus-data would be copied into the article, which could then be edited in the normal way.Engenheiro Beltrão is an example. If you edit it, you will see no trace of the template. I did a few more to test that the approach worked, then moved on. I doubt that any other editor will use the template.
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.
Subpage with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in August 2025, with no edits since then. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started removing some of these in prep for deletion, but there are other subpages. I am pretty sure this flavor of station platform doohickie is not supported byWP:STATIONS so perhaps this merits some advertisement in that direction to verify what should be done with both the parent template here and any of its children.Izno (talk)01:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the longer bar should be merged to the short one, and the longer one redirected to the shorter one (which I created because the longer bar is so obstructive). Sidebars that need to be that long belong in horizontal bars at the bottom of the article so they don't interfere with content.SandyGeorgia (Talk)12:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For theCiV short sidebar) What about if, for each article, we expand only the section relevant to it? This is like what's done for Trump's articles, where his sidebar is opened only to the section where the article's name appears (check outBusiness career of Donald Trump for example).Newbzy (talk)07:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the complexity and large number of articles, I chose the layout that collapses more effectively. I also added a few missing articles. I applied a similar change on the Portuguese Wikipedia as wellWilfredor (talk)01:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both templates. We have a navbox. And yes, it is quite large, but I don't see a need for a sidebar when the navbox can do the same thing and has most if not all the same links. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)22:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:{{Adjacent communities}} is a bad template. It's a pretty dumb template as a navigation template, taking way too much space for a very trivial piece of information. I also really doubt that readers navigate between articles like that. Additionally, it is being used in a lot of situations in the middle of an article, which hides article text completely from mobile viewers. Since{{Adjacent place}} does not use a base navbox it doesn't hide the information, nor does is it unnecessarily large.Gonnym (talk)10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Adjacent communities currently serves a different need and works poorly in the middle of existing articles. I would withdraw the oppose if Adjacent communities can be made to work within existing text. At present, if used below an infobox, it occupies the full width of the screen and the lead is pushed below it (unless there is another floating element trying to occupy the same space, which seems to improve its behaviour). Adding "|width=auto" displays it side by side with the infobox but at the top of the article. I think there are no remaining examples of Infobox New Zealand suburb using Adjacent place, but most articles which use Infobox New Zealand suburb use Adjacent place immediately below, and in many cases they are bracketed together with{{stack begin}} and{{stack end}}. See the discussion atTemplate talk:Infobox New Zealand suburb#Adjacent place template The only way I think existing articles could be acceptably converted to Adjacent communities without the latter being improved is to move it to the bottom of each article, and I think that would reduce the quality of the articles perUser:Gonnym's comment above.-Gadfium (talk)02:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox New Zealand suburb}} no longer uses adjacent place. It just hasn't been removed from the template. However, articles on NZ suburbs use the adjacent place extensively. Before that was available, the infobox had its own custom fields. I was not aware until now (or perhaps have forgotten) that adjacent place appears to have been written specifically for use with NZ suburbs. It does provide greater flexibility than having the functionality in the infobox. If adjacent place is deleted, the script to do so should return the content to the infobox rather than replace it with adjacent communities, unless as I said before, adjacent communities can be improved to not wreck article layout.-Gadfium (talk)23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjacent communities is for external countries and takes up a large amount of space in the middle of the page; adjacent place is used primarily for New Zealand places and takes up a small amount of place on the side of the page, and is often described by the text.
In brief: If not deletion, this needs attention from someone with expertise in the relationship between right-wing/reactionary politics and political Catholicism. As it is, the various categories within the "series" are essentially a grab-bag of any traditionalist Catholic who has written on politics and any pre-modern Catholic political philosopher. Simply uncritically categorizing e.g. Augustine and Aquinas et al. as "integralists" is at the very least anachronism because integralism develops as a reaction to the emergence of liberalism and socialism and at worst is dangerously misleading as it proposes a decidedly non-NPOV/original research thesis about the history of political philosophy and religion that snowballs simply into fancruft.
In not-so-brief: It's a "series" of articles where the "principles" are a list of anything that sounds reactionary even when it has no necessary connection to Catholic integralist political philosophy. Some of the principles and sources named have also been used by liberation theologians; there are communists who are Thomists. Until going through and editing this, the "thinkers" also included a Revisionist Zionist figure—despite "anti-Zionism" being one of the "principles" above it—the "politicians" included various medieval kings who were being branded "integralist" because they were Catholic, the list of "thinkers" is semi-coherent at best and is just an ever-expanding list of conservative/traditionalist/far-right Catholic writers on politics etc.—I'm raising the question of whether it's even helpful to have a template like this since it easily gets out of control and creates an illusion of unity where it isn't necessarily present. It's probably possible to have a series like this but it would need much more pruning and scrutiny to keep the focus narrow (e.g. on the political philosophical legacy of Counter-Enlightenment Roman Catholic thinkers and clerics in western Europe and its sphere of influence between roughly 1789-1975 and their fellow-travelers such as Charles Maurras) and it not just turning into what amounts to fancruft.M.A.Spinn (talk)00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the issue is with what links to include, then whatever is inCategory:Integralism should be valid. Navigational templates should follow the category system. If the category itself has pages it shouldn't have, then fix that issue first.Gonnym (talk)15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom. makes a good case for why mostWP:SIDEBAR templates are rife for abuse. Editors collate articles based on their views, without any reference to sourcing, and there is perhaps a larger discussion as to whether they should all just be deprecated, because they are visually intrusive and I have seen pages with four or five such sidebars jammed into them! But that is not for here. Enforcing the principle ofWP:BIDIRECTIONALity should be sufficient. If the watchers on a page determine the page should not be part of a series (by removing the template or not adding it in the first place) it can be removed from the "grab bag". Is there any policy reason to delete this though? What about policy to retain?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add: I have removed non bi-directional entries, but the nom. has a point here about the utility of this very long series. The template has been added to many pages without being tightly integrated to the pages. Readers following the template (which may be few, since it is so big) would be taken to pages that may leave them scratching their heads as to relevance. I removed a couple of egregious examples but if this is ever to be a useful series, more work is needed.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All sidebars fail navigation. First two, for Mishustin and Sobyanian have too few links and mostly links to article sections. While Mishustin has five links, it is still too small for a sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will still a small number of articles. For Yavlinsky, if you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And perWP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either.WikiCleanerMan (talk)04:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly.Gonnym (talk)10:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both sidebars fail navigation. They both link to mostly to election articles where they stood as candidates. Only two articles outside of election articles themselves including the articles on their respective electoral history. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And perWP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either.WikiCleanerMan (talk)04:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly.Gonnym (talk)10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move the listed templates to the suggested location. This is an unusual case. I don't understand why these templates are all subtemplates ofTemplate:Infobox Chinese. I was going toBOLDLY move them, but want to make sure I'm not missing something... It seems to me to somehow imply that all these languages and cultures are somehow a subset of Chinese which it totally inaccurate. Also was going to do this as arequested move but there is no way in that process to centralize the discussion, so I felt this was the best route.
Note that{{Infobox Korean}} is currently in VERY limited use (19 transclusions) as a redirect to{{Infobox Korean name}}. In order for this to work those 19 transclusions will need to first be converted to use{{Infobox Korean name}} which can easily be done in theWP:HOLDINGCELL
I suggest not. Many items using these templates are translated or referred to wikis of other languages to some extent, for many of them, the original source could be written in characters ofKanji,Hán-Nôm etc. A sudden change would cause confuse when conducting interlanguage linking and intertextual connection.HCCB3947 (talk)07:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When people from other wikis using "translation" function to create an corresponding English item, because of the name of the template differs, the machine just won't allow them to adapt the template translation directly, EVEN IF there is a redirect left in the original, which causes inconvenience. Bi-/Multilingual Wikipedia editors would suffers.HCCB3947 (talk)16:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the old template still exists, and if the relation is moved to correspond to the new template (for examplehere for Infobox Chinese/Arabic) the translation functionality will not be affected. It will simply grab the new template name.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)16:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any of these templates useModule:Infobox multi-lingual name. That may have been the intent long ago. I know that I did not finish the module's implementation. Pretty much any enthusiasm that I had for completing Module:Infobox multi-lingual name evaporated when I suffered a catastrophic computer failure and lost all of my notes about changes that I wanted/needed to make.
The documentation in Module:Infobox multi-lingual name suggests that there is some sort of support there for:
I'd be in support of most of the moves, but still not sure what's best to do with Infobox Korean name. Think having Infobox Korean and Infobox Korean name as separate things will be confusing. Reasoning is that we want people to use Infobox Korean name in like 99.9% of cases; the only time Infobox Korean (currently Infobox Chinese/Korean) should be called is when it's used in other infoboxes. I don't want to have people use this on accident because of naming confusion.
My opinion is that to respect local wikipedia societies, so long since there are no nominations for deletion in ho, ja, kr and vn societies for these templates, at least these four shall not be deleted since the local users regard them as useful.静魔魔女 (talk)14:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move as it doesn't make sense to have a root of a language come before the language itself. Yes, all languages shift and change. Yes, Chinese language was hugely influential in at least Korean and Japanese (the other languages I don't know enough about to say anything). But the languages have evolved and changed and are their own entities. In terms of Korean vs Korean name, whenever possible I like to include the name in Korean as a module so it fits within whatever infobox best fits the rest of the article. Having the module makes it cleaner and more connected, and regardless of name, I just want that feature to continue to exist. Judging how late I am to the vote, I'll quickly mention that the "northkorea = yes" field within Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean is great and it should continue to exist.₪RicknAsia₪04:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to some of the articles, I'd add it to more in the future but now I can't as the deletion notice ruins article layout. I think this is a useful template for an important topic.Adam Harangozó (talk)10:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As perWP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."Moxy🍁
PS: I don't think courtesy pings will be necessary for this one. I notified everyone 3x yesterday, I don't want to overdo it.NLeeuw (talk)16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous discussions (though I wasn't involved in those). I've only edited the Ottoman culture sidebar, but likewise I generally don't see the advantage of a sidebar with an overly-broad scope when a similar navbox (with just a slightly larger scope) will do.R Prazeres (talk)16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As perWP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."Moxy🍁00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Garland dance: well this quite a small article about a very specific English folk dance. This is a relatively niche topic, which is also already transcluded byTemplate:English folk music. Advice: no.
Sport in Bedfordshire: With all due respect forBedfordshire, I don't think it is representative of England as a whole, in sport or otherwise.Sport in England is relevant, but we're not gonna link to every county. Advice: no.
Template:Wales topics has 138 links (!), and 282 transclusions (!!). I think this is wayyy too much to begin with, even before we ask the question whether we should mergeTemplate:Culture of Wales into it or not. The fact that it has almost double the number transclusions to the number of links suggests that people are dumping the footerTemplate:Wales topics under lots of articles that they think are of general importance to "Wales", regardless of whether those articles are actually mentioned in the footer itself. That is a sign of poor editing practices. More importantly, 138 links is really overdoing it. Take the grouping "Religion". It has links to:
This way too elaborate for a top country navigation footer. Most Fooland topics footers only have a general link to "Religion in Fooland". Moreover, there is a separateTemplate:Religion in Wales which contains the same links and more (but it is not properly transcluded, with just 17 transclusions versus 64 links).
Alt proposal: Per Moxy's objections here and elsewhere, and my own reconsiderations as nom above, I would like to propose a customised alternative per nominee:
Apologies for neglecting this: this alternative proposal sounds good to me too. As mentioned, I'm more familiar with the Ottoman template than the others, but as I understand it, the underlying motivation (to reduce redundant sidebars) is accomplished either way. If some are still useful to retain as footer navboxes, that sounds constructive to me and still heading in the right direction. Cheers,R Prazeres (talk)21:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: They should just be deleted or merge into a redundant footer related to culture. Country "Main Topic" footers generally only have main parent articles like "Wildlife of Canada" we generally don't spam sub articles like "Fauna of Canada", "Flora of Canada", "Forests of Canada" etc - last thing we should be doing is overwhelming these top article country navigation templates with every sidebar template there is. For Canada - for example - we have39 sidebars with the project that maintains these having no desire to jam them all into one template as perWP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." Good example{{Canada topics}} small grouping of parent articles that's easy to see and navigate vs{{India topics}} an accessibility and navigation nightmare. I've seen arguments before that these culture templates should be in the main country templates by many..... the problem we're going to have is those that edit sports articles and media articles and economic articles and law articles all feel that their topics are just as important as the culture is to be mixed in to these country templates. Culture articles are subtopic of the main country topic just as sports are laws, government music etc.(sorry for typos on my phone)Moxy🍁23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pragmatically speaking, I think it make sense to have separate footer navboxes for culture and for more general stuff on Odisha, due to the sheer amount of links in the Culture navbox alone. My primary aim is to get rid of the disruptive, poorly designed and badly transcludedWP:LEADSIDEBARs, not to dump as many links as possible into the top article country navigation templates. It is good to keep that goal in mind. Sometimes converting a sidebar into a new navbox may therefore be a better idea in practice than merging it into a much larger existing navbox.NLeeuw (talk)23:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the culture templates are standalone...as in there is no culture footer - they should be converted to a footer not jammed into another template. I am beginning to think we need to take this approach to the wider community.... this sort of run around to delete sidebars is reminding of the portals fiasco a decade ago.Moxy🍁23:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to convert these sidebars into new footer navboxes rather than merging them into existing country navigation templates? I think I'm starting to understand your objections, now that we're dealing with much larger templates than I started this series of culture sidebars TfMs with.NLeeuw (talk)23:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. One issue is thatWP:NAVBOX never defines a maximum number of links. With Benjitheijneb, I've been working onUser:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#Maximum links rule, where we set 50 links as a maximum for campaignboxes (which are technically sidebars rather than navboxes). I think we could take that as a rule of thumb for our purposes here as well? If you agree, then the next step seems straightforward.
AtUser:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars#South America history sidebars, I've outlined how many links each history sidebar has, and how many of them are actually transcluded (which may included transclusions from pages that are not linked, but that's fixable). What I would propose is to only count the transclusions, and use them as a basis for new footer navboxes. E.g. the 8 transclusions ofTemplate:History of Suriname. I'll put links to those 8 articles in this new footer navbox, add them to the bottom of those 8 articles, and then nominateTemplate:History of Suriname to be Just-deleted. (I might add the 5 missing transclusions in this case as the number is still very small). Sounds good? If you agree, then I'll proceed.
Nevertheless, I am very much open to splitting off a UK culture footer navbox fromTemplate:United Kingdom topics in order not to make the latter too loaded with links (what you called "mass link spam"). You've convinced me that it's important to consider the resulting total number of links in a merged template. Sometimes we should convert a culture sidebar into a new navbox footer rather than merge it into an existing topics navbox footer, and this seems a good example of just such a situation.NLeeuw (talk)12:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why It may be best to bring this to the wider community - what I am seeing is a small group of editors forming a local consensuss that is the opposite of what our editing guidlines says is best. Simply no way most will think adding every Society article to the template bellow follows our editing guidlinesWP:NAVBOX...that said if the future plan is conversion over merger it may workout.Moxy🍁14:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Okay. How would you suggest webring this to the wider community? An RfC? Personally, I am trying to refine my approach by turning my overview atUser:Nederlandse Leeuw/Culture sidebars into a proper essay that may eventually evolve into a guideline. I'm using the 50+ links and transclusions a lot as a rule of thumb in order to recommend against some of the larger mergers I've recently proposed, and now (thanks to your objections) I am reconsidering. There are several examples we might use to base a general rule for separating society/culture footers from other "topics" footers that would get overpopulated, or are arguably already overpopulated (Gotta keep 'em separated!). Quoting several examples I wrote earlier elsewhere:
Template:California topic is so clearly restricted to plain geography/topography that, taking Moxy's objections into account, it might not be a good idea to mergeTemplate:Culture of California into it. The latter links to about 77 pages, but only has 15 transclusions. A better idea might be to start a new footer navbox from scratch based on those 15 transclusions, and then Just-delete theTemplate:Culture of California sidebar.
Template:Ontario andTemplate:Ontario topics do basically all topics simultaneously: geography/topography, government/politics, history, economy, culture(/society), and communities + transporation. In that case, you are okay with a complete merger as the scope completely overlaps, and the resulting merged template would probably have fewer than 50 links and transclusions.
So, while it may be obvious that a template should probably be split if it has more than 50 links and/or transclusions, it may not always be obvious how the split should be made, and into how many new templates it should be split. What do you think?NLeeuw (talk)15:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here a very long time and in my opinion you're one of the greatest editors in regard to how your taking some criticism on something that is clearly a good faith effort...... your approach of compromise and common sense is a breath of fresh air. If your spearheading further endeavors of this nature I'm am very confident you have what's best for our readers in mind. ..... Special Barnstar coming your way in the near future.!Moxy🍁21:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Thank you so much :D I'm trying. I know I'll sometimes make mistakes, and that I should try to correct them rather than pretending I'm always right. Fellow editors like you have a way of seeing my mistakes that I myself failed to see. We need each other to move forward.
I just hope I haven't been overwhelming you with questions, and asking your thoughts on how to improve the situation. So far you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate that very much, especially when we are dealing with complex issues that require a lot of effort to properly disentangle and figure out. Cheers,NLeeuw (talk)21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I don't understand what this template is for. It is constructed to give advice on how towrite somebody's surname, but as a hatnote for readers. Surely that makes more sense as an edit notice? Articles in question will show readers the correct formation of the subject's surname by its usage in the text.The recent edit to reflect "barrelled" not having any meaning in the English language in connection to surnames exposes how ill-conceived this template was from the start, and how its intended usage has never been apparent enough for effective usage.U-Mos (talk)12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I've explainedhere, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects likeLee Kuan Yew andLee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name.S5A-0043🚎(Talk)12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
And in fact, those articles useTemplate:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e.starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial.U-Mos (talk)12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random)James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, thenSimon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones.S5A-0043🚎(Talk)13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a need for this to be the most prominent disclaimer about most people? Hatnotes are great where many readers need this information. But why do we think the exact structure of the surname is the key attribute many people will be interested in?meamemg (talk)15:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree withU-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficientBillsmith60 (talk)13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into / delete and replace withTemplate:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used onEdoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (seeVilla Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition.Kingsif (talk)14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to{{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it toDouble-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful ifWP:Hatnote orMOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as atAndrew Mountbatten Windsor.PamD15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging intoTemplate:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are alsomostly editor-facing, aretemporarily and are meant toaddress an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers.Gonnym (talk)15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above (editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page andwe should just use a footnote). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes.Moscow Mule (talk)21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person usingMOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk)07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing aboutHelena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping butrenaming, perPamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk)18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings about it being either kept or deleted, but as some users have pointed out if it were to say it should bechanged to "double-barrelled", which is normal English usage.Keivan.fTalk04:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but we shouldn't be re-inventing English usage for our convenience. "Barrelled" is not used in that way; "double-barrelled" and "triple-barrelled" are.GnocchiFan (talk)19:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My latest articleVerité Reily Collins gives an example of where it is helpful. Her surname is Reily Collins, which she got from her father, her first name is Verité. The banner make this clear. UnfortunatelyGermaine Greer was unable to consult Wikipedia in 1970 and therefore inThe Female Eunuch Ms. Greer gave her the sole surname of "Collins". This is left unchanged in the article's text as a direct quote, but in a subliminal way it explains why Reily Collins is used elsewhere in the article. Ms. Greer is a long term UK resident but it would not be unusual even for Brits/Commonwealth readers to trip up on this, and so it is helpful to clarify.ChrysGalley (talk)15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a bit niche, but usage has been well explained. Moving because this has utility outside of British names sounds reasonable but should be done throughWP:RM. As for consolidation with other templates, show me a demo merged version first so functionality can be tested then we'll talk.~2025-31245-28 (talk)17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 'Template:Double-barelled surname'. The hatnote is not for editors but for readers,; just as it is helpful for readers to know that the 'Kim' in Kim Jong Un is his family name, it is useful to know the 'Bonham Carter' in Helena Bonham Carter is her family name.JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)21:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withTemplate:Family name hatnote or rephrase to mimic that template's wording. Both FNH,{{Spanish married name}} and this template exist because the family name of a subject is not simply the last word in the person's name. Nobody here seems to dispute that FNH and SMN are useful; the only difference seems to be that editors are more familiar with the British convention, IMHO a clear instance oflanguage bias. On the other hand, I don't like that this template says how a person's surname "should" be written, as we aren't in the business of telling people what they should do. My preferred phrasing is "In thisdouble-barrelled name, the surname is {{{1}}}."Bernanke's Crossbow (talk)23:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The specific Britishness should be mentioned as the various traditions function differently and serve different purposes. For "barrelled" vs "double-barrelled", is worth mentioning that barrelled surnames are not limited to being double; There are triple and quadruple-barrelled surnames as well, for example "Montagu Douglas Scott" which does not contain any hyphens, making the actual surname hard to distinguish unless directly specified.—Cosmic6811T/C04:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support (see updated comment below) - generally I am in favor of this type of merge. We should not have custom templates for different localities that do the same thing for consistencies sake. This is why{{Infobox Cambodian district}} and{{Infobox US metropolitan area}} both redirect to{{Infobox settlement}} for example. HOWEVER,{{Infobox London station}} is widely used with over 850+ transclusions. At first glance, there are a number of parameters in it that are NOT present in{{infobox station}} so a straight merge could result in a significant loss of data. The real question there isare there too many params in{{Infobox London station}}? Could it use with some trimming down to be consistent with station articles around the world? I would say yes, but that needs to be part of this discussion.
Just to be clear, the data loss may be necessary, may be an improvement, may be good overall... But right now it isn't clear WHAT will be lost and that is what needs to be addressed.
@Smithr32: here is my 2 cents... I would withdraw the nominationfor now. I would do a detailed analysis of what would be removed and start that discussion onTemplate talk:Infobox London station. Once there is a detailed breakdown of exactly what changes are being proposed, come back and renominate the templates for merger. Then you will have more information and people like myself,MJ and all the others who patrol TFDs will be in a position to make informed comments.
The problem is that right now we have no idea what will be changing and most of us are unwilling to dive into the research to figure it out so will likely just vote to keep it as is since there are too many unknowns...
Thanks @Zackmann08, I'll work on a comparison list betweens params in London station and Infobox station. Passenger count for previous years can be featured in the main article as a section instead of a long infobox.Smithr32 (talk)22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying a merger notice is standard practice for all infobox templates, plus it allows interested parties who frequently edit Infobox station to add input on this merger proposal.Cards8466421:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should show up for all articles currently using "Template:Infobox London station". It's not relevant to every train station article on Wikipedia. –Fpmfpm (talk)02:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. I can't support a merger that would result in data loss with no indication of what data will be lost and no justification for losing that data.Thryduulf (talk)22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,Template:Infobox London station works perfectly well as it is. Nominations containing phrases like "modern up-to-date" and "hasn't been updated in years" are a red flag. We are not some advertising agency in the business of persuading the client to part with thousands of pounds for the agency to "update" the website in the expectation that they will return eighteen months later with another wad of cash for another pointless "update". There is no issue with Infobox London station that could be fixed by merging, and it would bring about a whole bunch of hassle. Have any perceived shortfalls in Infobox London station been raised atTemplate talk:Infobox London station,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways orWikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? Answer: no. Has a potential merger been suggested at those same pages? Answer: no, again. How often doesSmithr32 (talk·contribs) work on London station articles? Answer: never. How often does Smithr32 work on station articles of any kind? Answer: extremely rarely. In fact, I can find onlytwo articles about railway stations with edits by Smithr32:Reading Green Park railway station andWest Malling railway station, neither of which useTemplate:Infobox London station; and between them, they have no more thanfive edits by Smithr32, none of which involved the infobox. In short: Smithr32, what does this have to do with you? Why do you want us to go throughall this grief again? Five years on, I amstill waiting for answers to some of the questions that I asked during that debacle. I say again: Oppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will second whatUser:Cards84664 said. I too findUser:Redrose64's overwhelmingWP:OWN mentality troubling. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal not on attacking the nominator for not discussing with the right people.WP:TFD is the proper avenue for this discussion and the notices atop tens of thousands of articles are meant to draw people to the discussion. If you object that others weren't notified,FIXIT and notify them.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)04:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. Why was this merge not suggested at the WikiProjectsbefore a TfD was raised? The feasibility and method could have been discussed by the people who actually use the templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this Infobox has been tailored for its specific needs and if merged into the generic Infobox station, would lose the parameters and information it gives the general public about. Saying that it "has not been updated for many years" is wrong as it is updated yearly with the latest data when possible.Difficultly north (talk)Time, department skies21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm going to restate what I said in2020: it's not all obvious why London,and only London, needs its own infobox. This is what I said then: "There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for theentire rest of the planet." The attitude of certain members of the UKRAIL project hasn't changed. If the idea didn't originate there, from one of their own, they're not interested. The outcome of that 2020 TfD included a senior editor maintaining a years-long public grudge against the nominator, which is unprofessional at best. Template consolidation is an accepted principle. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate hidden minefields for the unwary.Mackensen(talk)22:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mackensen. There is no need to have a special template with completely different formatting and parameters for one city with <1.5% of total station articles. If there are more than a handful of London-specific parameters that are somehow essential (which I doubt), then this template should be turned into a wrapper for{{infobox station}} with those extra parameters. Certainly, the parameters for decades of ridership data are superfluous and do not need to be transferred - they violate the principle fromWP:INFOBOX thatThe purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.Pi.1415926535 (talk)23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support That being said, I do think there should be some more discussion on which parameters make their way into{{Infobox station}}. I see no reason why we can't merge parameters unique to the London station infobox into the main one. However, I agree withPi.1415926535 that some parameters might be better off omitted from the infobox – personally I'd rather they be included in the article body, if at all.XtraJovial (talk •contribs)04:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changing my initial lean support to support. This is a good faith effort by the nominator to merge a template that is long overdue for a merge. There are certainly concerns about what will be removed and what will not, but those discussions can take place in theholding cell. There is MUCH precedent for this such as the recently created{{Infobox social media personality}} and{{Infobox gridiron football biography}}. Both were EXTENSIVE merges of multiple templates. The TFD agreed to merge, then numerous editors discussed how and what to merge vs what to remove. The only objections thus far have been 100%, pureWP:OWNERSHIP complaints. This is a definite yes in my book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Zackmann. Parameter omissions and additions can be hashed out in the merger process. There is no reason why we need an infobox for specific locations, and ten other Infobox templates have already been merged into Infobox station since 2014.Cards8466414:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Couple of suggestions above that the infobox containsdecades of passenger data. This is not the case with only the last five years shown on each station article.MRSC (talk)14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some examples of which parameters cannot be displayed on the newer infobox? I'm currently doing a parameter comparison on mySandbox page with the main Infobox station template.Smithr32 (talk)22:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaningsupport for now, per Mackensen, on the condition that we can discuss exactly which parameters can be merged (rather than just redirecting the template and calling it a day). For example, a couple things I noticed:
The London template uses a lot of historical ridership data. Should these be kept or deleted when the infoboxes are merged?
The London template has some London-specific parameters likeoriginal,pregroup, andpostgroup, along with some London-specific external links. Should these be retained?
London stations have specific accessibility categories; how should these be handled?
Overall though, in the long run, merging these templates will increase the ease of maintenance, as it means that we don't have to maintain one infobox for most of the world and ten other templates for very specific locales. –Epicgenius (talk)01:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion results in "merge", I sincerely hope the passenger usage statistics on this and all other GB rail station articles are retained. As a casual reader I find this *incredibly* usefulTombomp (talk/contribs)08:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what improvement would be achieved by merging the London station template with the generic version. There are specific features of the London station template that are not present in the generic version that would need to be added; for example the London station templates use of a set of subtemplates (i.e.{{Tubeexits2023}}) that add the usage data automatically so that individual articles don't need to be amended when new data becomes available. My biggest concern is that the the generic version is completely locked off from editing except by a Template editor.DavidCane (talk)14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any infobox parameters that exist only in Infobox London station (but not in Infobox station) can always be 'transferred' to Infobox station.Chongkian (talk)16:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging would inevitably lead to loss of important information, if not now, then at some point in the future. No objection to a carefully thought out modular solution. All the best:RichFarmbrough14:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@The Emperor of Byzantium: Can you clarify your comment on coding, I'm not sure what the correlation between railway stations in Greece and railway stations in London is, you are already using Infobox station and can always suggest parameter adjustments.Cards8466415:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cards84664, it’s in response to both ‘Infobox station’ templates possible losing data (if merged to create one signal Infobox?) its impact on other railway Inboxes (Greece in this case), and the fact with 2500+ railway stations in the UK… it will be a lot of work correcting the errors created by this decision… I only mention Greek railway stations because, of the work involved in creating less than 300 stations, and updating the Infoboxs of 2500+ worries me of the amount of work involved… it’s not a criticism of standardised of the Infoboxs, it’s the worry more articles will need to be ‘fixed’✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠(talk)01:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Zackmann. "Infobox London station" seems to be a legacy of a time when templates had lower capabilities compared to now (in 2005, there was no Lua and ParserFunctions was less powerful). However, we should not rush the merging process, due to understandable concerns about passenger numbers and UK-specific data: this is why we haveholding cells. --Minoa(talk)21:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – zero justification for a separate infobox for London stations specifically at this point. Clearly opposition is mainly about inertia. Any information that for some reason cannot be maintained in Infobox station can be added to articles (no opposition to considering parameters for porting, just that we shouldn't be requiring a one-to-one parameter parity situation). An infobox should summarize articles, not thoughtlessly replicate them or present information not in the article itself. —Joeyconnick (talk)04:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on those who wish to change the status quo to demonstrate that a change would be beneficial. In this case that means doing the research to identify the unique features and show that theycan be accommodated in the merged template and/or that there is a consensus that they should not be accommodated.Thryduulf (talk)11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative - I suggest that we add one or more module parameters to{{Infobox station}}, and fork{{Infobox London station}} to a version (eg{{Infobox station (London)}} that has all of the London-specific parameters, and no duplicate parameters fromInfobox station. Then, as they need updating, anyInfobox London station can be replaced byInfobox station withInfobox station (London) embedded in it. That way, there is only one main infobox to maintain, and London can have all its own parameters without needing any duplication. The same could apply to other special classes of station (?New York).-- Verbarson talkedits08:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realised that{{Infobox station}} already has an|embedded parameter; I am not sure how/whether this differs from|modulen. However, I think more should be added, as they may be used for listed building designations (or other stuff).-- Verbarson talkedits12:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support providing submodules can preserve entry/exit data and listed status. Might need to addlocale andtoilets to Infobox Station to avoid data loss, maybe more that I missed. I don't see anything else different that justifies keeping the templates seperate. //PYRiTEmonark //talk //12:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Having one station infobox for all of Wikipedia makes sense, provides for consistency (important in an encyclopedia) and makes maintenance and support easier. However, there are some data in the London station infobox that would be lost if it was simply replaced with the station infobox. I'm in favor of a merger if the station infobox is expanded to include the data that would otherwise be lost, so long as that would not make the station infobox too large and difficult to use and maintain.Truthanado (talk)14:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on for a month and there has been little serious discussion. I don't think anyone actually objects to infobox consolidation on principle, and most of the proponents of the merge don't seem to object to retaining the London-specific parameters; the arguments are all about details. I suggest this TfD be closed and discussion take place on a talk page to determine which London-specific parameters are desirable and can be maintained in the generic infobox. The merger can then proceed without a formal TfD, or, if there's disagreement, everyone can come back here to thrash out a consensus.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?18:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Almost nothing on Wikipedia isrequired and formal closures serve to identify consensus. There is none here, and if I had any experience with TfD I'd close it as such myself, but what would that achieve? I don't think people here disagree on as much as they think they do, but they're not going to stop talking past each other in this venue.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?23:41, 23 November 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]
Having lists of red links isn't a CRYSTAL argument; that is why we have manyWP:Red link lists on Wikipedia across many topics. As national championships receiving SIGCOV it's likely that these articles will be created soon; there are actually a few of them in my backlog along with hundreds of other articles.
Lastly in Wikipedia deletion discussions, generally speaking we need a policy or guideline-based reason for deletion. It doesn't quite work that way in the reverse, though I would argue in these cases that the standardWP:NAVBOX would apply in standard use.
As a compromise if you want to nominate the ones with no blue links only, I would support deleting or merging those to overview pages. --Habst (talk)13:19, 27 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]
Userfy as the creator of these I'm happy to move to userspace the ones with no edition links. I created them as articles exist on other wiki which can be translated, but ended up focusing on the winners lists first and never got around to the national editions for those countries. I oppose the deletion of templates with 3 or more links. I don't think there is a single reader out there who thinks the conversation of whether two links should be in navbox or a see also is worth the effort of consideration. We've all got better things to do in life.SFB01:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much of a keep consensus to keep templates as is, userfy is fine, but if one has to then all must because they all do not meet basic navigation requirements. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)16:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. There's no consensus to userify all of these, even from the one editor who !voted to userify only a subset of them. --Habst (talk)14:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete the ones with less than 3 links. Keep the ones with 4+ links but remove all red links and non-links from them. We don't need a sea of red links in these templates.Gonnym (talk)11:57, 20 November 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]
The page is linked within the sidebar per BIDIRECTIONAL. The whole point of sidebars is to make appropriate links accessible from the context in which those links are usefulto the reader. A navbox is used to place links at the end of an article without context. If you had an article about the history of mathematics, a navbox with links on mathematicians and math topics would be appropriate, but a sidebar on calculus would appropriate to place in the history of calculus section. Likewise, a link back to that article section would be completely appropriate for that calculus sidebar. Context vs decontextualized is the difference, and one is more appropriate in this instance.VanIsaac, GHTVcontrabout17:31, 20 November 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.
@Pppery I felt that since there had been very little traffic on this discussion there was no harm inrelisting it. To be clear, I would absolutelynever have closed a discussion I was involved in... But moving forward I will avoid relisting discussions I have been involved in as well. Appreciate the advice.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plastikspork: I'll be honest, haven't even looked at it. Been working on other projects and this fell by the wayside... I suggest closing this as merge PENDING that change being made and placing it in the holding cell. I'mtrying to take a break for Thanksgiving, but will definitely look into this soon.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)00:22, 26 November 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".)
Done
NLeeuw (talk)09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
). Quoting several examples I wrote earlier elsewhere: