Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

• Template:UAAP Season 88 Calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Congo conflict detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Congo conflict detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pakistan conflict detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Pakistan conflict detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on it's talk page, the Pakistan conflict template is basically useless and should be deleted since there aren't any territorial changes happening as a result of the ongoing conflicts. Tornadoboy7 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ground transportation sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Just transcludes an image file. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Palangka Raya City labelled map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and map contains only red links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Syfy Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The shows listed here are simply too loosely related to merit a navbox. They do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" as is the guideline in WP:NAVBOX #3. It is also obvious from the ludicrous and continually growing amount of shows that List of programs broadcast by Syfy is more appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not at all too loosely related. If navbox size is a major concern, then the first step is to do an Rfc or just a plain new discussion on the template's talk page to see if a split is warranted based on consensus. Netflix original programming templates have been split off and contain many articles for original shows on the platofmr --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Copyright violation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Copyvio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Copyright violation with Template:Copyvio.
I propose we redirect this template because it is redundant to {{copyvio}} and {{copyvio}} is better then adding a maintenance template. Additionally, if you are sure it is a copyright violation, it shouldn't be kept. BodhiHarp 22:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pronunciation audio requested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pronunciation requested audio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Pronunciation audio requested with Template:Pronunciation requested audio.
These templates both seem to do the same thing: request that someone make and add an audio recording of a pronunciation of the article's title.

The documentation does try to draw a distinction between them — it says PAR is for article text or language pronunciation whereas PRA is for article title pronunciation only — but because the current wording of both references the article title, this clearly isn't happening.

These should either be merged or a clear difference between them articulated. The accompanying categories — Category:Wikipedia requested pronunciation audios is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested audio of pronunciations — should also be handled accordingly per whatever we decide to do. Sdkb ^talk 19:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At first I considered updating this template could fix its problems, please see Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-archive

However, the more I think about it, the less appropriate it seems to have a template that tells someone to trim their talk page be part of the (single-issue) user warning or notice templates.

After all, the guideline (WP:OWNTALK) specifically states "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." and it also states "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." (Back in 2016 when this template was created, the guideline was not clear on whether the 75K limit then in effect for regular talk pages applied to user talk pages as well. Some editors probably did interpret it that way. More specifically, the guideline did not have anything resembling today's clear language)

But if we remove the "officialness" of a user warning, we remove any specific requirements, we remove "you need to archive"... what's even left?

{{please archive}} is what's left, I say. Which is why I'm nominating this template for deletion. It appears to be wholly and fully redundant and non-compliant.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (added 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)): Me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Our guidelines quite clearly say: The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. To me that means we should use a template that in no way implies the user has done anything wrong, such as {{Please archive}}. Please don't oppose this nomination because you disagree with WP:OWNTALK. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please take into account that both for this TfD and the one five years ago, both !votes did not address the causes for nomination, and/or based their !votes on irrelevant criteria. The closer of the 2020 TfD appeared to ignore the poor relevance to the nominated action by the goven !votes. At the very least, I suggest a relist to gain actually on-topic !votes. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and update, as the nominator himself had as a first instinct. Whether it's user talk, article talk, other area talk, or all talk pages in general, the issue of large sizes is an issue that should be avoided (some user talk pages are hundreds of thousands of bytes in size, are extremely slow to load are just ridiculous to navigate), and if this template is reworded to suggest archiving in a manner more palatable to the nominator, that is better than nothing. - \\'cԼF 10:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (note: same user nominated this same tfd 5 years ago to the day, and quite resolutely at that. Just the same, the outcome was "keep", and there were several very vaild points made to support that conclusion that still apply today, while not much was offerred in support of deletion. fyi - \\'cԼF 10:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment First off, that older TfC only got two comments. Both ignored how this template is solely meant for user talk space, at least initially. And now you too include talk page size issues in general? Secondly, our guidelines have changed since that last TfD, so I believe having a new discussion is perfectly reasonable. (I repeatedly tried to have the guideline updated, but apparently discussing it first instead of just making the change was my mistake) Thirdly, why do you say "better than nothing" when I quite specifically point out there already exist an alternative that seemingly avoid all the problems of this template I have brought up? Can you go into more detail about what value you feel this template offers over Please archive, User:Thewolfchild, and what updates you would make if this template remains? I'm asking because, as stated, I don't see how there will be anything left if we address all the issues listed for this template. CapnZapp (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2. The following is copied verbatim from the talk page to keep everything centralized Because after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, what specific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !vote keep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you are suggesting that talk page length doesn't matter, it seems that you are talking from a place of being lucky enough to have a new and fast computer and thus having it not matter to you. For those who aren't lucky enough to have one, it does indeed matter and should be called out. I would also assume that an incredibly long talk page would be a challenge for those who require assistive technology. Wikipedia should endeavor to be more, rather than less, accessible, and suggesting that the very slight "offense" taken by people who cannot set up an incredibly basic archive system is more important is a bit ridiculous to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your !vote, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. However, you appear to post based on "this template is what keeps user talk pages from being overly long" (I could be wrong). You do not address my concerns with the template: guidelines no longer warrant an user warning, as opposed to a normal ask - and we already have a template for politely asking users to trim their user pages: Please archive. That is, me nominating this template for deletion does not mean I am opposed to editors such as yourself asking people to trim their user pages. I'm only opposed to keeping a user warning or notification template on that subject, since those imply the templated editor is somehow in breach of policy or best practices. Keeping this template would assume you are arguing there is still a case to be made for warning (or notifying) users. I don't see that's the argument you're making, but if you are: on what are you basing this? What makes you want to keep this template as opposed to using {{Please archive}} or just a personalized message? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do admit that I misinterpreted the purpose of the nomination. Nevertheless, I don't think Please archive is as good because it doesn't point to the Wikipedia guidelines. Pointing to the guidelines is important to show that it's a policy and not just a personal opinion. If one is to be deleted, the text of this one should be copied over to Please archive instead.

  I also think the exact page size guideline being removed because of A single discussion by a few editors on the talk page is ludicrous on its face. It should be a Village pump discussion with a guideline this longstanding and prominent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Let's just say it together now: it isn't a policy! All right? :-) (the whole reason for my nom is precisely because this template is created on the assumption the user is warned/notified about policy, and now that this is gone, any template that asks you to trim your talk should be clearly seen to be a personal preference ask!) You are free to contest any change, but please, don't let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. If you do start an RfC or somesuch, I guess you can ask for this TfD to be postponed until such time a consensus has been hashed out, but not sure how the TfD community feels about that strategy for delaying TfDs? Maybe better is for this TfD to run its course. Templates can after all always be undeleted if that is what the community wants. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It essentially is a policy. "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." These exceptions are fairly narrow and generally speaking one is expected to abide by it. It's not considered fully optional like, say, a highly opinionated essay might be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will also note that the guideline used to be even more specific and in line with this template, but it was unilaterally removed by a group of editors working solely on that page. Right now it is continued to be removed for the reasons of "maintaining the status quo" even though it was changed from its decade+ long status quo fairly recently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We appear to misunderstand each other, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. In no way did I mean to argue OWNTALK isn't official guidelines. I was instead telling you that the guideline no longer contains the 75K limit. That is what I meant by "it isn't a policy". It used to be, it no longer is. Historic guidelines no longer active are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. You appear to base your !vote on disagreeing with the current guideline. That is not appropriate. If you want the guideline changed, go fight for that. If you want it more widely discussed, go set up that wider discussion. In the meanwhile, though, please base your !vote on the fact that there is no limit set by the guideline. I would not nominate this template for deletion had the guideline not been changed. But it has been changed, which is why I consider a user warning or notification template to no longer be appropriate, hence this discussion. Once more I am asking you to not let your opinion on policy (or lack thereof) influence your comments on a TfD. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The change to the longstanding guideline was bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements, so it is absolutely relevant to changing this template as well. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people aren't obliged to start a domino chain of major changes simply because of an order "from the top" that may or may not be correct. It's worth it to go back and ensure that the removal of the idea of a page size limit is actually beneficial to users or whether it is the product of someone assuming that their setup is representative of all Wikipedia users. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I don't agree with "bruteforced in despite a low-participation discussion with obvious disagreements" I'm not preventing you from taking steps to further change the guideline. But for the purposes of this TfD it is not unreasonable to assume the guideline is as written. I'm not nominating this template on a whim - the current guideline has been stable for 7 months. Please do not base your !vote here on disagreements about the underlying guidelines. Can I ask you to reevaluate your !vote based on the guidelines that exist, rather than the guidelines you want to have, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm - FlightTime (open channel) 18:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Can I ask you to specify which of Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments you base your "per" rationale on, User:FlightTime? Because I can't pick up any hints you saw how I have tried to point out how little relevance their arguments have, and how they both appear to ignore the actual circumstances that I based my nomination on. Super-quick summary: This discussion covers user talk space only. Changes to our guideline makes a user warning template inappropriate. If you dislike the change to that guideline !voting "keep" is the wrong way to go about that - the guideline has achieved consensus and been stable for several months. We already have a template politely asking users to archive their talk pages. If you disagree with any of my objections, it would be helpful if you addressed them. Alternatively, if it is easier for you, maybe you'll simply give the closer a bit more detail on your reasoning for your !vote without relying on Thewolfchild and Zxcvbnm's arguments? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CapnZapp: Sure, all of their comments. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reasoning for deletion, as far as I can tell, comes down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT that the language used in the uw- series of templates is a little more "official"-sounding and that "uw" stands for "user warning" even though it also encompasses informational notices. The nominator even supports the keeping of the similar but less-informative {{please archive}}. If there's really consensus for removing any specific size guidance from the guideline, that's an easy fix for the template. I also caution the nominator against WP:BLUDGEONING based on the above discussion. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ItemCost (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Found this during the clean up of {{AircraftCost}} which was deleted at this TFD. In principal I love the idea of this template, the problem is it isn't maintained (the current value given is from 2023) or really used (131 transclusions). What's more there is a FAR superior and far better maintained template at {{Inflation}}. Suggest deleting this and replacing its instances with {{inflation}} Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody complained that ItemCost needed maintenance. Inflation is only an auxiliary template compared to this. Trigenibinion (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigenibinion: What do you mean by is only an auxiliary template?s It is used in over 25,000 articles... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean these are higher level templates that call Inflation Trigenibinion (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see the point of having an unmaintained, inaccurate template when another one exists that does the same thing and is up to date... - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call it inaccurate? A lot of time was spent on this. If there's no maintenance it's because nobody reported any bugs. They do no do the same thing, otherwise I would not have written them. Stop asking to delete things that you don't understand. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigenibinion: I think you are taking my criticism personally. That is not my intention. I do not doubt that a lot of time was spent on it, but this template is not maintained, the other is. The fact that nobody reported any bugs is not the point. You are using data from 2023. If you are going to maintain a template like this it needs to have the latest up to date data or it is not serving its purpose. You have not in anyway address why this template cannot be replace with {{Inflation}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is other templates called by this one that would have to be updated. This is a general presentation template that can be called by normalizing ones like the one you deleted, AircraftCost. Inflation is a lower level building block. The point was that in infoboxes Inflation was being called directly without consistency in the display of information.

Thanks for pointing out that nobody bothered about updating the currency templates. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated To USD to 2023. Somebody was working on the 2024 data but I don't know what happened, so I will have to look at it myself. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INRConvert was updated by the maintainers to 2023, so ToUSD now takes advantage of that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To EUR now takes advantage of the To USD and INRConvert 2023 data. The last time someone updated its own data was for 2021 so I will have to take a look at that too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Inflation you will see that it is not usually updated. I don't work on that. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tracking category for articles with conflicting ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer needed after categories were deleted. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer to keep for now. If you look at Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings at time of writing, there are two conflicts which need resolving. The module will be recoded shortly to prevent any further conflicts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped the Bot run once it had cleared everything, but can re-add it to the schedule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox ship/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Styles are found at Module:Infobox_ship/data. Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox settlement/dunam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox settlement/dunam/mag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox settlement/impus/mag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox settlement/metric/mag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub templates. Template:Infobox settlement/areadisp uses a different implementation. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NZ election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We shouldn't be creating a template for each country. Template:Current election is enough here. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The main point of this template is to explain to both editors and readers when those elected will take office, i. e. the day after the final results are declared. That stops overly eager editors showing the mayors-elect as having succeeded the incumbents, for example. I created the template based on this discussion. Schwede66 16:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DART SB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cdx-table/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused style template without a parent. Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2025 North Indian Ocean cyclone season buttons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with all links leading to the same page, so nothing to navigate to and from. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Motorcycle speedway tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox is MASSIVE and IMHO far too large and too broad to be useful or helpful. I also would argue that it violates principals of WP:NAVBOX. Namely 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. as well as 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix, I have split the templates into templates per country leaving just the UK nations. MaugerFundin (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MaugerFundin: stellar!! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that the issue has been fixed. We don't want to lose the UK tracks, although we could rename it motorcycle speedway tracks in the United Kingdom MaugerFundin (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IBA recipe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the merger of Template:Infobox cocktail to Template:Infobox drink this is now unused. While there is an article for International Bartenders Association I do not think this needs its own template. While it may not technically violate WP:EL, it is behind a you must be 18 or older to view this page pop up, which I would argue violates the spirit of WP:EL. Obviously nothing to stop anyone from manually adding a link to the IBA on the article page or a reference. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This template will be useful if we decide to restore any of the references that were recently removed from the IBA cocktail articles. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is planned? Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:VFL CF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in April 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I remember correctly, it was used on 2000 VFL season until the incomplete home-and-away matches section was removed; it will be used again when I or another editor finished said section and I can add it to the season's ladder (alongside other templates) in the interim. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend merging all of these VFL templates into a single template with a switch statement, like {{Australian Football League team}}, which will avoid this issue in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point – don't disagree! Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Create a meta template if needed. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Invisible list item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Created in July 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: The DCWC coordinators were using this template as recently as two weeks ago (via the redirect {{ili}}). I think this has the potential to be used again in projectspace, and has similar functionality to its cousin template {{i*}}. Let me know what you think. (please  mention me on reply) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and put down a keep (as the template creator) with that in mind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't hide text in pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: This template does not hide text; it hides the bullet in a bulleted list or the number in a numbered list (using <li style="list-style: none;">). I've fixed the documentation to make this clearer. The use case I mentioned above for the DCWC coordinators was to hide the number when two participants on the leaderboard were tied with the same point total, which you can also see in the diff I linked. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Manx monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in July 2025. There probably are not enough valid blue links to make this navbox useful. Some of the listed people may or may not have been monarchs of the Isle of Man. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly Rename This is quite a complex area, and a navbox (or even two) could be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I've checked all four of the bluelinks on the template. None of them seems to indicate that the king in question was specifically a ruler of Man — Báetán mac Cairill and Áedán mac Gabráin sought to conquer it and include it in their broader ricks, and Edwin of Northumbria and Tutgual of Galwyddel ruled kingdoms of which Man was merely a part. None of them ruled only Man, or ruled Man as a separate entity from another domain, so I dispute the inclusion of all four on this template. (Otherwise we might as well expand it by adding Charles III, Lord of Man, and his predecessors.) We can't know anything from this template about the remaining rulers, and I'm uncomfortable assuming that any of them belongs here. Unless I'm misunderstanding badly, this template's flaws really can't be fixed without deletion. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's often something that can't be fixed by deletion, but we can pretend it didn't happen. We should certainly add the Stanleys and maybe a generic link to the monarchs of the greater entity after them. Lord of Mann is a simple renaming of King of Mann. As for the question of the parent kingdom in earlier days, it could be made as clear as possible when one polity is subsumed in another. It's certainly the case that further south a king could be the king of more than one kingdom, or kingdoms could be divided or united.

  Simply renaming this (with the better name anyway, since most of the rulers weren't Manx) Monarchs of the Isle of Man would obviate the semantic component of the issues you raise. Sectioning by parent polity can also help. As for the red links, it's a question of creating the targets.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  

  I mention the redlinks because we can't easily know whether those people belong here; of course it's fine on principle to have redlinks in these places. This template really ought to concentrate on monarchs for whom Man has been the sole domain, or for whom it's been a significant component of the entire rick; that's definitely not the case for Charles III or for any previous UK/GB/English monarch, unless I'm forgetting about something. Man is a bit of a protectorate anyway, hardly a completely separate kingdom, even though it's not strictly part of the UK; it's more analogous to Anguilla or the Falklands, not like Tuvalu or St Lucia, let alone Australia or Canada. We probably wouldn't make a template for "Monarchs of the Falklands" without monarchs for whom the Falklands were a significant territory. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Triglyceride convert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SongContestTableRow/history-list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. This is a WIP. — TheThomanski | t | c | ^{please ping me when replying!} 13:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete. WIP do not belong in user-facing namespaces. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Largest cities of Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not needed as we already have similar format for instance on the main Taiwan article a box as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Flag of Jammu and Kashmir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Georgian alphabet sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to Template:Georgian language. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest revamping the Georgian alphabet letter pages to have the sidebar template, since it offers much better visual representation of the script. Template:Georgian language could still be kept at bottoms of the pages. Bababashqort (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and this one adds nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Babashqort. Much like {{Latin alphabet sidebar}}, {{Arabic-script sidebar}}, {{Greek alphabet sidebar}}, {{Indic letters sidebar}}, and {{Kana gojuon sidebar}}, a sidebar is the standard means of navigation between archetype characters within a script, often placed shortly after the infobox. Navbars can be useful supplements for cases like the basic Latin letters, where diacritic-modified forms of a letter may be accessed, and of course for general and technical topics on the script as a whole. Keep and implement. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 22:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've not checked the edit history, so perhaps someone's improved the template since this was nominated, but now it adds significant value over the language template: it's formatted to appear higher in the article (and maybe would appear on mobile, unlike the navbox; I'm unsure), versus all the way at the bottom, and more importantly it shows the letters instead of merely providing their transliterated names, as the navbox does. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either merge to Template:Georgian language or convert this to a navbox (whichever is better). These pages already use an infobox so the addition of the sidebar creates a massive block of boxes at the top of the page, which isn't reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Canadian Syllabics sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sidebar that only links to article sections. No direct article links outside the main article link which is a redirect. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This characterization appears to be a misunderstanding of the sidebar. This is not linking to sections within a single article, but rather between different articles that cover the whole of the characters derived from the Brahmic script, with many of the Canadian Syllabic characters having their own place within that historic context. The fact that the content is not forked into a separate article is irrelevant, the sidebar is for navigation between different pages, and the pertinent information is found at a particular section within those pages. Several other characters, on the other hand, don't have well documented context like that and AFAIK Wikipedia lacks that content currently. But this sidebar is positioned to facilitate navigation to and from that content when the need arrives. Lastly, the redirect objected to is a redirect 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 to Cree syllabics, Eastern Cree syllabics, Western Cree syllabics, and Inuktitut syllabics for additional related content, and I would encourage any other pertinent content others can find. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 16:27, 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 a Crystal 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 at eleven 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, GHTV ^contr_about 18:26, 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 to WP:Splitting for content splits. Are you perhaps misreading guidance on navigation links among sections within 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, GHTV ^contr_about 22:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the remaining articles in Category:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics be okay to add? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 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, GHTV ^contr_about 23:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sidebars are generally inadvisable and four articles is certainly not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a navbox and remove redirects or section links. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Clone Wars infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and mainly fan content. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this infobox was because the Battle of Yavin has it's own infobox so I figured that the Clone Wars may benefit from one too. It was deleted from the Clone Wars page because Template:Infobox_military_conflict is apparently not built for fictional conflicts. If that's true, then I apologise for creating the infobox unknowingly, but why is the infobox on Battle of Yavin okay, considering that is also a fictional battle? TheMinionsOfTheTrenches (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing it from that page. I find the article suspect in terms of notability. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chinzah family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used now in Hausata, and will continue to be used for Draft:Dokulha. Taitesena (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only on one article and serves no navigational benefit. And proposed future use is Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Later with Bob Costas episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DuMont network shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without subst. Not everything needs a timeline and not everything is readable with one. This one is a mess. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NTA Film Network shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use timeline chart. Don't see why we need a timeline just for shows on a particular network. Not opposed to subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the deletion rationale. I see you have nominated other templates because they are unused. But this one is in use. If the the reason those ones should be deleted is because they are unused, then this one likely should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its only used on one page. No reason for this to be in template space if it can't find more uses. But overall, it is not needed. A timeline for a list of shows on a network, what value does this serve to have? It provides no information for readers. Its just a chart. On article space, you can find this information in simple list prose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a template must be used in more than one article is nonsense. WP:TFD#REASONS says that reasons for deleting a template are the following: 1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance. 2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template. 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. 4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing. This template (and the one you nominated below) does not meet any of these criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substing templates being used in one place as a result of a Tfd has been done for years. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Accessibility editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; and rightly so. The implication that people with no sight should be able to access articles about visual impairment, but not, say, Beethoven or pregnancy, is deeply misguided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template has about 250 uses, so the nominator is mistaken that it is unused. Of course visually impaired editors should be able to access all articles, but we have limited editorial resources, as evidenced by e.g. the fact that we don't have alt text for 100% of the images we use. And common sense dictates that visually impaired editors are more likely than the average reader to be interested in topics like Visual impairment given its direct relevance to their lives. This makes it, as the template says, particularly important (not "only important") to follow accessibility best practices there. This editnotice provides a helpful reminder of that. Sdkb ^talk 14:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, on looking at the template, I see that its wording had changed since I'd last visited it: @Waddie96 changed , so it is especially important that it conform to the guideline to and must adhere to the guidelines. It is entirely understandable that you'd object to the template with the changed wording, @Pigsonthewing, as I do too; it indeed implied that other articles do not also need to be accessible. I have reverted back to the "especially important" wording, which is hopefully a better ATD. Sdkb ^talk 14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is unused on articles or talk pages, where I expected for find it, I now see that it is used on other templates.

  Contrary to your edit summary it was not the reverted wording specifically which prompted this deletion proposal.

  The point remains that it is not for us to decide which articles are most of interest to certain users; and it is equally important that accessibility measures are applied to all articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an editnotice; those are always going to be in templates.

  I'd love to be in a world in which everyone abided by accessibility guidelines all the time, no matter how cumbersome, but that's a fantasyland. In the practical realm, I would be surprised if you've included alt text with every single image you've ever added to an article, and even if you have, 99% of other editors have not. What this notice does is, for an editor in the process of editing an article like visual impairment, give them a nudge so that they think, "oh, I normally don't bother adding alt text, but for this article where it's especially important I guess I will". Or, "I've never heard of these accessibility guidelines before, but it seems especially important for this article, so I'll take this opportunity to check them out." That's a useful nudge (and it might even get them in habit of abiding by the guidelines more generally once they realize it's not hard). Sdkb ^talk 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Izno (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sdkb — articles about disabilities should at least be readable by those with said disabilities. It is quite reasonable that there be a notice for such cases. --Opecuted (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be readable, but that doesn't require an editor-facing edit notice because it should be the default for all articles. Izno (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Arguments with aliases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary fork. In it's only usage, the aliases are mostly handled before even being sent here. But even if this functionality was needed, duplicating Module:Arguments just for this is bad coding. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The existing Module:Arguments does not actually support aliases; it only handles translation in a somewhat limited and buggy way. However, proper alias support is a very pressing need. Many widely used modules already implement aliases on their own in different ways – for example, Module:Citation/CS1.

Since aliases are present in a large number of templates and modules, the lack of alias handling in Module:Arguments is a serious shortcoming. TemplateData itself includes explicit support for aliases, which further highlights how essential this feature is.

As for the question of why we need a new module instead of simply modifying the existing Module:Arguments: the reason is that Module:Arguments is embedded in a very large number of other modules. Getting consensus to directly change such a widely transcluded core module would not be easy. A safer and more practical approach is to develop this functionality in a separate module first, and once we are confident it is stable and reliable, it could eventually be merged into the main Module:Arguments.

For these reasons, I believe this new module serves a necessary purpose and should be kept

حبيشان (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding how to properly modify a module, go through the proper channels (or even best practices), is not a reason to fork a module and add maintenance burden to the entire community. I also don't find your code to actually save any time on the front end as you already handle the alias at Module:Abyat#L-1. Instead of doing duplicate work, just do args.width = args.width or args.width2 or args.width3 and then you don't need to handle alt names. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Module:Abyat seems to have a dependence on this, so relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Assassination of presidents of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are too few entries to be useful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Abyat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Abyat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently-ish created template and module can be replaced with any one of the templates listed Template:Quotation templates. We don't need language-specific versions. If those templates are lacking, then the issue should be raised and fixed for all languages. Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe this template still fulfills a unique need. Arabic and Persian poetry follow a very specific and distinct formatting tradition that differs considerably from how most English or Western poetry is laid out. None of the existing quotation templates in Template:Quotation templates list can reproduce Arabic and Persian verse with the same accuracy and professionalism.

This is also the reason why Wikipedia has multiple quotation-related templates in the first place: no single template can accommodate every quotation style or requirement. In the same way, Template:Abyat was created to address the :particular formatting needs of Arabic and Persian poetry, which otherwise remain unsupported.

For this reason, I believe the template continues to serve a necessary and valid purpose. to see how Abyat serve Arabic poem quotation see Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Abyat.

حبيشان (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The templates we have can and do work perfectly fine. Also, we should never have templates or modules that expect non-English parameter names or have non-English code. If language support is needed for any given template, it should be brought up on that template's talk page. We've been reducing the language-unique templates on en.wiki over the past few years. There is no reason to start again. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gonnym's 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC) comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Principal Naming Criteria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to transclude or subst the WP:CRITERIA directly into a RM. A link to WP:CRITERIA is sufficient for that purpose, and we shouldn't encourage dumping large portions of PAGs directly into discussions: that is just adding a bunch of noise. Subst the ten transclusions and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. We should only be making the arguments that relate directly to the discussion in question. Subst and delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deputy Speakers of the Philippine House of Representatives timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary timelines. We already have an article for this and has a complete list for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:General algebra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have an Algebra navbox. No need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Algebra page has no navbox at the top unlike the geometry or mathematics page so I though I should add one since the algebra page looked unfinished without one. If you could help me find a preexisting navbox for this purpose that would be excellent. I named my navbox General algebra by analogy to the navbox General geometry. I don't mind if there is a better option but the Algebra page deserves a navbox near the top just as much as the geometry page. Redfoxtaily (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes go on the bottom. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is some terminology I haven't learned yet, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry there are nice boxes for Geometry and Mathematics series topics near the top of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra does not have these boxes so that is what I was trying to add. Its seems like the algebra page deserves to have boxes like that near the top of its page just like the geometry page. I looked but could not find a algebra template equivalent to the General geometry template for algebra. Also, I don't get why you removed the Part of a series on Mathematics template link since that is standard practice to include it in major math articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why these additions I made to the algebra page were wrong. Redfoxtaily (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to sidebars. You should learn what these are before creating them. I did not remove anything. This is unused and not needed. The edit summary states why. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know they are called sidebars. But is there a good reason for the Algebra page not to have sidebars? I could accept if you just think I must have a sidebar perfect before publishing one. But at any rate I'm not aware of any good algebra sidebar template. Redfoxtaily (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:LAT e (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. A red link along with a link to the Latvian Wikipedia. No usage here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Disappear text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hides text off-screen and is being used to hide wikitext at this RFD and a couple of other places. It does not appear to be appropriate for template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(wrong forum?) Oreocooke (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct forum. Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even in userspace, I can't see any non-breaking use for this template. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Text should not be hidden. --Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BridgeSuitLeft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BridgeSuitRight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BridgeSuit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BridgeSuitLeft and Template:BridgeSuitRight with Template:BridgeSuit.
All three templates appear to have the same use case. It seems like the only difference is the left/right positioning which can be checked for using an optional parameter. 2600:8800:4000:20E:1031:EF09:EE66:A6E0 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Antiguan and Barbudan English editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer usable after this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TFD Dgp4004 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Video Games of Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2024. Redundant to the more comprehensive {{Video games by country}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seriously Video games in Ascension Island, why would that ever become an actual article? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused hardcoded instance of Template:Africa topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heidelberg University Library Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Had a single transclusion on Heidelberg University Library. Code has been inserted directly on the page. No reason for this to be a separate, single use template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Violence against Muslims in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Violence against Hindus in independent India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Violence against Christians in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Persecution of Hindus in pre-1947 India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Violence against Hindus in East Pakistan and Bangladesh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Religious violence in South Asia is sadly common. Grouping these incidents by their target is on the face of it a reasonable thing to do. I was partially responsible for the creation of multiple of these templates. However, it is increasingly clear that these are poorly suited for navboxes, for the following reasons.

1) Size. Religious violence is sadly common. If we listed each incident of violence in which religion had some role, each of these templates would become impossibly long. This is particularly true when the killings of single people are included. Conversely, if limited to a reasonable size, no neutral inclusion criterion exists.

2) When victims come from multiple communities, forcing pages into a template listing violence against X often violates our policy on no original research. Some incidents of violence - typically the major ones - are described unequivocally as incidents of violence perpetrated against a specific religious community by reliable sources. The 1947 Jammu massacres or the Noakhali riots fall into this category. Far more incidents, however, involved victims of multiple communities, and their nature as targeted violence, and who the targets were, is a matter of debate: often, there are multiple targets, and multiple perpetrators.

3) A similar problem arises when motive is unclear, and not discussed in reliable sources. Numerous incidents of violence have been perpetrated against a group defined both by religion and ethnicity. It is quite unclear, for instance, whether the victims of the May 2014 Assam violence were targeted for reasons of religion or ethnicity.

4) The maintenance burden for these navboxes is high. Their history shows numerous reverted additions and reverted removals: this nomination was precipitated by the need to remove approximately a dozen LLM-generated pages from the template. These groupings are better suited to categories, which allow overlap, subdivision, and more nuance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. It would be better to have these as categories rather than navboxes — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also support because of the numbers involved and zs the nominator says would allow overlap, subdivision and nuance Doug Weller talk 18:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. As the nom says, there is a lot of ambiguity in the nature of these violent incidents that is willed away in the navboxes and the causes are not always religious but could be the desire for self-rule, ethnic rivalries, electoral issues, etc. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:East Slavic Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:West Slavic Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Slavic Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:East Slavic Americans and Template:West Slavic Americans with Template:Slavic Americans. Redundancy. These are one-line navboxes that should be consolidated to avoid template creep on pages about Slavic Americans as the information is contained in the three-line Slavic Americans navbox. See related proposal below by User:Apocheir. mdm.bla 18:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the West Slavic Americans template is redundant with the Slavic Americans template. I support your merger proposal. NicholasCB (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:South Slavic Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Slavic Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:South Slavic Americans with Template:Slavic Americans.
Redundancy. The South Slavic Americans template is a single list that is already included in the Slavic Americans template. They're both auto-collapsed. Apocheir (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three sub-templates into Template:Slavic Americans. See my proposal above for rationale. mdm.bla 19:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:G20-Chief justices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template for a grouping of legal leaders on the international stage. The other G7/G20 templates make sense as the individuals involved (i.e. finance, defense, foreign affairs, etc. ministers usually engage in international diplomacy). The same definitely can't be said with regards to supreme court justices, who never appear at these events. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, chief judges of the G20 supreme and constitutional courts attend so-called "J20" summits, see, e.g., https://g20.org/track/supreme-courts-and-constitutional-courts-j20/, https://j20.judiciary.org.za/, https://www.gov.br/g20/en/g20-social/supreme-courts-and-constitutional-courts MicNickBell (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:G20-Speakers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template for a grouping of political leaders on the international stage. The other G7/G20 templates make sense as the individuals involved (i.e. finance, defense, foreign affairs, etc. ministers usually engage in international diplomacy). The same can't be said for legislative speakers (especially upper houses in commonwealth countries). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary leaders of the G20 participate in "P20" summits, see https://g20.org/track/parliament-p20/ MicNickBell (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:History of East Slavs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This WP:LEADSIDEBAR is not used anywhere, except on Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus', where it does what leadsidebars do worst: bogging up space in the upper right corner of the article, alongside three other leadsidebars. Time for this history leadsidebar to fade into history.

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 6#Template:History of Tatarstan (deleted), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 1#Template:History of Chuvashia (is being deleted), and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 1#Template:History of Udmurtia (is being deleted). NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and WikiCleanerMan: You'll probably be interested in this follow-up (the 4th in this series). NLeeuw (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Argentina into Template:Argentina topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Bolivia into Template:Bolivia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Brazil into Template:Brazil topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Chile into Template:Chile topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Colombian culture into Template:Colombia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Ecuador into Template:Ecuador topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Peru into Template:Peru topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Suriname into Template:Suriname topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Uruguay into Template:Uruguay topics, and leave a redirect
  

Note: Template:Culture of Guyana already redirects to Template:Guyana topics

Note: Template:Culture of Paraguay already redirects to Template:Paraguay topics

Note: There is already a Template:Venezuela topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of Venezuela

Note: There is already a Template:Falkland Islands topics; we never needed a Template:Culture of the Falkland Islands

Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, and Culture sidebars part 4. See also Culture sidebars part 5 below. NLeeuw (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping to participants of the Culture sidebars part 1, 2, 3, and 4 discussions for follow-up: @TheBritinator, Super Dromaeosaurus, Chipmunkdavis, Gonnym, Frietjes, Matrix, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Moxy, Renata3, WikiCleanerMan, Absolutiva, and Piperium: for your information. NLeeuw (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect after replacing the sidebars with footers where necessary. as we discussed before, there is a large amount of duplicated navigation between the sidebars and the footers, which can be addressed by adding any needed missing links to the footers. the footers are better for layout as they don't crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Template:Culture of Oceania sidebar into Template:Oceania topics, and leave a redirect
  

(not to be confused with Template:Culture of Oceania, a footer navbox)

• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Federated States of Micronesia into Template:Federated States of Micronesia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Fiji into Template:Fiji topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Indonesia into Template:Indonesia topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of the Marshall Islands into Template:Marshall Islands topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Nauru into Template:Nauru topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Papua New Guinea into Template:Papua New Guinea topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Solomon Islands into Template:Solomon Islands topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Tonga into Template:Tonga topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Tuvalu into Template:Tuvalu topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Vanuatu into Template:Vanuatu topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Niue into Template:Niue topics, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Easter Island into Template:Easter Island, and leave a redirect
  
• Propose merging Template:Culture of Hawaii into Template:Hawaii, and leave a redirect
  

Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, and Culture sidebars part 4. See also Culture sidebars part 6 above. NLeeuw (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Added Solomon Islands. NLeeuw (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Pratama26 2402:8780:1022:3A65:1EE:906F:D285:F3 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping to participants of the Culture sidebars part 1, 2, 3, and 4 discussions for follow-up: @TheBritinator, Super Dromaeosaurus, Chipmunkdavis, Gonnym, Frietjes, Matrix, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Moxy, Renata3, WikiCleanerMan, Absolutiva, and Piperium: for your information. NLeeuw (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect after replacing the sidebars with footers where necessary. as we discussed before, there is a large amount of duplicated navigation between the sidebars and the footers, which can be addressed by adding any needed missing links to the footers. the footers are better for layout as they don't crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Indian elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Zero documentation or explanation of why/how it differs from {{Infobox election}}. Again I will say we do not need a custom infobox for every country that has elections. That would result in dozen upon dozens of duplicate infoboxes. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination definitely needs rethinking, because a spot check makes it look like it's functioning as a box for navigation instead in several cases. Particularly, it looks like it's not used on pages about specific singular elections (e.g. 2024 United States presidential election) but instead functioning for pages that are lists of elections occurring in specific years. See its use e.g. in 2008 elections in India. Izno (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have the nominator or the first two !voters looked at how this is being used? It's a completely different template to {{Infobox election}} displaying different information. Its use could be broadened to other countries (to cover articles on elections at multiple levels of government), but I can't see a valid reason for deletion. Number 57 15:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Number 57: I'll confess I did not do a thorough examination of the transclusions. ZERO documentation is a giant red flag for me (yes I know, WP:FIXIT...). That and the fact that is has a very low use count (16 by my count) and the name points to it being a duplicate of {{Infobox election}}. If this is sufficiently different then you may be right that it needs to stay. That being said, I don't think it is a good idea to have separate election infoboxes for a country. This is VERY slippery slope that could lead to literally hundreds of different infoboxes that are largely duplicates of each other. Perhaps a middle ground is to make it a custom wrapper for {{Infobox election}}?

  FWIW I was going to ping the templates creator (User:QLDer in NSW) to get more information, but they have been banned as a sockpuppet... Open to suggestions.

  Given that it has been 7 days, I'm going to WP:BOLDly re-list this for more discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Warrants further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a wrapper for {{Infobox election}} because it's a completely different layout. It's effectively a summary table of several different types of elections, not for election results like Infobox election. I was suggesting it be renamed (perhaps something like {{Infobox multiple elections summary}}) so it can be used for other countries (as there are other types of articles it would fit). Number 57 22:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: gotta admit when I'm wrong... Took the time to actually look at the uses, obviously something I should have done from the get go. This is VERY different from {{Infobox election}} and you are correct, a merge is simply not possible. It is much more like {{Infobox United States elections}} though I certainly wouldn't suggest merging those two... I just don't like the precedent of having custom infoboxes for one country with such a low use count... It just irks me, we should be able to generalize. But the fact that it irks me is my problem... Anywya, I did a little more research and found that 2024 elections in the European Union uses a combination of {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} to achieve a similar result? Maybe there is something there worth considering? At any rate, I'm leaning towards withdrawing this TFD, but think I'll let it go a little longer just to see what comes of the discussion.

DEFINITELY opposed to the original merge I suggested at this point though.

@Lenticel and WikiCleanerMan: I encourage you to reconsider your !votes based on above. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Thank you for the ping. Anyways, this might require additional changes within the TfD in the future but that's beyond what this TfD is all about --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Richard B. Spence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not usable as a navbox, per the lack of blue links at Richard B. Spence. It is fine for this template to be recreated once there are enough blue links to make it useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Film year category 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and not usable. We do not create single-year "YYYY in [country] film" or "YYYY [country] films" categories. See Category:2023 in film and Category:2020s in film for the consensus category structure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wrong ISBN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As noted on the talk page, but not addressed, an inline tag makes more sense but is not needed for a bogus ISBN. The commonly used CS1 templates respond to invalid ISBNs with a specific inline visual error message and tracking category. For non-CS1 citations templates and handwritten citations, the {{ISBN}} template will both format an ISBN and, if bogus, generate a visual error message and add the page to a tracking category. This less-specific banner is both redundant and less clear. Examples on inline ISBN error tracking that already exist:

• CS1 template ({{cite book}})
  • Moore, Alan; Bolland, Brian (2008). Batman: The Killing Joke (Deluxe ed.). DC Comics. ISBN 9781401242282.
  • Moore, Alan; Bolland, Brian (2008). Batman: The Killing Joke (Deluxe ed.). DC Comics. ISBN 978140124228Z. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Non-CS1 citation template ({{cite comic}})
  • Moore, Alan (w), Bolland, Brian (a), Bolland, Brian (col), Starkings, Richard (let). "The Killing Joke" (Deluxe edition) Batman (2008). DC Comics, ISBN 9781401242282.
  • Moore, Alan (w), Bolland, Brian (a), Bolland, Brian (col), Starkings, Richard (let). "The Killing Joke" (Deluxe edition) Batman (2008). DC Comics, ISBN 978140124228Z {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: invalid character (help).
• Handwritten citation (APA with ISBN appended)
  • Moore, A., & Bolland, B. (2008). Batman the killing joke deluxe. DC Comics. ISBN 9781401242282.
  • Moore, A., & Bolland, B. (2008). Batman the killing joke deluxe. DC Comics. ISBN 978140124228Z {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: invalid character (help).

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to an in-line template (e.g. {{Please check ISBN}}). Putting a template that is supposed to be for articles where "multiple references contain ISBNs that do not match the books they are attached to", and then not having that same language in the template itself, is confusing. The template does not help editors find the invalid ISBNs. {{Please check ISBN}} can be used with a custom reason for valid ISBNs that do not match the book they are listed beside. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Freddy Fazbeared (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be just here as a humorous notice, and doesn't seem like it will ever be used. Also, it looks familiar to a certain warning template regarding vandalism, so the template can be considered a derived copy. — Alex26337 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:El Paso County, Colorado Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant due to Template:Colorado Pikes Peak region schools. Consensus for a similar TfD two months ago was also to delete. Geracruzcolusa (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tokeamour (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also templates have been changed to the ones that appear better due to conversation with @Geracruzcolusa Tokeamour (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the Article discussed. Tokeamour (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United Auto Workers, Strikes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template (sidebar) seems rather duplicative. The Template:United Auto Workers (footer) already includes a section with strikes, albeit some of currently missing (I will copy them over), in addition to other information about the union. Having both seems redundant, and the footer is better equipped to cover all in the information within this sidebar. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created it, It's absolutely fine by me if you'd like to merge it, and delete this template - LoomCreek (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Colorado Springs, Colorado (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant due to Template:Colorado Springs. Used on only two pages. Geracruzcolusa (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geracruzcolusa, I respect your opinion and expressing it, this one is a School template and serves an educational purpose in regards to School articles, please again feel free to disagree and share your thoughts. Tokeamour (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on expanding this to more School articles overtime. Tokeamour (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template is based on a template known as Template:Alameda County, California Schools Tokeamour (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong one moment. Tokeamour (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pleasanton, California Tokeamour (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template mentioned by user who expressed their concerns respectfully does not even mention any of the schools in this one from my knowledge. Tokeamour (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It only mentions colleges in Colorado Springs. Tokeamour (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geracruzcolusa Above is the list of my concerns to your argument. Tokeamour (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your template has a broader scope than just articles on education, with sections for landmarks, transit, etc. The original template has an Education section which currently just has universities, but you can add our local schools/districts to it. For navigating between schools, Template:Colorado Pikes Peak region schools is already on all those pages. On a side note, I greatly appreciate your work on the Cheyenne Mountain High School page and hope your GA review is going well! Geracruzcolusa (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geracruzcolusa, Understandable please expand further. Tokeamour (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the compliment! Tokeamour (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like your ideas so much! Tokeamour (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge it (with some stuff deleted) Tokeamour (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geracruzcolusa To extend further I trust your judgment on deleting it. Tokeamour (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it from the article so it doesn't screw up the review, and put the other one. Tokeamour (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We should probably do that with your other new template too, Template:El Paso County, Colorado Schools. It is also redundant due to Template:Colorado Pikes Peak region schools. There was a deletion discussion on a similar template for Pueblo County a couple of months ago with that consensus Geracruzcolusa (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood put it up for discussion and I'll just say yes so it is faster. Tokeamour (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Tokeamour (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to move some information over later today and into tomorrow, Tokeamour (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-3rr-alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely used warning template that is not used by Twinkle. Redundant to {{uw-ewsoft}} and {{uw-3rr}}. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the rationale at the previous TFD; there does not seem to have been any changes in circumstance since. Being used or not by Twinkle isn't a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Saginaw Sting roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster for a team that has been defunct since 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IHL Symbol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Extra small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates an accessibility guideline at MOS:ACCESS#Font size and MOS:SMALLFONT. Using this template produces a font size 66.6% of the page default, well below the 85% minimum specified in the linked guidelines. We should not make violating this accessibility guideline easy for editors. If they really insist, they can use a span tag with a font-size declaration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alongside the reasoning stated above, it is redundant to the much more flexible {{Resize}} oklopfer (💬) 12:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a bad idea per nom -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a redundant template, and can be easily emulated through the use of other templates and HTML syntaxes. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95, @Oklopfer, @Whpq, and @Alex26337: what about redirecting to {{Resize}} or changing the size to be larger? BodhiHarp 19:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to {{Resize}} would be misleading. Changing the size to be larger would be redundant to {{Small}} and {{Resize}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it is a redundant template. señor verde⸻pregúnteme 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Module:Medical cases data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this via an appearance of COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area in the Category:Pages with script errors. It looks like commons:Data:COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara County, California.tab stopped updating, and there's no graceful error handling. Can someone attend to this please, maybe by fixing the data feed and/or by fixing the code to not render errors in the callers? TIA. Joy (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination should be withdrawn. I looked at script errors in the last couple of days and I'm pretty sure this article was not there. There is some stuff-up that I can't work out at the moment but mxn will fix it soon. Errors are alarming but they happen regularly and deleting the module won't help. The five places where errors occur in the article could be blanked as a temporary measure if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made that temporary edit and there are now no errors due to Module:Medical cases data. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for doing [1] to hide the errors, but still, there's nothing else using it? Can we move it to some sort of draft space then? It's marked alpha and it's been in this state for years, what is the potential? How likely is it that another disease outbreak happens and uses the same mechanism? --Joy (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would give plenty of time for mxn to return and comment on a plan. The idea of storing structured data on Commons and using Wikidata for universal information is part of the system now. It has problems as seen here and I'm not sure how maintainable it is but I would give it plenty of time as an experiment. It's not particularly relevant for enwiki, but mxn is also active on viwiki so it's likely that the system is used there as well. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy @Johnuniq: Thanks for your patience. I'm still continuing to update a few of the Bay Area data tables approximately weekly based on the counties' own update schedules. (I stopped updating them daily about a year ago.) You aren't seeing timestamps up to the current date because it takes time for the counties to release case and death counts. (They don't have the staff or funding to do it daily like during the public health emergency.) The module didn't break, but the instance of it in both COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area and Module:Medical cases data/doc did break because I accidentally overwrote c:Data:COVID-19 cases in Sonoma County, California.tab with the contents of c:Data:COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara County, California.tab at the end of August. I hadn't noticed the breakage because I don't visit the English Wikipedia quite as often as Commons these days. I rolled Sonoma County's data table back to 1079585357 and reran this script, which fixed both pages. This module is intended to be used on COVID-19 pandemic in California as well, but EphemeralErrata wanted to maintain {{COVID-19 pandemic data/California medical cases by county}} manually. They stopped their updates back in May 2023, so maybe it's time to migrate to this more maintainable system. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is it possible to make the calling code more resilient for next time? Data errors in general are a possibility that we can predict, so can we make the error handling code that isn't large red, very technical-sounding, and instead can it try to be more helpful by saying something user-friendly, like data is missing -><- here with more direct links to the data sources?

And can a test case of some sort be added somewhere like Module:Medical cases data/testcases? --Joy (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The error message was coming from Module:Tabular data. That module is more low-level, not to be used directly in mainspace, so a more technical error message makes some sense. Module:Medical cases data could try to output the rest of the table or map when there's a problem with one of the data items or data tables. The lack of more graceful error handling is pretty much the only reason why it's been in alpha this whole time.

The root cause in this case was me running the wrong script. It isn't even the first time I've munged the two tables by accident. I never put in the effort to fully automate the data updates because the Power BI API (used by San Mateo and Santa Clara counties) has always been very fragile, requiring a manual rerun after loading the dashboard in a browser. Anyways, I added a failsafe to the scripts so that they'll bail if any data table refers to the wrong county in its metadata. [2] This won't directly prevent a mixup, but it'll prevent it from going unnoticed the following day or week when someone goes to update the table.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it needs to try to improvise with the rest of the data, because that could be confusing in itself. It just needs to catch the error in its context and try to provide a more topical message for the readers. A non-technical person doesn't understand parsing errors, they need to be told something more descriptive. --Joy (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Estradiol salts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This chemical navbox is unnecessary and nonsensical. Estradiol forms like "estradiol valerate" and "estradiol sulfate" are notably esters and not salts. As someone knowledgeable in this area, this navbox should be deleted. AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 06:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without a better rationale. This template has some errors (the VTE links do not work right, and the name does not match the contents), but those errors can be fixed by editing, I'm pretty sure. The title (not the page name) of the template is "Salts and covalent derivatives of the estradiol ion", which can be changed if it is not correct. It seems to meet the normal criteria for a navbox. Also, I'm not see a link to estradiol valerate, but I might be missing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jonesey95. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Codex icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why this template exists. Created two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I haven’t had time to implement this after an error I couldn’t solve. However I’ve learnt Lua since then, and it’s far more useful and should get it working in no time. Thanks for reminding me! waddie96 ★ (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Work in progress. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Also this seems to be indirectly associated with Wikimedia's Codex push. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  It is entirely unrelated to Wikimedia's Codex push. One user has decided to add a template here to access the iconography from Codex. That's all. I haven't decided if that's a good or bad thing for this template but I have noted at least one other template/module of similar going-on and that one I have some issue with. Izno (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

[edit]

• Template:Recent changes article requests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. It appears that whatever page or pages used to use this template have stopped doing so, and the WikiProject associated with this page is inactive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this used to be displayed at the top of the recent changes page. It's historical, but I think it might be possible to put it to a new use elsewhere such as a portal - where might be a good page to host it? — The Anome (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, any idea where it would have appeared? If I view Special:Recentchanges with the message names displayed, I see that it uses MediaWiki:Recentchanges-summary (no history of using the template) and MediaWiki:Rclegend and MediaWiki:Recentchanges (don't exist; not sure how they're being used), but that's it for static dedicated pages; everything else is generic (e.g. MediaWiki:tagline) or dynamic (e.g. MediaWiki:Rcfilters-activefilters). Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Infobox Australian place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Propose converting Template:Infobox Australian place to use Template:Infobox settlement.
It is time for this template to be converted to be a wrapper for Template:Infobox settlement. I have created a mockup at the sandbox which is visible in the testcases. This implementation will standardize the infobox to look like every other settlement infobox on Wikipedia. Note that NO other country has a custom infobox that does not use {{Infobox settlement}} as a base. A much more detailed breakdown of what was changed, what was kept and why is avaliable on the template talk page. I encourage commenters to read this breakdown first and to examine the testcases linked to above. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - looks great to me. Thank you for your efforts. -Dgp4004 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zackmann08 Can you reimplement those custom location and other fields using blank*_name_sec*? Or embed/module? --Joy (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joy: Probably, I'm not clear on what you mean though... Can you be more specific or point me towards an example in the testcases? Are you referring to the location relative to other places? For example in the first testcase where it says 207 km (129 mi) NNE of Sydney...? Is that what you mean? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What you mentioned on talk, can we implement location, adjacent communities and weather box and not drop them? I appreciate the technical aspect of your change a lot, but I don't think it's a good idea to conflate those practical issues with those content issues in this one migration. It would probably be much easier to get this passed if we kept as much useful content as possible, and then had separate migration processes to figure out what to do with that. --Joy (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joy: that, my friend, is an EXCELLENT point. Give me a half hour. I'll do it now. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joy:  Partly done The temperature, rainfall and list of location data (# km from some_location) have been restored. I will not be restoring the large box at the very bottom of the current incarnation of {{Infobox Australian place}} however. I stand by my previous comment that that section by convention does not go in the infobox but in a navbox (see {{Adjacent communities}} and its 28,000+ transclusions.).

  Obviously everyone is free to edit. So if you or someone else want to overrule me and implement it in the template you are, of course, free to do so. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What happens if one actually puts in {{adjacent communities|border=none}} or something like that inside infobox |embed=, could that work? --Joy (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Joy tagged you in a test I did in my sandbox. Technically it works, but it really looks horrible. {{adjacent communities}} is not designed to be that small and nested in an infobox. It is really designed to be a navbox at the bottom of an article or floated in the article body. How about this, let's see if there are any other objections to this content's removal? If it appears this is going to be a sticking point, I will investigate further implementing it. Sound reasonable? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly no objections to its removal from me. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it looks like we'd need an implementation without those arrows for that to work. Maybe it's possible to just extract the Australian place's compact implementation to a separate template. This would also make it easily countable. --Joy (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joy:  Done. I caved... I abstracted it out to {{Infobox Australian place/table}} to keep the code a little neater. But check the Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases now. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I also made a note about local_map/mapframe mapping in the Talk page, I'm sure it's fixable relatively easily. At the same time, now that the main template logic is used, we do get automatic mapframe on other test cases, nicely demonstrating a general benefit of this change - the Australian place infoboxes get to benefit from improvements done in the settlement infoboxes in general.

  Looking at the test cases, I see no other significant issue remaining. The removal of about 8 kilobytes of extra code seems worthwhile. (Merge) --Joy (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the time and effort you are putting in to this proposal. I'm sure it is not a trivial exercise. I think it is not ready yet. I've made more detailed comments on the talk page. Show stoppers for me at the moment are:
  1. Population drawn from Wikidata
  2. Local_map using OSM

Disappointment but not showstoppers are

1. The prominence of County if it's populated
2. The replacement of the state name with "town" or "suburb" in the second line.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 11:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottDavis: follow up on the comments on the talk page. Your showstoppers are not intended consequences and are in fact bugs in the code I have written. If you can provide me with links to pages where you saw the issue I will fix it. Unfortunately the nature of Wikidata is that it is very hard to test in a testcase. It really needs to be tested on an actual article so any assistance you can provide via linking me to pages would be greatly appreciated! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the issues you raised get resolved ScottDavis? Would you now be of a mind to merge? Dgp4004 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge when it is fully debugged, for WP-wide consistency. — hike395 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Question: It looks like {{Infobox Australian place}} is also used for protected areas such as Grampians National Park. In those cases, it should not wrap {{Infobox settlement}}, but {{Infobox protected area}}. This should be possible by changing |_template= to depend on |type=. The parameters might be inconsistent between the two wrapped templates, but on the other hand, perhaps any such inconsistency is a bug and should be flagged in Category:Pages using infobox Australian place with unknown parameters? — hike395 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hike395: that is totally valid. Per the param report there are about 1300 of these pages. I would argue this is a case of one thing at a time... But I will make that my next project, assuming this merge happens. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm confused by the implementation of the proposal to merge via rewriting the template as a wrapper template. That is not a merge because the template will continue to exist, won't it? There may be benefits regarding code maintenance, but there may also be drawbacks regarding undesired flow-ons. By and large, this seems like a mainly cosmetic exercise. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Michael Bednarek: so I went back and forth, and discussed with a few admins about the best approach for this. Technically it isn't a merge, but I decided this was the most appropriate avenue forward. You are correct that the template will absolutely continue to exists afterwards. We are doing a lot of testing and some issues have already been flushed out. The good news is that since no changes are being made to transclusions (I.E. removing of any parameters) any undesired flow-ons that are discovered down the road can easily be fixed. I encourage you to look at the testcases and feel free to {{ping|zackmann08}} me if you find any issues or have additional questions/concerns! - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>*:Strong Oppose Per the arguments I made last time: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 3#Template:Infobox Australian place. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My basic arguments are unlike other countries, Australian places have crucial information such as federal electorate, state electorate and local government area ETC. Note that Australia is a Federation and not a Unity state. I would actually support creating more seperate templates rather than a merge. Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already voted strong oppose but this does not include information on state electorate @Zackmann08 Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere:, before voting did you you actually look at the proposed change as demonstrated at Template:Infobox Australian place/testcases? None of the information you mentioned will be removed... In fact there will be NO information lost so you argument makes no sense... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08 Actually... Uh no. My bad. I am likely going to change my vote, but first, I want to raise a concern. About the top, I do honestly think having state at the top and not having to look down to find it is better, but I do also like the suburb/town/city thing. Is it possible to have both maybe? With like state below? I know some might argue it it is just which state boundaries they are in (Like which is the capital city of their state, examples, the capital of the state Cairns is in is Brisbane, using for no reason as that is one of them I saw not the side by side one) but in my perspective, politics is truly everything. Also, your argument is right. One thing I don't agree with is not having federal and state divisions on cities, same for local government areas. I know links on the article Sydney are outdated and might be inaccurate, but for smaller cities such as Cairns or Hobart, this can be useful. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere: MAJOR kudos for admitting your mistake. Not many people on here are willing to do that. I appreciate that you are willing to consider this merger on the merits of the actual changes being made. The nice thing about the conversion is that since NO parameter names are changing or being removed, changing how/where things are displayed down the line is easy. IMHO, this infobox should follow the conventions of {{Infobox settlement}} regarding where to display the state. BUT that is absolutely something that can be looked at. Can I make a suggestion? Let us see if we can get this merger to happen at all... Then discuss improvements (I have many ideas)? As I said, since no information is lost in the process, it can very easily be moved to the top later. I just don't want to make that change based on a single editor's request. I think it warrants a larger discussion and consensus. Make sense? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere can you please click through to {{Infobox Australian place/testcases}} and check if you see all the local government area and electorate lines both at the right and at the left hand side? --Joy (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin I hope you will note that the arguments against this change boil down to WP:OWN and the fact that there is a desire that no one other than people from Australia edit this infobox. Zero information has been removed so the arguments that this doesn't take into account Australia's unique features are also invalid. Finally there have been a number of comments that have pointed out minor issues or typos that have since been corrected. Despite being pinged to let them know their issue has been addressed those users have chosen not to return to comment and potentially change their opposition vote. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few days late, but changing vote to Merge after realising no content or history will be lost. One thing that is confusing is that one example of cities shows cities federal and state divisions, and LGA'S and one does not. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere:, please feel free to add more testcases! I am not Australian and some of the intricacies of divisions are lost on me. A number of errors have already been flushed out by Australian users who corrected my naivete. Any help is greatly appreciated. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge having read the discussion, I see no reason why Australia should have a separate infobox style, and doing so seems to be an attempt at a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing fundamental has changed since the previous time this proposal failed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: Did you look at the testcases? EVERYTHING has changed.. This is a wrapper and all functionality is kept. No previous attempt has actually created a wrapper. Rather than simply stating that nothing fundamental has changed could you possibly provide actual objections to the change? There are a number of issues that have been addressed. Would be helpful to know what your issues are. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying to this comment and expanding on what I meant on my talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had another look at the 2020 TfD to see to what extent the idea of a wrapper was discussed. The most fundamental difference from then and now is that people were rightfully suspicious whether it can be done - yet we now actually have a reasonable working prototype. I think this makes this discussion significantly different on the merits.

  There was a complaint from @AussieLegend saying you have to edit two infoboxes to make changes to the code. This is technically true, but it misses the point of sharing code - if Australian-related features are mainlined into the main template, while their testing infrastructure is kept, it's fairly safe to estimate that they will be maintained because a larger base of template editors are interested and can take care of any issues that may arise.

  There was a complaint from @Ymblanter saying there was an example of a Russian template wrapper where nobody was interested in correcting errors. I would appreciate more information about those errors, and an assessment of whether the current engagement of template editors matches this sort of disinterest in correcting errors or not.

  Finally there was a call from @Jonesey95 to demonstrate a wrapper. Has the nuance and customization so far been addressed in a satisfactory manner here? --Joy (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping. The objections in 2020 seemed valid to me, and nobody was willing to put forth the effort to create a wrapper, so I thought it was unwise to recommend an untested merge of this nuanced template. I have seen people say "sure, merge, it will be easy" and then watched either (a) nothing happen or (b) the merge fail because it was not easy, so I was wary at that time. If a wrapper has been created this time, and stakeholders in this template pretty much agree that it works well enough to replace the existing custom template, then a merge is probably a good way to go. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The documentation in the sandbox says The infobox has been extensively customised for Australia. When even the template acknowledges that it contains extensive customisation, we shouldn't merge it with another template. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: once again, have you actually examined the testcases or read the discussion about this? You clearly haven't because you saw we shouldn't merge it with another template which is NOT what is happening. This is a conversion to a Module:Template wrapper. None of the custom code written for Australia has been removed.

  I would point you to WP:READBEFORE, specifically The issue might be different than it seems. Please take the time to look at the testcases and read the discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal doesn't involve merging, why does the nominator begin with a big bold Propose merging? Let's rephrase this another way: this template is heavily customised for the Australian context, so leave it alone. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: as you know that is what happens when you use twinkle. Once again, did you actually LOOK at the change or the testcases? The customization for Australian places has not gone away... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template is heavily customised for Australia because Australian editors at that template have decided to do so due to their WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues. And the suggested merge actually incorporates most of the reasonable Australia-specific changes anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose From the very minor example provided on your sandbox I dislike the way the structure of the infobox is changed. I would also like to point out that Template:Infobox Australian Place is used for ALL Australian places, not just towns and this will not map well onto everything. I have issue with what I would call the overly complicated and arguably American-centric structure that Template:Infobox settlement uses and I don't think maps onto Australian places very well.

I especially Strongly oppose this change in relation to local government areas as I think the formatting does not map at all well onto Australian LGAs (or frankly local governments generally but that's another discussion).

While no information is technically lost, the changed structure I think does lose usefulness and ease of information in the current infobox structure. I'm absolutely open to tweaking and playing around with the infobox because it definitely has its issues but I don't like this sweeping conformist way of doing it and I feel a much better middle ground can be found. – Lord Beesus (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Beesus: can you provide some examples? For example, {{Infobox Australian place}} is no longer used for ANY projected areas in Australia. Those have all been converted to use {{Infobox protected area}}. This is a work in progress and many changes have been made during the TFD and ensuing discussion. Can you point me to a page or pages where your concerns are represented? Or perhaps one of the test cases? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to make Infobox settlement less American-centric, for the benefit of everyone? Could you please clarify which parts of the structure should be more flexible, so we could perhaps draft changes to address that in Infobox settlement? --Joy (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Regions of Johannesburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Regions of Johannesburg with Template:City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.
I believe the two templates are meant to show the same information. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template:Regions of Johannesburg. It is solely navigating categories, which is not the point of a navbox (intended for use in the mainspace). See WP:NAVBOX. Izno (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Izno. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Less than or equal to (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The character could be:

• copied
• or pasted with "Emoji & Symbols"

instead, though it would make it less easy to type, but is unused regardless. BodhiHarp 15:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator does not make a compelling case for deletion. There is an entire category of similar typing-aid templates, so it's not clear why this one is being singled out. The lack of usage may just indicate that people are substing it. And, as I get tired of having to repeat, as WP:TFD#3 states in bold for emphasis, being unused is not a reason for deletion unless there is also no likelihood of being used. The use case for this typing aid is perfectly plausible. Sdkb ^talk 15:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt people are substing a template that has no indication whatsoever that it is meant to be subst. What's more likely, is that this just isn't used at all. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the nominator did not give a good explanation, the template is unused and there is nothing to say that it is supposed to be substituted. While we are at it, delete its counterpart {{Greater than or equal to}}. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its documentation indicated that it's a typing aid, and most editors know that typing aids are meant to be substed. If you really care about it being spelled out, then a better ATD would have been to follow WP:SOFIXIT (I just did, adding a subst-only notice).

  Lastly, I will note for the closer that nothing in your !vote is a rebuttal to my WP:TFD3 argument above. Regardless of whether or not it has been used, unless you can demonstrate that it has no likelihood of being used, then the sole deletion argument is based on a misreading of policy and is unlikely to be given weight. Sdkb ^talk 20:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: After the second relist, the nominator crossed out their nomination. Sdkb ^talk 20:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest move to {{lte}}, while retaining current title as redirect. Similarly, would support moving {{Greater than or equal to}} to {{gte}}. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 23:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LTE" means Letter to the editor. "A letter to the editor[1] (LTE) is a letter sent to a publication about an issue of concern to the reader." A template with a name that needs disambiguation is a poorly-named template. --Rob Kelk 22:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sdkb. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:BirthDeathAge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are SO MANY templates for use with birth/death dates. I would argue this one should be done away with and replaced with {{death date and age}}, {{birth date and age}} or one of the others as is necessary. No need for such a complex template when the others are far better and more well maintained. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am generally in favor of merging, but the replacements will probably have to be performed and checked in batches by format. I suspect that there will be edge cases that are handled differently from how the destination templates typically handle input. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is absolutely one that will spend some time in the holding cell…—Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:Death date and age text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The functionality of this template has now been replicated in {{death date and age}}. Thus there is no longer a need for this template. It is my suggestion that this template be redirected to {{death date and age}} thus reducing the number of date templates that must be maintained. A side by side comparison of the two templates can be found here with various testcases. (Please feel free to add more testcases!) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95, Gonnym, and Frietjes: any thoughts? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months, which can be a boon in some infoboxes (where these templates are used). Unless I'm missing something, while {{death date and age text}} allows for this (e.g. {{death date and age text|3 Oct 2025|1809-02-12}}), {{death date and age}} does not. As such, I would oppose redirecting or changing the template. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fourthords: you are partially 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}} overrides Oct with October. 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.

  That being said, given that it works (and that I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed) what are your thoughts on merging? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:First line indent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

en.wiki does not use first line indent so this template doesn't have usage here. Even if we did use this style, we'd probably not use a template to hide the text for accessibility issues. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you and the template documentation note, first line indents aren't used here. The main reason for me adding it was to provide the template for others who may wish to use (say, on a wiki, or user page) a fairly conventional print style. I would only push for it to be kept as there are some who do look for this exact template: {{Hanging indent}} exists and this simply compliments it.

Interesting note about text scanning for accessibility. I am guessing that substituting the template would help? — aoyma3 (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at {{Hanging indent}} and it seems that most (could be all) of its usages, are from Template:USCongRep-row. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Enwiki is not a repository of code to use on other wikis. If templates won't be used here, they shouldn't be here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

• Template:The Da Vinci Code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dan Brown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:The Da Vinci Code with Template:Dan Brown.
No reason not to merge these, there is substantial duplication here. Only the "Deriviative media" section and two other links are not included at the propsed target. --woodensuperman 09:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different proposal. Rename Template:The Da Vinci Code to either "Robert Langdon (novel series)" or "Robert Langdon (franchise)" (based on Robert Langdon (novel series) / Robert Langdon (franchise)). Make sure navbox includes all links from those pages. Keep only works that Dan Brown wrote in Template:Dan Brown and remove all the rest. The topic and the author while sharing a lot of links, are not the same. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought to that firstly, but then you'd end up with only two articles (novels) in {{Dan Brown}} that weren't in {{Robert Langdon}}, so you'd be seeing a similar level of substantial crossover. --woodensuperman 13:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, I'm not convinced we need three Robert Langdon articles, but this isn't the right forum for that discussion) --woodensuperman 13:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of the adaptions have nothing to do with Ban Brown directly so those are much less fitting there. The Da Vinci Code (video game) and The Da Vinci Code (soundtrack) for example. So the overlap is just a subset of the topics. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there were fewer Robert Langdon articles, this would be simpler! But as a second choice happier to go along with your suggestion to move to a {{Robert Langdon}} navbox than what we have now. It's strange not having all of the sequels to The Da Vinci Code in {{The Da Vinci Code}} at present. --woodensuperman 15:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for analogous templates. {{Rick Riordan}} didn't fit. So what about {{Jack Reacher}}? Or {{Harry Potter}} and {{J. K. Rowling}}? How about the examples below? Οἶδα (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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