Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Instructions)
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 6 33 39
TfD 0 0 2 13 15
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 54 54
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

How to use this page

edit

What not to propose for discussion here

edit
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

edit
Shortcut
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

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

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

Listing a template

edit
Shortcuts

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

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

Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_August_31#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

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

Notify users

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

edit

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

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

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

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

Discussion

edit

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

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

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

Closing discussion

edit

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

Current discussions

edit

August 31

edit

Template:Articles with topics of unclear notability chart

edit

Template using the graph extension (with one token usage). See related discussion here. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articles lacking sources chart

edit

Template using the graph extension (with one token usage). See related discussion here. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Unused template using the graph extension. See related discussion here. Gonnym (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critics' Choice Super Awards for Best Villain in a Movie

edit

Unused duplicate of Template:Critics' Choice Super Award for Best Villain in a Movie. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critics' Choice Super Awards for Best Actress in a Horror Movie

edit

Unused duplicate of Template:Critics' Choice Super Award for Best Actress in a Horror Movie. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critics' Choice Super Awards for Best Actor in a Horror Movie

edit

Unused duplicate of Template:Critics' Choice Super Award for Best Actor in a Horror Movie. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 30

edit

Template:2030 FIFA World Cup

edit

Fails WP:NENAN, only includes two links. Re-create closer to the date. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone current

edit

Deprecated with no transclusions in article space Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ds/sanction

edit

Deprecated with no transclusions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lead LGBT Project

edit

Deprecated with no transclusions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LOCEarchive

edit

Deprecated with no transclusions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Standard gauge

edit

Deprecated with no transclusions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Script data

edit

Tagged as deprecated Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requestforcomment

edit

Template is deprecated and has no transclutions Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of China

edit

Propose merging Template:Culture of China with Template:China topics.
Same as my previous discussion per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS, following this ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#Culture sidebars part 3. Absolutiva 10:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of the United States

edit

Propose merging Template:Culture of the United States with Template:United States topics.
Same as my previous discussion per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS, following this ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#Culture sidebars part 3. Absolutiva 10:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of the Republic of Artsakh

edit

Propose merging Template:Culture of the Republic of Artsakh with Template:Artsakh topics.
Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS, following this ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#Culture sidebars part 3. Absolutiva 10:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salgaocar F.C. squad

edit

This team does not exist anymore. The club still exists, but according to Salgaocar F.C. the club "is currently operating youth teams". Geschichte (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 29

edit

Template:Prehistory of Somalia

edit

Sidebar with no transclusions and no blue links in the body. Not usable for navigation. No prejudice to recreation if the articles are created later. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the template. I would like to let u know that the 'Prehistory of Somalia' article is still in draft form and not yet published in the main namespace. The template I created is intended to serve as a navigational sidebar for that article and its sub-sections, including periods like the Middle Stone Age, Late Stone Age, Neolithic, etc. Once the main article and its sub-sections are published, the template will function properly with fully clickable links. I plan to update and refine the template accordingly when the article is ready. Sheriefo (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1984-85 NBA Record vs. opponents

edit

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why this template exists. It appears to be article content copied directly from https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1985_standings.html#all_team_vs_team – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boris Johnson family tree

edit

Unused family tree. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 members of Boris's (immediate?) family have their own Wikipedia articles. I think that justifies keeping (and using) this template. Darrelljon (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been the subject of stories in reputable media outlets https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/21/boris-johnson-admits-he-has-six-children Darrelljon (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then add it to those articles if you feel it should be added. If it ends up unused again, then you have your answer. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dunham family tree

edit

Unused family tree. Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB Position Key

edit

Unused legend template. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Nmbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to import styles from meta or anywhere else. The current style used on en.wiki is {{Navbox}}. If a change in style is wanted, it should be proposed instead. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 CY Marked speedy. waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


August 28

edit

Template:2034 FIFA World Cup

edit

Navbox for a 2034 event. WAY too soon to be useful for navigation. No prejudice to recreation in 2032 or thereabouts, when there are multiple articles to link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may well just never get used if a different approach to nav becomes established by then, which may be possible. It seems like a step backwards to delete something inevitable, but what norm would be set if such early prep were tolerated. waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've also nominated the 2030 template. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multi-Doctor stories

edit

A navbox for a concept that lacks an article. A general user will not be familiar with what this concept is given it is not discussed anywhere on-wiki and uses fan-terminology to define it, making it confusing for anyone not familiar with the series. Its navigational use for anyone but fans is minimal. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware of the requirement that a navbox requires a main article? This template helps in navigating between episodes with the same theme. I'm also not seeing any fan-terminology, and the statement that it is not discussed anywhere on-wiki is false given the entire section of The Doctor#Multi-Doctor stories exists. Please consider nominating a guideline or policy for a solid deletion nomination. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 27

edit

Template:Rassilon stories

edit

Story navigation template for a supporting Doctor Who character. With only three major on-screen roles and only two spin-off appearances that (After some research) seem to be his only spin-off appearances with any degree of notability. The character has so few appearances I do not see why we need an entire navigational template dedicated solely to him, and the character still has an article anyway where all this information is already kept anyway. I do not see a need for this template in particular. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not possible for there to be any more links to populate in its lifetime, and to expect a reader to load the heavy weight navbox template every pageview for wikilinks that should be in the article about the character anyway is not cool. waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA Women's Europa Cup

edit

Navbox with no transclusions and only one season of this football competition, which has not even happened yet. The navbox was created prematurely. No prejudice to recreation of this navbox once there are enough articles to make it useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup federal judge bio

edit

Ambox that has a very specific purpose and which today is totally unused in the mainspace. {{cleanup}} with a custom rationale should be sufficient now (or possibly some {{clean imported article}} or similar). Izno (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't know whether this has fallen unused because all the cleanup has been done, or because it has just been removed from FJC bio articles in favor of other cleanup templates. BD2412 T 03:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with reservation simply because I wish we could keep for historical interest. What a peculiar and oddly specific template! Satisfying, fascinating to think someone spent the time to customise it so eloquently with a logo just for this specific purpose! waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 26

edit

Template:Talkown

edit

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use-cases waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYK count topicon

edit

Used on only one user page. It might have general utility but it's been over a decade with only the one use. Izno (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saturday Evening Post

edit

Just three articles, no main article to explain what the subject is. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 15:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should be wikilinked in body text, no need for beefy navbox with every pageload waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Index to chemical element pages/group pages inline

edit

No transclusions of this subpage. No incoming links or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to existing periodic table templates. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 05:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Couldn't this have been tagged speedy under T5: Unused template subpages? waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfcquote

edit

Whatever the original purpose of this template is, it appears to have been left behind, and in some cases actively replaced by something else. The talk page has discussions about the failure of this template to work properly in some situations, which may be why it has been reduced from a reported 300 transclusions to just 50. I think that merging this template into {{blockquote}} or a similar template would reduce maintenance burden. I welcome input that helps me understand why this template exists and how it was intended to be different from our more widely used quotation templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This template is used by Legobot (talk · contribs) to build the RfC listing pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, so the number of transclusions will vary according to (a) the number of open WP:RFCs and (b) the number of RfC categories that an open RfC has been placed in.
    On a technical note, before proposing a change to how the RfC listings operate, you must ensure that Legoktm (talk · contribs) is willing to amend the bot's code (past experience suggests that only "unbreak now!" amendments will be considered).
    @Jonesey95: You state in some cases actively replaced by something else - where has this occurred? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, it seems to be redundant to {{Blockquote}}. I tested it here, and Template:Blockquote seemed to work fine. Again, I could be wrong. What features of this template make it unique such that turning it into a redirect will break it, or the bot's process? As for quoting me, the complete quote would have been ... it appears to have been left behind, and in some cases actively replaced by something else. I said "appears" because the template has gone from a reported 300 transclusions to 50 transclusions. There may be another reason for this drastic reduction. Do you have any response to my request for input above? Why does the template exist, and how is it intended to be different from {{blockquote}} or a similar template? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't create Legobot, I don't know its history, I am not fully familiar with its technical functions, nor do I operate it. But I do know that the bot uses the template and that recoding the bot is not a light matter. I have observed the bot maintaining the RfC listings for several years, and have seen two or three attempts to alter the templates that the bot uses. which have resulted in widespread difficulties that were only resolved by putting the templates back to how they were. In short: WP:AINTBROKE. As for the variable number of transclusions - RfCs are started, and after a while, they end. That's the idea - no RfC should be allowed to progress indefinitely. If there's been a general trend downward in the transclusion count, perhaps fewer RfCs are being raised, or perhaps somebody's been cleaning up misuses such as this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Legobot is reliant on it, per Redrose64 there have been previous failed attempts to replace the template, all failed. Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bot reliant, changed use of <block quote>...</block quote> to {{block indent}} per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. To ensure screen reader isn't flooded with unnecessary semantics. Accessibility semantics are the CSS for readers with visual impairment, messing with their CSS is like messing with ours and adding lots of color and bold where it's not necessary :-) waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transjakarta infobox

edit

Unnecessary new station infobox. Usages in articles previously used {{Infobox station}}. If there were missing parameters that were needed, they should have been proposed on that template's talk page. Restore previous article usages, delete template without merging anything. Any merger proposal should be first proposed on the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may proceed with the deletion now. Thanks. Mtlh01p (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CRC87

edit

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA Women's Europa Cup winners

edit

Quite literally unpopulated, and would remain so until May next year. It also wouldn't have a population of wikilinks large enough to even justify a navbox for at least five to ten years. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rotten readability. Not enough (i.e. zero) links to warrant a navigation template. The Banner talk 11:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OlympicsQualificationCaveat

edit

This ambox is not a good ambox. Amboxes are about page issues, not for talking to the reader, which we should avoid anyway. Any article which generally refuses to include the full set of rules (which is fine since our objective is to summarize external sources) should cover the important ones and leave the rest to the reader via further reading or external links. IznoPublic (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this template? The Banner talk 13:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SET Index 100

edit

No separate article for this index. And the existing SET50 Index and SET100 Index does not say anything about the Set100 Index. The Banner talk 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well populated, article links helpful, only err on the side that the main article lists all these wikilinks anyway waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the main article mentions none of the names listed in this template as that is dedicated to the SET50 Index with just a few words for the SET100. The Banner talk 11:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 25

edit

Template:2023 Ohio Valley Conference football standings and similar

edit

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. This is article content that is highly unlikely to change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, seems like there was some merger of the conferences as all the articles are using Template:2023 Big South–OVC football standings instead? Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culture sidebars part 3

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. Follow-up to the LAT precedents (Liechtenstein, Andorra, Transnistria) a.k.a. Culture sidebars part 1, and Culture sidebars part 2, which all resulted in merge. NLeeuw (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I just finished tagging. Maybe I should try Mass TFD next time, although I've got a tendency to make mass errors when I do, so... For this one, I decided to tag them all manually. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for merge: Thanks for the ping. I'm not really familiar with sidebars because I don't tend to use them, but I will say that I supported the ones for the microstates because the articles mostly overlapped. By looking through some of these for larger countries, it seems to be a similar case, but I can also see arguments against merging. TheBritinator (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To display all subcategories click on the "►":
Canada sidebar templates (1 C, 41 P)

Moxy🍁 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests

edit
Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests into Template:Mongol Empire, specifically the "Campaigns & Battles" section, of which it is pretty much a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, placed inappropriately as a WP:LEADSIDEBAR without a good excuse. Reason: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I recommend reading User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#1 war rule as a further rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ARKive

edit

This doesn't seem to work? On pages like Central African rock python, Ruff (bird) or Wollemia, it contains no identifying information, just linking to the main page or Arkive. On other pages, it contains an incorrect link (e.g. on Indri and Gentoo penguin), and when I manually correct the URL on e.g. Gentoo Penguin[1], I get three captures like this one, all saying "website unavailable". Or I get [2] one that hasn't been archived at all.

I obviously haven't checked all uses of this template, but even if some would turn out to be working, the error rate is way too high to be a useful addition. Fram (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OSM Location map/ArcText

edit

Unused after this edit converted the template to use a module backend. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{OSM Location map/ModuleSandbox}} is a useful way to call the actual module sandbox, and is used by the useful test collection of templates in the doc. It is only relevent if/when features are being considered, but it, or something like it, would need recreating one day if it was deleted.
The two 'temp' items were stopgap templates with no further interest.
All of the others embody the development process and last working state of the pre-lua template. Since the lua module does not carry forward any of that development or rational history, it would be lost if these are deleted. I have no idea if that matters or not. I agree that them staying within the current {{OSM Location map}} space is unhelpful for both clarity and to anyone looking to use the lua version on other wikis. If there is a place where such things get archived, that would seem a good solution, but if not I am content they are deleted. RobinLeicester (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't really setup as an archive site, nor does it need to. Template:OSM Location map/sandbox is used to call the module sandbox (as it should) making Template:OSM Location map/ModuleSandbox redundant. Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Higher education task force test2

edit

Unused stale tests. This also isn't how tests should be made. If you are testing something, use Module:Higher education task force/testcases. If you are working on a sandbox, use Module:Higher education task force/sandbox. There is hardly a valid reason for the same person to work on 3 different sandboxes at the same time. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each version was an iterative version which was being presented to people at the same time, but I wasn't aware of /testcases as being an option, and agree that would be better. Is there any reference page I can look at for future issues like this? No one pointed me in the right direction. Thanks. Is it ok if I move these pages to the appropriate place myself? Tduk (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:PieChart

edit

Currently this is broken due to the graph extension being permanently broken. Given this state, it would be best to delete this template, especially given the fact it only used in 20 places, none of which are articles, and many of which relate to the template itself. I suggest deleting it to reduce confusion and prevent accidental use. There is consensus, as Template:PageViews graph was deleted on similar grounds. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think it's worth the effort porting the graphs over. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 09:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


August 24

edit

Module:Higher education task force

edit

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Owidslider

edit

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

The plan is to use it eventually to do this MDWiki:WikiProjectMed:OWID/List_of_graphs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still working on it then it should be moved to your draft namespace. A single edit and left for 6 months clearly shows that it is not being worked on. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have had three discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Improvements are being made on MDWiki:Main_Page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6 months without work to me is stale and unusable. If this is a WIP it should be moved to a userspace or draftspace. Gonnym (talk) 07:51, 25 August 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, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and stale. The Banner talk 13:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Antiguan and Barbudan English

edit

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

  • Keep: I added to the vocabulary section. It should be noted that Creole is distinct from Antiguan and Barbudan English– in addition to nearly all Creole terms having a different spelling standard, Antiguan and Barbudan English is also explicitly taught in schools and is the only standard used by the Antiguan and Barbudan government. Terms like whitewood, bilbush, and bay can be easily understood by international English speakers, and more technical terms relating to daily life can also be easily understood. I am expanding the article at the moment and I will include more sourcing. CROIXtalk 23:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Croix. You might want to add 'keep' in bold to make your vote clear. I must say though, several of the terms that you have added to the article just now might actually undermine your point. They highlight differences with American English, not British English. Terms like 'chips' and 'holiday' are British terms. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reminder. And yes, there are some similarities between American-English differences, but many of the terms listed are unique to Antiguan and Barbudan English. I will expand the vocabulary section with more formal vocabulary shortly. I am currently searching for more educational style guides on the dialect. It should also be noted that Antiguan and Barbudan English is distinct from acrolectal Antiguan and Barbudan Creole, the most similar form of Creole to English– the terms listed in the vocabulary section are used in print media, state media, and legislation. CROIXtalk 23:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ENGVAR was established to stop battles between spelling such color/colour. It is not practical to expect every known English dialect to be used when editing a corresponding article. Nor would it be helpful since articles should be written in commonly used English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are spelling differences in Antiguan and Barbudan English and British English, for example spellings ending in -se and -ze. There are also minor differences in vocabulary that are normal between major English dialects. These Antigua-specific differences are not present in other Caribbean English dialects such as Trinidadian English or Jamaican English, that for the most part have identical spelling to British English according to their respective articles. Are these differences too subtle to justify a separate template? CROIXtalk 09:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lack of sources for these claims, which is half the trouble. But I've just looked at an AB Government document to see if they use '-se' or '-ze'. They use 'analyse', 'analysed' or 'analyses' 9 times. Whereas 'analyze' only appears once. Likewise, 'amortisation' as opposed to 'amortization'. I'm not convinced that any American spellings aren't simply spelling errors.
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf Dgp4004 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article is properly sourced with two local dictionaries, -ze spellings can be seen in legislation:
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2013-9.pdf
  • American words such as "license" being used in favour of "licence" in the same document (76 times) and legislation:
https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2024_Antigua_Estimates.pdf
https://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/a2015-3.pdf
  • And spellings like "authorize" being preferred by state-controlled media:
https://abstvradio.com/cbh-issues-reminder-to-business-operators-on-protocols/ CROIXtalk 21:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Antiguan Standard English isn't an attempt to write British English if that is what you are trying to say. The academic writing style of everyday Antiguan English speakers is reflected the cited dictionaries and considering British English is not taught in Antigua and Barbuda in any form, why expect editors using this variety to have to adopt it on the articles they write about Antigua and Barbuda (MOS:TIES) – I presume British English is the variety you wish for the Antigua and Barbuda article and others to be written with. And yes, you will see various forms of English being used in certain documents as a very large number people are educated abroad. Antigua and Barbuda also has no official language and thus there is no one correct variety– at the end of the day the Antiguan government isn't investing too much into style guides in official publications. A third of the country’s population are also immigrants from other English speaking countries further increasing diversity in the variety of English used in official documents. I also recommend you check out the very recently created Template:Use Caribbean English which could replace this template while still allowing editors to use MOS-compliant local vocabulary and spelling. CROIXtalk 01:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template is an attempt to establish a new "variety" of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used. It also creates an unacceptable burden for the majority of editors, who have no reasonable way of determining what the characteristics of the variety are. —Quondum 21:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly explains Antiguan English spelling. I also imagine we may want to include other Caribbean English (and many other) templates in this discussion as they were also created without an ENGVAR discussion, which is a reasonable point. Templates such as Template:Use Belizean English were reasonably but unilaterally created in the last few days (additionally see Template talk:Use Caribbean English and the proposed policy linked in the main comment on that page). A centralized discussion on these templates would be more than useful and would hopefully allow for a consensus on what to do with Caribbean English-related topics. CROIXtalk 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A centralized discussion about a guideline prohibiting addition of ENGVAR templates is sorely needed, but it in no way obviates the need for dealing with this one here, now. And just because others exists does not justify this one. The existence of ENGVAR diversity is unfortunate: the creation of this creeping perceived free-for-all for every dialect on the planet is an inevitable consequence. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ping @Asdfjrjjj: as this mention of their recently created template may be of interest. CROIXtalk 01:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: This is the first time I've ever come across this guidance, and I have been through a whoooooole lot of these TfDs and ENGVAR-related discussions. If this is policy/guidance/consensus, would you mind linking to it (as it actually is relevant to some templates I just created)? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. A MOS is precisely to keep style uniformity, and its scope includes this. ENVAR did not arise without discussion. I think that it recognizes any distinct varieties is antithetical to a MOS, but surely you are not going to claim that acceptance of the two dominant ENGVAR varieties occurred without discussion? As I've said, IMO these discussions do not belong under TfD. You are not making yourself sound serious through the sarcasm implied by your emphasis. —Quondum 11:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Quondum: I apologise I really didn't mean to imply sarcasm (would've tagged [sarcasm] in that case) - was honestly just surprised and tired last night, given how much time and effort I put into finding previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates. To be quite clear though (especially since Dgp4004 seems to possibly share this stance), the only policy/guidance/consensus backing the stance "first gain recognition at MOS for a variant as an ENGVAR variant that may be used" is that (i) there was a MOS discussion to establish AmE and BrE as ENGVAR variants that may be used on Wikipedia, and so (ii) any new variants seeking to be used on Wikipedia must first gain recognition at MOS, like AmE and BrE did. Does that represent the position accurately? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that I'm being overreactive, so I owe you an apology in turn. Your summary seems a close summary of my stance, with the caveat that this is given the current ENGVAR (I personally do not think that the ENGVAR policy makes sense, but that ship has sailed). My "stance" is in fact not based on historical discussion, just on the common-sense-based perception that without some constraint, a few nation-proud editors can create chaos with the freedom to sidestep a proper discussion around acceptance of each new variety. —Quondum 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editors Quondum and Dgp4004: this is actually reasonable imo (if only a bit at odds with ENGVAR, possibly), and I'm sorry for not thinking of this (had thought the UBE discussion would do)! There's actually a MOS discussion atm that's very relevant to this, so I'll note this stance over there, and wait for the outcome of that discussion, then TfD nom the {{Use X English}} templates I created, and then prolly do as suggested here for the relevant dialects (but would definitely cite this discussion re propriety of even opening such a discussion on MOS talk).
    As regards this template though, vote remains keep (for same reasons), pending aforementioned MOS discussion. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quondum WP:ENGVAR literally says "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." There is no requirement for certain national varieties to undergo a MOS discussion before being used. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reading an orthogonal permission into something that was in no way addressing the idea of introducing new varieties, simply from an absence of a statement addressing your claim? —Quondum
  • Comment: To debunk the notion that ABE is too heavily influenced by Creole, here is a fictional illustrative passage I made to show the differences between Antiguan and Barbudan English and ABC, both examples following style guidelines on the respective dialect/language's article.
Antiguan and Barbudan Creole:
  • De X unu wan dutë pät Wilikë ë pan wie naigaändem lub fu um gudgud vyüändem de Deb'lbrij unu bigbig libtingändem gwän dai sün. Pan 2022, wan grüp owsaiting lublubändem së pan de bush an täk fätë fu wan-ändred de änim'ländem kud hab dey yäd gwän-wei.
Antiguan and Barbudan English:
  • X is a dirt path in Willikies, known for its scenic views of Devil's Bridge and a large number of endangered species. In 2022, a group of researchers analyzed the surrounding bushland, finding that forty percent of wildlife in the area was at risk of habitat loss.
Following the guidelines on the article, ABE is perfectly suitable to be used on Wikipedia under the Manual of Style– and is clearly very distinct from ABC. Even though the above passage contains two distinct Antiguan terms and more importantly, plenty of spelling conventions that differ from both British and American English, it is perfectly readable to an international English speaker. CROIXtalk 09:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strongly disagree with every single thing nom said, and with all but Quondum's delete votes (in case that's actual guidance or consensus). As an aside to nom and deletionists: pls, pls, plssssss do group TfDs for any unwanted {{Use X English}} templates, I beeeg. This piecemeal nomination campaign since the EngvarB saga is sooo, sooooooo tiresome and confusing. Nom's rationale applies to more than one current {{Use X English}} template - plsss just be consistent and nominate all applicable templates! (Reasons for my strong disagreement are the same as in my 5 Aug vote in the recent UCamE TfD - amended to add that I'd consider voting delete if this template were merged/passed to {{UCarE}} with all tracking categories preserved [ie {{UCarE}} code updated accordingly], but only in a group TfD b/c honestly that template's destined for TfD soon-ish from the looks of it.) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might send the same request back to you: please stop creating language templates without consensus. You know it's controversial but quietly proceed anyway. We have to discuss each in turn because some have much less merit than others.
    This is the first I have heard of this Use Carribbean English template. I have no doubt we will be discussing the merits of that one in a separate discussion so I don't want to get sidetracked onto that now. But I don't understand what you and Croix are suggesting. You want both individual English templates for each small island or island group because each variety is so unique, and you also want a pan-Carribbean template because they're so similar? You want to keep both? Dgp4004 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or are you each changing your votes to 'merge' into Use Carribbean English? In which case, we can always suspend this discussion until we've examined the merits of that one. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a read of the template. I must say, I can't see any merit in merging into that one. Rather than simplify, it appears to be an attempt to introduce a dozen different uncodified 'varieties' of English. Has there been a consensus I have missed to create that? I cannot understand why you would proceed knowing how controversial it would be. And without even discussing it here on a template it is designed to replace. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Dgp4004: I didn't really appreciate this, if I'm being honest, as imo I only created {{UCarE}} and {{UBelE}} after extensive discussion and readings of previous relevant discussions. Those were the result of a UBE discussion, where I tried my best to find previous guidance/consensus on these {{Use X English}} templates, and I likewise tried my best in creating the templates to meet everyone's diverging requirements/wishes (see UCarE talk). So we can for sure discuss the templates' merits/demerits in a group TfD for them (a consistent grouping though, with no illogical exclusions pls), but the charge that they were created carelessly, inappropriately, or underhandedly I'll not accept, given I know that a lot of time, effort, and thought went into their quite public creation (ofc they might still be TfD-worthy, but for other reasons, not this one imo).
    And for the record re this stance ("stop creating language templates without consensus"), this is not guidance/consensus I encountered before (else ofc I wouldn't have breached it!), and as I commented to Quondum above, I would actually appreciate seeing any relevant policy/guideline/consensus establishing this stance, and would ofc support deletion of any templates (regardless of author) which breached policy/guideline/consensus! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. There is nothing stopping you from churning out another eighty odd of these templates. The only way to combat what I consider this harmful trend is through the TfD process, which you deem a 'piecemeal nomination campaign' that is 'sooo, sooooooo tiresome'. I can absolutely assure you, I do not enjoy these discussions any more than you do. But if you won't discuss them beforehand, we have to discuss them after their creation. I'm sorry if that causes distress, but as I said above - you must have known what you were doing would be controversial and would trigger more TfDs, especially as you have read so extensively. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we haven't even got to yours yet! I would much rather we focus on the matter at hand: this template designed to protect such unique terms as 'holiday', 'upper house' and 'African'. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgp4004 @CROIX @Johnuniq @Quondum Just a note to alert all participants to the extremely relevant discussion currently ongoing at the MOS talk page. Please come and weigh in there if you want to. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (non-admin closure)
This deletion discussion is very much intertwined with the concurrent MOS discussion, and as far as is concerned there exists no consensus right now (2 !votes each for delete and keep respectively).
The question here now is, do we want to wait for a consensus at the MOS before deciding on this template's fate, or come to a local consensus first?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 17:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with an above sentiment. These language templates should only be created after a consensus has been achieved. Some of the recent language templates had no written word difference, some have word difference that make it much harder for the casual reader to understand the text. The fact that this didn't exist until a few months ago and everything worked, shows that this isn't necessary. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mostly per Gonnym, and this doesn't seem important enough to warrant a template. FaviFake (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merging from

edit

This template and {{Being merged}} do exactly the same thing. From a quick look, it appears {{Being merged}}:

  • has a much more solid code and is more flexible,
  • has more parameters,
  • has better documentation and templatedata, and
  • handles its params more gracefully in case they are not provided. (in comparison, {{Merging from}} contradicts itself if the target is not given)

Also, its codebase is similar to that of {{Being split}}, which, unlike merging, is the only template that can be used for splitting after consensus. I don't see why we'd need two of these.

Oh, and here are the WLH stats:

FaviFake (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FaviFake have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better. If you are merging there is always a target article. This template is designed to go on the target article. The other is generic. :Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}} (currently a redirect).
These correspond to the {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} templates. The direction of the merge is important.
If you want to mess about you could construct a common template, or nice slow lua module as a back end. But the semantics of template names are important.
Next time why not talk to me first? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better
Could you mention in which specific cases it's better? It doesn't even link to the instructions for merging… Besides, we can always add a param to change the text, but, again, I don't understand in which cases it'd be more useful as a separate template.
If you are merging there is always a target article.
Not necessarily. Oftentimes, the target is discussed within the discussion, and {{Being merged}} does an excellent job at accomodating that possibily. Instead, {{Merging from}} doesn't even allow you to specify it's just one article that's going to be merged, if the target is unknown.
Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}
Again, {{Being merged}} already does that with the |direction=to/from parameter. Please see Template:Being_merged/testcases. We definitely don't need three templates doing the same thing.
The direction of the merge is important.
I agree!!
But the semantics of template names are important.
I don't understand what you mean. What's important and for what?
I guess the question I'm asking is: What does this template do that the others don't, exactly? The others already support direction of merge, lack of target or direction, etc. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source - we are all human, and a label when we are working is a good reminder.
{{Being merged}} does not accommodate multiple source pages. It requires more typing. (This is actually a classic, you can combine any number of templates by adding new named arguments. People always want to combine but it's not necessarily a good idea, it's for example relatively easy to remember "merge from" → "merging from" and "merge to" → "merging to", but remembering the names and values of parameters is harder.)
{{Being merged}} doesn't make the source page(s) clear.
As for "instructions" (we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?) for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Also, as I said above you could maintain the semantic advantage and make one a wrapper of the other. This will please people who think we are going to be constantly updating these templates, by reducing the mythical "maintenance load".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
Not always and not necessarily. See the mess at placeholder name, for example
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source.
Yeah but that doesn't mean that the underlying code and the text displayed should be completely different and incompatible...
we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?
yes we do?????
As for "instructions" for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Or you could just... use the existing template, which already does that? Why would we add a new parameter to mimick another template that is used in the same way for the same purpose?
Your argument seems to be: if someone is editing the page, and they are editing it using the source editor (VE doesn't have these problems), then in that case it is apparently easier for them to type a template that is different from the template that they will inevitably also have to type on the source page.
Personally, it seems like a weak argument for maintaining two very different templates that, again, do the same thing. FaviFake (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd for someone who barely edits articles and more on the Project space to make any such argument because redundancy helps out in the end. WP:NOTBROKE is a very basic guideline. You keep on messing around in the Project space not understanding the 20 years of this project. – The Grid (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "Do not fix links to redirects that are not broken" has to do with a TfD deletion discussion. You may be looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but I don't see how this is apparently a perfect situation.
Also, could you elaborate on the need of this "20-year project" to have two different codebases for two templates that fulfill the same purpose? This is not redundancy, this is a duplication of efforts and, in my opinion, a waste of template editors' time. FaviFake (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what to point at, how about you literally stop editing on ANYTHING with the Project space. You are flat out disruptive with your edits. WP:CIR applies at every new edit you make on the Project space. – The Grid (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exploding organisms

edit

Unnecessary, unhelpful navbox. Some of the links here are redirects/duplicates (Exploding donkeyExploding donkey is a redirect to Animal-borne bomb attacks which is already listed here, while Exploding toadsExploding toads redirects to Exploding animal). And Exploding Kittens (a card game) and Exploding White Mice (a band) seem to be listed here solely because they have the word "Exploding" in their name. This has to be one of the silliest navboxes I've ever seen. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – makes no sense. FaviFake (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the navbox is an inconsistent hodgepodge of articles that begins with the word "Exploding". Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 11:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

edit

August 23

Template:WikiLove

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiLove with Template:Blank WikiLove.
Two templates that both style themselves as the meta template for WikiLove banners. Sdkb talk 21:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Puerto Rico

[edit]

Template has been superseded by a catch-all U.S. territorial template; currently only transcluded by a draft article Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 06:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge into the territorial template. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Guam

[edit]

Template has been superseded by a catch-all U.S. territorial template Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 06:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge into the territorial template. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Template:Authority control (arts)

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Template:Sons of Seasons

[edit]

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

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

Template:LDRGB

[edit]

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

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

August 18

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 12

Template:Undertale

[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox general election

[edit]

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

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

August 11

Template:PZLA

[edit]

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

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

Template:Website builders

[edit]

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

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

Template:Taxonbar/exists

[edit]

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

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

August 5

Template:Tire

[edit]

This template seems to violate:

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

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

July 22

Template:Subjsec

[edit]

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

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

July 2

Template:Talk page of disambiguation page

[edit]

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

  • The 34-transclusion template really doesn't matter compared to the other one. Its content only has one extra sentence which warns against using barely watched Talk pages. This is why we have WP Disambiguation tagging - so that RMs proposed there automatically appear on article alerts where people are watching. The documentation for the other template says it should never be the only thing on the Talk page of disambiguation page, which means it's mostly useless anyway. The alerting facility currently provided by WP Disambiguation tags needs to be maintained. If someone wants to volunteer the work needed to implement it automatically in the banner shell or wherever, and replace it automatically, that's fine, but it's largely orthogonal to the idea of dealing with the barely used template which triggered this TfD. History seems to indicate this was basically a failed experiment, and it was partially reverted once already. This all strikes me as making of a mountain out of a molehill. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the wikiproject tags only things related to disambiguation anyway 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

edit

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1307605044"