Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
"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 Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 1 39 0 40
TfD 0 1 23 0 24
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 1 15 0 16
RfD 0 0 51 0 51
AfD 0 0 3 0 3
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_October_4#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]

October 4

[edit]

Template:Infobox Australian place

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian place with 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]

@Zackmann08 Can you reimplement those custom location, LGA, etc fields using blank*_name_sec*? --Joy (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoahMusic2009/Userboxes/Falangista

[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 G4 by Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that other pro-fascist userboxen have been deleted before. See WP:HID and WP:NONAZIS. It was also previously deleted. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CCK

[edit]

As it stands now, it's using a non-free flag with no valid fair use rationale for every single use. Bedivere (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boeing model numbers

[edit]

The information presented here appears to be based on WP:OR, and inconclusive research at that. It uses an undefined meaning of "model number" and redirects readers to articles about aircraft with unlike model numbers (e.g., "733" links to Boeing 2707). Three or more blue links often point to a single article. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond to the perceived problems directly as well. I'm not sure what you mean by undefined meaning of "model number", as the model numbers in question are the ones assigned by Boeing. This inevitably leads to cases where there are multiple links to articles covering multiple models, but there's not much that can realistically be done about that while keeping the entries in sequential order. Also, in the case of "733" linking to Boeing 2707, it's because the Boeing Model 733 is covered in the article.
That said, you do otherwise make a good point about WP:OR, but that should be an easy fix and doesn't warrant deletion. - ZLEA TǀC 19:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is strongly against deletion, that's OK. What follows is not further argument for deletion. We are in agreement about WP:OR being a concern, but I don't understand how to fix that with regard to a template. What does the easy fix look like? Is the topic notable enough for its own article, "Boeing aircraft model numbers"? Maybe that's a conversation for the template talk page. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 01:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's run down the 'issues' raised here. based on OR? I'm pretty sure every one of these aircraft can be verified through reliable sources. undefined meaning of "model number? What? These are Boeing's, well, model numbers. How else do you 'define' "model number"? redirects readers to articles about aircraft with unlike model numbers because multiple model numbers were assigned to some types covered in a single article. To use the example given - Boeing 2707 states Boeing began small-scale SST studies in 1952...It proposed a variety of alternative designs, all under the name Model 733. Three or more blue links often point to a single article Yes, because that's how redirects work when multiple topics that are individually sub-notable combine to form a notable topic, or are related to a notable topic and thus are covered in that notable topic's article. Overall this is, IMHO, a shockingly misinformed nomination and should be withdrawn by the nominator. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 in Uzbekistani football

[edit]

Mostly redlink Navbox with no main article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 3

[edit]

Template:Gemini TV Shows

[edit]

Only three shows, two of which they only had one season. Serves no purpose other than acting like WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roh roster

[edit]

No transclusions. A discussion agreed to deprecate this template. See this TFD for links and details. I neglected to include this template in that TFD, and now it's too late to merge them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Its functionality is now implemented into Template:Professional wrestling profiles. Prefall 11:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorcycle speedway tracks

[edit]

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]

Template:Infobox Australian place

[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 Withdraw. Going to withdraw this until I have a sample that I can demonstrate with. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian place with Template:Infobox settlement.
This isn’t technically a nomination to merge, but a nomination to convert to a wrapper. A search of other custom settlement infoboxes (such as {{Infobox US state}} or {{Infobox Italian comune}}) shows that nearly all of them us {{Infobox settlement}} as a base. In fact I was unable to find any that don’t use this well established template as their base. While this certainly has some customization with tracking categories and other custom logic, I see no reason that this cannot be redone as a wrapper template so that its layout is in the same well established format of settlements around the world.

Additionally this template violates many best practices with its large color boxes around labels (I can find NO other Infobox that does this) and contains lots of information that does not belong in an Infobox. There is a reason that {{Infobox settlement}} with its 576,000+ transclusions does not have information such as average rainfall, mean temperature or distance to nearest suburbs. At the very least this template should follow best practices and look better than it does. — Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length in July 2020 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Template:Infobox Australian place. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you could implement a merge using e.g. Module:Template wrapper in the Template:Infobox Australian place/sandbox and demonstrate how it's better. --Joy (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I'm about to call it a night, but I'll do that tomorrow! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Mainly the arguments made @AussieLegend on the most recent discussion. This template allows for mentions in the InfoBox for critical facts like Local Government Area(s), State Electorate(s), and Federal Electorate(s). Regarding the colour violation, this is leaning towards WP:CLEANUP territory. Local Government Area is actually crucial information on an Australian Suburb. These suburbs are quite similar United States Neighborhoods, E.G. JeffVanderLou, Lafayette Square, they don't have there own mayor, but unlike United States Neighborhoods, Australian Suburbs are actually defined as existing legally by their state government and by the Census. Regarding the Colour violation, these Colours can just be removed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Huntington Hammer seasons

[edit]

Only one link. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canton Cougars seasons

[edit]

Only one link. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Despite its name

[edit]

You would surely expect a Wikipedia article to be serious, otherwise the unserious content would have been deleted. I bet disclaimers similar to these have been added many times to articles and promptly removed, throughout WP history; this time it’s in template form. Polomo (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


October 2

[edit]

Template:Discrimination sidebar

[edit]

all the content in this sidebar is in the footer navbox (by construction) so this is providing redundant navigation. The footer navbox is better for page layout as it does not crowd other right floating content like images and infoboxes, so I proposing simply replacing this with the footer navbox where the footer navbox is not directly transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per other posters. -- Brad (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This navbox links to many subjects and is like a library of topics about discrimination. It is a very complex topic with many facets and the breadth of topics is an asset to this navbox and our encyclopedia. The presence of the navbox also sets the tone on these topics and it encourages us to take these topics seriously. Not everyone reads down to the bottom and might skip the segment at the bottom. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per precedent at TfD, no need to duplicate information. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 10:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox vice president styles

[edit]

Only 5 uses. Don’t see any reason this warrants its own wrapper. {{Infobox manner of address}} works just fine. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regions of Johannesburg

[edit]

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]

Template:Use

[edit]

The template appears conceived to merge the functionality of a large number of datevar and engvar templates, but it is not complete in function or form, and does not integrate into the related existing and complex ecosystem of templates, modules and categories, and it is unlikely it will be. It actually serves little purpose and I found multiple cases of misuse, likely through misunderstanding, while swapping all usage for the traditional counterparts. I raised concerns on the template talk page, where Trappist the monk provided feedback. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this template was created following a consensus at RfD, although I can't find a link to the discussion anywhere. Cremastra, do you happen to remember? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is easy to find via "What links here" in {{use}}'s sidebar (does that still exist in the new UI? it should); see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Template:Use. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Less than or equal to

[edit]

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]


October 1

[edit]

Template:BirthDeathAge

[edit]

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]

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]

Template:Death date and age text

[edit]

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]

Template:Faruma Text

[edit]

I don't see a need for this template as it just displays the Maldivian language text in a different font. Templates such as Lang and Langx already do that and are more widely used. No live pages also currently use this template. UnilandofmaTalk 18:14, 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]

Template:Hurricane Dean series

[edit]

Unused navbox. All affected articles appear to have been merged into the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 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) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:July Revolution 2024

[edit]

Duplicate template of Template:July Revolution (Bangladesh) Bongan® →TalkToMe← 11:24, 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) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the Migrations Period

[edit]

Unused timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 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) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currie Cup templates

[edit]

Separate Currie Cup pages are being merged into the main articles, so having two squad templates are no longer required. Templates being merged into the other main squad templates. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who might be confused by this nomination as I was. Template:Blue Bulls squad is nominated for deletion because the information was merged to Template:Bulls squad with this edit. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies should have been clearer here on the template merges, have added note to the nomination. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First line indent

[edit]

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]

Template:The Da Vinci Code

[edit]

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]

Template:Uw-custom3

[edit]

Content duplicates the Template:Uw-disruptive3 series. Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 22 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]

Template:CF/Content review/Raw0

[edit]

Unused templates. The other templates mentioned in the documentation all were converted to Template:PRentry. It seems these aren't used or needed anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 22 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]

Template:Tim "Ripper" Owens

[edit]

Only one article (Play My Game) directly related to the main topic of the template. Mika1h (talk) 15:36, 22 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]

Template:WAM talk 2016

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WAM talk 2016 and the others with Template:WAM talk 2015.
Convert these banners into a single WikiProject banner. No need for each year to create a new template. Gonnym (talk) 17:14, 22 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]

Template:History of Udmurtia

[edit]

Delete. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 6#Template:History of Tatarstan. This template violates WP:SIDEBAR #1, #2, #3; WP:NAV-WITHIN; WP:NAV-RELATED #1, #2, #3, #4; WP:LINKBACK; WP:BRINT; and in some cases WP:LEADSIDEBAR. I would argue it also violates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and should therefore be deleted per WP:TG #8 and WP:TFD#REASONS #4. NLeeuw (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and WikiCleanerMan: FYI. NLeeuw (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Chuvashia

[edit]

Delete. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 6#Template:History of Tatarstan. This template violates WP:SIDEBAR #1, #2, #3; WP:NAV-WITHIN; WP:NAV-RELATED #1, #2, #3, #4; WP:LINKBACK; WP:BRINT; and in some cases WP:LEADSIDEBAR. I would argue it also violates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and should therefore be deleted per WP:TG #8 and WP:TFD#REASONS #4. NLeeuw (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and WikiCleanerMan: FYI. NLeeuw (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron football team templates

[edit]

At a recent TFD multiple gridiron football biography templates were merged to a more suitably named template ({{Infobox gridiron football biography}}). Then at another TFD a couple of team infoboxes were merged. What I am proposing is that ALL of the gridiron football team templates be merged into one, more suitably named {{Infobox gridiron football team}}. At the very least this template should be created and the others converted to WRAPPERs. Most of the above templates are forks of each other. Most of the parameters are the same so little conversion work would be required. What’s more we can unify the styling to be much better and less clunky. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would have suggested a partial merge to Template:Twilight Zone, but the two articles that should be on there already are. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Antiguan and Barbudan English

[edit]

Delete per this recent TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and previous TFD.
Dgp4004 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Accessibility editnotice

[edit]

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]


September 30

[edit]

Template:Uw-3rr-alt

[edit]

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]

Template:Vanuatuan president elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Vanuatuan president elections with Template:Vanuatuan elections.
No need to have a discrete template for two links --woodensuperman 10:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; while the presidential election template represents indirect elections, it fails WP:NENAN due to having insufficient links. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 08:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox uncontested presidential election small

[edit]

Only 3 uses. Extremely rare occurrence that doesn’t warrant its own infobox. Just use {{Infobox election}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign with Template:Infobox election campaign.
This is nearly identical to {{Infobox election campaign}} with only a few additional params that can easily be added. Ironically this actually has nearly 3 times as many transclusions, but I still think we don’t want to start down the road of custom campaign infoboxes for every country that holds elections. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippine election campaign

[edit]

Based on the documentation and the sample infobox, this is an exact duplicate of {{Infobox election campaign}}. No need to make a custom one for each country, particularly when the infobox is identical… Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian elections

[edit]

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]

Template:Infobox general election

[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 Withdraw. The template in question is still very much a WIP. TFD is premature at this time. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remains unused and not clear what the purpose of this is. We have {{Infobox election}}. We do not need another election infobox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as template creator. Infobox is unused as it is still undergoing development. Development of a new election Infobox template was previously discussed at WT:E&R. It's worth also noting that the template was previously nominated at this entry and closed 4 days ago as no consensus without prejudice to re-nomination. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DimensionalFusion: perhaps you can shed some light on why a new election template is needed? What makes this different from {{Infobox election}}? Why is it an improvement to have a second template? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the rationale for a new template with a purely vertical structure (instead of row of 3 and new row) but that which can still contain additional elements and images at the E&R discussion DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DimensionalFusion: there is no discussion at the link you provided… can you please link to the discussion? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 30#Looking for infobox reviews! and Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Making it aesthetically pleasing DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DimensionalFusion: ah there it is! Much appreciated! —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox New Zealand local election

[edit]

This is a very slipper slope. Do we really need election infoboxes for every nations LOCAL (not even national) elections? Would result in literally hundreds of infoboxes. We have a wonderful {{Infobox election}}. The 9 occurrences of this template should be replaced with that. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the guy who made it, I was actually planning on changing it, just been busy lately. Thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLoyalOrder: is there something that makes New Zealand local elections unique from other elections? I.E. some reason that {{Infobox election}} cannot function for these elections? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think Infobox Election worked that well since they are not really leader centric elections. even if they were, like looking at 2025 United Kingdom local elections which uses it I just think its cluttered and ugly the way they've used it.
I've switched all uses of this template to use the legislative election template. I hadn't used it because I didn't realise you can hide the leader and percentage columns (if you dont there's just tons of white space in this example, but you can toggle it hidden so I've done that). Feel free to delete Infobox New Zealand local election TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth based on age as of dates

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Birth based on age as of dates with Template:Birth based on age as of date.
The Dates template functions just like the Date template except with an extra set of age and date parameters. I don't see why they can't be merged. Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Lua Who will do the merge? Because one template is Lua (dates, made in 2024), the other is wikitext (date, made in 2009). I would support retaining/expanding the Lua code to support all features now, and in the future. I do not support an in-effect deletion of the newer Lua code by way of a merger into the old wikitext. -- GreenC 15:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Lua, oppose wikitext. I specifically created the "dates" template as the original "date" template (that didn't use Lua) couldn't handle multiple dates – which I still don't think is feasible with only wikitext. Expanding the Lua code to handle the old template's features could definitely be feasible (and might make maintenance easier in the future), although, given its wider range of use, extra care should be given to make sure there aren't errors with edge cases when merging. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lua definitely should be done in LUA. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media personality infoboxes

[edit]

Propose merging the above listed tempaltes to a unified Template:Infobox social media personality. All of these templates essentially display the same information and are forks of each other. Would require minimal work to unify them to one template and leave the originals as redirects. How long before we have a custom infobox for Pinterest stars? Or a famous Reddit users infobox? Or Bluesky influencers? Social media isn’t going away anytime soon, we don’t need a separate infobox for each platform.

This reminds me of the MANY templates that have been merged to {{Infobox person}}. Above I have included the current transclusions count of each template (with the link for most up to date stats). —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Unfortunately, I think this is going to be more complicated to consolidate than it may appear. There are many articles that chain at least two of these templates together, typically YouTube and Twitch, which have overlapping parameters. Despite that, this is absolutely worth pursuing. There are already far too many forked social media infoboxes and this problem would only get worse as time goes on. Also, we should use this opportunity to review the parameters in these templates and cleanup the bloat (remove YouTube Awards, remove Associated acts, remove colored headers or at least disable them by default, etc.) Prefall 07:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% support the removing of the color. To quote from MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE, A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. As for the complication of the merge, I’m happy to take that on if this goes through. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't have much to add on the specifics, but I recently expressed concern over the name of a company being used in the title of a bio article to denote the subject's career (see Talk:Michael Stevens (YouTuber)#(YouTuber)). There, I suggested terms like "content creator", "influencer" or "vlogger" could be preferable, though "social media personality" as you've proposed here might cover even more bases. I feel like if we were to move away from infoboxes that are specific to the company/website through which the person happened to initially gain notability, and towards a consolidated infobox template for people whose careers and pathways to fame are functionally very similar, that would be a step in the right direction towards addressing my concern. Neegzistuoja (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge they are the same thing. But there will need to be parameters for each platform because combining all the platform data into one parameter would be SYNTH. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Earth605talk 19:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I share concerns with Prefall over its complications, but in the long run it would be easier to manage assuming it's implemented in a feasible manner. Namewise, I'd prefer "Internet" personality over "Social media" personality considering the proposed inclusions of YouTube, Twitch and Kick. Between those platforms it's still fairly debatable whether they would count as either social media in the traditional sense (as in, a platform focused on user connectivity through direct networking) or content platforms (mediums for video streaming or uploading). Some may say the distinction no longer matters because of their recent hybrid approaches, but to me it's the difference between a convention for the former and a theater or concert for the latter. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It's less redundant and more practical to have one infobox for it. Removing colors also seems reasonable to me, especially since people often merge infoboxes with color to a colorless {{Infobox person}} anyway (though, I think removing colors from only the subject name ["|title=" or "|name="] in the infobox would be okay as well!). —GrafiXal (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ViperSnake151, any comment for these problem?! 158.140.164.28 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Agree with Prefall's sentiments. Many of these parameters should be removed (especially associated acts... who decides that? There's almost never sources to support it) and fully support the removal of color. – Pbrks (t·c) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Substack writer, X account, and YouTubers or streamers should not be treated the same. They have different purviews, with different impact metrics, and merging parameters for platforms may result in loss of important information.
Separately, does the merging warning need to appear in the infobox for now? All articles using those infoboxes have this warning and I don't see how it helps the non-editor users of Wikipedia.
Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The merged infobox would ideally support all of the necessary parameters for each individual platform or occupation. They would just be under the same umbrella. Being split by platform makes them harder to maintain and to even keep track of. Prefall 11:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This distinction is unnecessary, and I think can be confusing, especially if a person has accounts on multiple platforms and is not known especially for any one of them in particular. Merge per nom otherwise. Cottagechez (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

No transclusions [edited to add: or a few remaining transclusions, for some of them; see the first comment below, and the linked discussion]. This discussion appears to have resulted in orphaning these templates. Pinging Prefall, McPhail, and Mann Mann from that discussion for comment. We can add more of those templates to this formal deletion discussion if you like. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You beat me to it. Template:Dragongateusa profile no longer has any transclusions and can be deleted too. Template:Wrestlingtitlesperson has two transclusions, but they can either by converted to regular links or the functionality can be added to Module:Professional wrestling profiles. I'm also working my way through Template:WWE superstar, Template:Roh roster and Template:NJPW profile, but they still have a combined 500+ transclusions—most of those will be redundant or have link rot, and their functionality can be merged into the consolidated profiles module too. Prefall 02:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I have added all of those to this nomination. Please do not panic or worry that you need to suddenly get rid of all of the transclusions. This discussion is just a formal version of the project discussion that you had locally, to create a TFD record of these templates being discussed. If the TFD closes as "delete", you can eliminate the transclusions at your own pace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, thanks. All tranclusions have already been cleared. Template:Roh roster can be added to this nomination, as well. Prefall 19:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one, and now a few days have gone by. I had to create a new TFD to give it a full week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These templates are becoming obsolete anyway. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 03:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Map with marks

[edit]

Deprecated and effectively unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:PageHistory

[edit]

Deprecated and lightly used. Suggest deleting all instances without replacement as none amount to anything more than decoration even if they worked. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by my read, it doesn’t even work anymore. No uses in articles either so no need to preserve. — Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 29

[edit]

Template:Area councils of Vanuatu

[edit]

Unused and contains no links to any articles of relevance. Completely useless. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then just delete the article then, if that triggers people, despite those 2nd-level administrative division units/areas do exist within each province within the nation of Vanuatu. jlog3000 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Péter Magyar sidebar

[edit]

Contains only one link of relevance outside the main article. Article of his political party. Also unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The template basically only lists "policies": none of these are policies, and the second one was speedily deleted. Currently, this template serves no purpose. I support recreating this template in the future once there are enough articles linked there to warrant it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Compare image with Wikidata

[edit]

Unused, largely been usurped by {{Wikidata image}}. There were a few remaining infoboxes that used that in favor of this but were moved away from that a bit ago without any objections at said templates. This template does not accept a nocat_wdimage param making it more likely to pollute Category:No local image but image on Wikidata rather than {{Wikidata image}}. Casablanca 🪨(T) 16:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Fleeshman

[edit]

One album, one single. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dani Harmer

[edit]

Textbook WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 09:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estradiol salts

[edit]

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]


September 28

[edit]

Template:AircraftCost

[edit]

Only 2 uses in articles. This used to be used widely in {{Infobox aircraft}} but support for |unit cost= was removed years ago. No need for a template to display this information. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox documentation

[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 withdrawn. Izno (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Template talk:Collapsible option#Template:Navbox documentation 8rz (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Adopt me

[edit]

The instructions at WP:ADOPT are clear that people seeking adoption should not use this template, because adopters are not actively monitoring use of the template. At the same time, it has a lot of incoming links, including in welcome messages, and those links should continue to point people to adoption. I think a neat compromise would be archiving to the Wikipedia:Historical archive with a note saying that this should no longer be used and instructions to actually seek adoption. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


September 27

[edit]

Template:OotM

[edit]

No transclusions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/OotM was deleted in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent changes article requests

[edit]

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]

Template:United Kingdom NB

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions. This template may have been replaced by a more functional template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steel Consumers Council

[edit]

No transclusions. The more comprehensive {{Steel industry of India}} appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article tools/PR

[edit]

No transclusions. Appears to have been created in 2016 to meet some need, but it may no longer be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-SCOTUS

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2020. May be redundant to {{PD-USGov}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not sure what the use case for the SCOTUS template would be in the Article namespace when {{USGovernment-courts}} exists. lethargilistic (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Increased specificity to a US govt agency/branch is fine as evidenced by the variety of templates in Category:United States government public domain copyright templates that are redundant with Template:PD-USGov, but per the nomination, it seems that over the past five years, SCOTUS editors overwhelmingly stick to Template:PD-USGov. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-MacaoGov

[edit]

No transclusions, no documentation. Linked from one 2023 discussion that says it is unused and inadequate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD currency/Phased out and one more like it

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eastern Collegiate Football Conference coach navbox

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions. The related conference, Eastern Collegiate Football Conference, no longer exists as of 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We could probably make a navbox for all of the conferences that no longer exist, but it would take forever to do that. NotJamestack (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ngoni Monarchs

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions and no links. All of the links in the previous version of the navbox are redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SA-userpage

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in January 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Knowsley

[edit]

Appears redundant to Template:Parks and open spaces in Knowsley, both templates having the same displayed title ("Parks and open spaces in Knowsley") and linking to the same three local park articles. Belbury (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox named bovine

[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. Izno (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 21 uses in articles. Delete and replace with {{Infobox animal}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:33, 27 September 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.

Template:Infobox player of English billiards

[edit]

Only 11 uses. Can be replaced by {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peter Lougheed sidebar

[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. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS. Link spam at its worst in my view and is discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". We also have set a precedent within Canadian political articles not to have sidebars that are redundant Template:Justin Trudeau series and Template:Harper sidebar . Moxy🍁 03:37, 27 September 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.

Template:John Horgan sidebar

[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. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS. Link spam at its worst in my view and is discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". We also have set a precedent within Canadian political articles not to have sidebars that are redundant Template:Justin Trudeau series and Template:Harper sidebar . Moxy🍁 03:36, 27 September 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.

Template:Maurice Duplessis series

[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. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS. Link spam at its worst in my view and is discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". We also have set a precedent within Canadian political articles not to have sidebars that are redundant Template:Justin Trudeau series and Template:Harper sidebar . Moxy🍁 03:36, 27 September 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.

Template:Doug Ford sidebar

[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. Izno (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS. Link spam at its worst in my view and is discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". We also have set a precedent within Canadian political articles not to have sidebars that are redundant Template:Justin Trudeau series and Template:Harper sidebar ....in this case we have {{Doug Ford}} that can handle all these links and already does.Moxy🍁 03:31, 27 September 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.

Old discussions

[edit]

September 25

Module:Arguments with aliases

[edit]

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]
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]

Template:Abyat

[edit]

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]
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]

Template:History of the Third Polish Republic

[edit]

Both navboxes have too large of a scope for there to be reliable and defined navigation for a topic like this. Both cover almost every event in Poland for the respective periods and contain links to articles that are covered by other navboxes. Such as elections, protests, and matters of international relations. If a subject does not have a respective navbox like for protests, then one should be created. And for some articles, its best to be just covered by a respective Poland subject category if a templates does not suffice. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PPR not going to change, and TPR is also not to long and contains essentials for recent history Bildete (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed the nomination. Its not about the existence of the respective republics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the III RP template before and it's quite arbitrary - based on presidencies (in a parliamentary republic?), which events should be included seems arbitrary and a single template for literally every event in the history of the Third Republic is obviously a bit ridiculous. @Bildete @WikiCleanerMan Polish kurd (talk) 20:34, 22 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 both. This is the result of Wikipedians making up as they go along what the reader should find interesting to read about a country's history. Any number of events could theoretically be included or excluded. In this case, there is a heavy focus on political, electoral and military short-term events, which is a classic but narrow view of history as the story of Great Men doing Great Things. As a historian, it is frustrating, but no surprise to me that this is even literally the case: Template:History of the Polish People's Republic has a periodisation entirely based on the names of 4 Great Men: "Bierut's rule"; "Gomułka's autarchic communism"; "Gierek's international opening"; "Jaruzelski's autocratic rule and demise". I don't think it's hard to see how these periodisations and names for them are somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and reductionist. As if anything any other man, let alone any woman, has done during those times is automatically less important than that period's supposed namesake. And apart from Collectivization in the Polish People's Republic and Socialist realism in Poland, there is virtually no mention of long-term, socio-economic or cultural/mentality developments. As if there weren't any worth mentioning (quod non). I think this situation is very similar to the recent deletion of Template:History of Tatarstan, and others. If a grouping of articles is an arbitrary collection of things that does not have a definite membership, we should reaaaally be careful about making a navigation template for it, because the contents will easily become an arbitrary mess. NLeeuw (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Again, frustrating but not surprising, the Template:History of the Third Polish Republic makes no mention of the 2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland, the biggest protest in the country since the end of the People's Republic during the revolutions of 1989. What do we get? A redirect to an article section about some 2021 border crisis that is not just about Poland, but also Lithuania, Latvia etc. I fail to see why that is supposedly more 'important' in the history of the Third Polish Republic. The abortion issue arguably split the country more than anything else. In other words, whoever made this selection of articles, the criteria appear to be somewhat arbitrary, and reflect a classic Great Men doing Great Things story, again based on the presidential terms in office of men, and women are often missing, even when they take to the streets with about half a million supporters, plus almost 2k counter-protesters. This whole template is arbitrary, and needs to go. NLeeuw (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as matching the outlines of WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RS is not relevant to Tfd. Especially this nomination. Please cite a valid keep reason. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox checkers biography

[edit]

Grand total of TWO uses. Seems like those could just use {{Infobox person}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Template:Grand Slam Track

[edit]

Delete. First of all, Grand Slam Track has not shown itself to be a major factor within athletics; the opposite could be argued, a hot air balloon that collapsed during its first season. That being said, this discussion does not regard the notability of Grand Slam Track in itself, but the accentuated focus on these particular meetings that ensues from having dedicated Grand Slam Track sections/tables in athlete biographies. I do not at all understand, then, why it should have its own section in articles and the complete results from Grand Slam Track being presented in table form in biographies. (In including every single result it would also include results that are trivial in the context of athletes' careers - not every particular result in an athlete's career is worth mentioning.) Quite contrary, tables such as this should be converted to prose in any and all cases. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grand Slam Track is notable, and is getting lots of media coverage due to its persistent financial issues and a likely oncoming lawsuit from athletes. It is not Wikipedia's job to take a particular stance for or against Grand Slam Track.
For all intents and purposes, it generated Diamond League-level attention and World Class talent while it was around (even though it was a Gold-level event), regardless of whether or not it returns next year. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:07, 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) 21:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I also don't agree with having dedicated Grand Slam Track sections in most athlete biographies, but that doesn't have to do with this template. I also agree with rephrasing tables in prose, but that's an additive action; in general we should have both tables and paragraphs contextualizing them. The template is useful even if not used in mainspace articles as a way of organizing information. I don't see a P&G-based rationale for deletion in the nomination. (By the way, I think GST is clearly notable in the same way that International Track Association was -- as WikiCleanerMan accurately says this part is not related to the TfD, but it was first brought up in the nomination.) --Habst (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Template:Iraqi presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Iraqi presidential elections with Template:Iraqi elections.
Both templates are small. No need to have a separate one for presidental elections. Most of them are red links anyway. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seem to be already discussed here. I'm for the proposal, but I think the matter should be settled first in the linked discussion. If not, this will just be reverted for inconsistency later on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I wasn't aware of that discussion. That's good to know. TheBritinator (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just delete it and list the elections on Template:Presidents of Iraq; the mess made of the Salvadoran elections template by a similar merge to that proposed shows it isn't a good idea (and why these separate templates existed in the first place). Number 57 16:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not include them on both? It would be odd to have a template about Iraqi elections that does not have the presidential ones (even if they are indirect). TheBritinator (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's giving equivalency between a public election and a vote in parliament. Number 57 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is equivalency between an election of a head of state by a vote of the population and an election of one by a vote of an electoral college. Both are presidential elections, and called as such by sources.--Aréat (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree in cases where an Electoral College has been elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, but not when it is a vote by a parliament elected for the wider purpose of running the country. Number 57 15:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. The exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect is striking. We've got all the above calling it a presidential election and it's on the template, then suddenly five years later there's still all of them calling it a presidential election, but because it's indirect it vanish from the template. I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on templates when elected, whatever the mean, since the sources do think they are. --Aréat (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, the elections to the presidency and to the houses of parliament should all be included in these sort of templates, regardless of their directness. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as long as these templates only list direct elections they should stay separate. Glide08 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's add these indirect elections then, considering we agree it's better.--Aréat (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't see that much of an issue with the post-merger Salvadoran elections template, the symbols help with navigation just fine. If we must do a merger at all, it shouldn't be redirected to a head of state template - in my opinion the presidential template should be one solely for the individuals serving in the position, and not the elections for the position.
    (For the closer, my vote is a weak keep.) Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 06:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can easily be one box. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RomanConvert

[edit]

Duplicate of Module:ConvertNumeric#L-215. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biology nav

[edit]

Hopelessly broad topic for a navbox, with an essentially random inclusion of a handful of articles relevant to the topic, and not even transcluded in all of those articles. Plantdrew (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split, some individual sections (like branches of biology as a research field) could be useful as individual navboxes, but the current one is way too unfocused. It has very generic links such as Scientific theory and Scientific law that would fit better in a scientific method navbox, and very specific links about individual plant and animal systems, meaning it isn't especially helpful for a navigation purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting may look attractive, but "Branches of biology" is already a template. "Research methods in biology" might however work well as a template. The rest is as Plantdrew says, ripe for deletion as hopelessly broad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please stop deleting infoboxes, just cause it’s “broad” or “redundant”! It seems suspicious, really giving off… Heritage Foundation vibes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaijuEditor (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science portalbar

[edit]

Template not used in article space Plantdrew (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rose Tyler stories

[edit]

The sheer number of Doctor Who navboxes is a little excessive. See Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. Do we really need a navbox for every subset of character appearances? Shouldn't this be dealt with at the article? --woodensuperman 11:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major character within the series. "There's too much" is the opposite of a reason for deletion. Please try citing a guideline or policy to have a substantial deletion request. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOXCREEP covers the issue. There are NINETEEN navboxes on The Day of the Doctor. --woodensuperman 06:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per NAVBOXCREEP, it details how navboxes can increase the visual size of the article far out of proportion to the importance of the information they provide - for your given example, this is an extremely important topic within its project. It then details how we can use state=collapsed to minimize these templates, which is exactly what your given article does. This is not a reason to delete the relevant content and templates. Is there an exact part of the NAVBOXCREEP essay you'd like to quote? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try the section "Do we really need this template at all" which points out how editors can overestimate the importance of the topic. This seems to be what is happening here, especially as you mention that this is important within the Doctor Who project, but it isn't to the encyclopedia at large. We do not need this many navboxes related to Doctor Who stories, this isn't tardis.wikia.com. --woodensuperman 06:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I mentioned the article The Day of the Doctor, kindly read my posts before assuming you understand what I'm talking about or putting words in my mouth (a common experience). No actual guideline or policy has been cited as to why this template should be deleted, besides one lone article you've pulled from the template, and it helps with nevigation between articles featuring a major character of the series. It "isn't to the encyclopedia at large"? Welcome to 95% of articles on Wikipedia - every article and template is specific to its own project. What a ridiculous argument. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou and Foshan Metro exit table templates

[edit]

In English wiki, any form of railway station exit table is unacceptable, so these templates are meaningless. Benteds (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the English Wikipedia, there are many instances of acceptable uses of station exit tables, and as stated in your own example (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC) given on User talk:GMB205#Some suggestions about Guangzhou Metro, the editor who made the discussion stated that according the the head-count of !votes, the consensus should've been “No general policy”, and that he was bringing this up only because he was seeing people citing this RfC as a reason for removal. Furthermore, these exit tables provide valuable information about the surrounding area, especially the public transit interchanges. %FJ% (talk | contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconfirmed with 2019 RFC, and the deletion of the exit table is indeed a consensus in the bottom part. What has not reached consensus is the station layout. You mentioned that there are still many cases using exit table. I am only familiar with Beijing Subway, MTR, Taipei Metro and New York Subway, all of which do not use exit table. I would appreciate it if you could provide examples where the exit table is still alive. Benteds (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reason shown above ObbanautYT (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote inline

[edit]

This mainspace inline quotation template (for <q>...</q> tags) shouldn't be used in articles because html q tags (1) create quotation marks that many browsers do not include in copy-and-paste (e.g., Google Chrome) or Ctrl-F (e.g., Chrome and Firefox), and which search engines like Google do not show in results, and (2) create less simple wiki markup (MOS:MARKUP) compared to simple quotation marks. Use of a tooltip for translation is also less favored than explicit translation per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. Is there some technical reason this was created to solve? Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal was to globally standardize the style of inline quotations, in order for them to:
    1. be more consistent in style, as many pages formerly used wrong quotation marks and even italic quotations (deprecated by MOS);
    2. be easily tracked by a maintenance category;
    3. and assure globally-consistent changes in case of eventual MOS updates.
    Commenting just to provide context, feel free to implement eventually-better solutions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The <q> tag can also be styled by userstyles, for example I add a slight green underline: 
    q { text-decoration: underline dotted hsla(125, 61%, 49%, .73);
    That said, personally my use case is to make quotations in references stand out, which doesn't use this template. — W.andrea (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept the |tooltip= parameter should be disabled per MOS:NOTOOLTIPS. The majority of our readers cannot hover a cursor to trigger the tooltip, Rjjiii (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The template doc says The most common use of this is to provide attribution; this should be done inline with the text instead. — W.andrea (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not change the template to do whatever the "correct" way of marking up quotes is? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    The "correct" markup being to just type " before and after the quote (like you and I just did), unless there is need for something special like {{' "}}. See MOS:QWQ (Markup: He announced, "The answer was 'Yes!{{' "}}). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is more complicated, more characters, and more markup to break than just typing "This is a quotation" or "ex machina", and not being able to copy and paste properly (in Chrome, reportedly) or do a find on the page for "This is (in Firefox for Mac, this fails for me) is a non-starter. This template appears to decrease accessibility and usability of Wikipedia prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

    Use of a tooltip for translation

    Where did you get that from? I don't see it on the template doc or in the template itself. Instead, the doc says The most common use of this [the tooltip] is to provide attribution. — W.andrea (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: If a reason is found to keep the template, the template could be changed to not insert quote marks via CSS, and instead quote marks could be inserted manually, like so:
    "<q style="quotes: none">foo bar</q>" → "foo bar"
    However, this is a lot of rigamarole, hence why I say "If a reason is found". — W.andrea (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jenson and Jonesey95. Using quotation marks is easier for editors than using a template or <q> tags and will always be copy and pasted properly. Additionally, MOS:" recommends using simple straight quotation marks. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Came across this TfD while reading, the nomination makes sense to me. I assume we'll mass-replace uses of this before deleting? Toadspike [Talk] 23:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PT

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this template is no longer unused. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PE

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IS

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IL

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/FI

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/EG

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/CL

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/AR

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/TW

[edit]

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedia, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Says it on the main TFD main page. "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." Template copied onto foreign language is not impacted if its deleted. Foreign language Wikipedia's are not of concern to the English Wikipedia. If you or anyone can find this template and others below to for them to be used, then it can be kept. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, in which case I think there is a high liklihood of these templates being used, and certainly not no liklihood - there will almost certainly be editors on this country and the ones listed below who will find this useful in the future. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
high liklihood of these templates being used: after more than 4 years of not being used, that doesn't seem to be the case. Wikipedia is not a git repository for code. If you think some template is missing and create it, use it. If you, the creator, after 4 years, couldn't find a usage for it, then either it's not needed, or no one cares. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added it to an article that it benefits after very little searching. I was not searching for uses for these templates, because they are for the use of editors working articles about these countries. We can quibble over 'high likhlihood,' but there is zero doubt that there is not 'no liklihood' of these or the templates below being used, as for all of these currencies there are outdated amounts that would benefit from the inflation adjustments of the template. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the creator of a template should be the one to use it. If even the creator didn't bother to use it, then the more than likely scenario (and I'm speaking from years of experience in TfD) is that it won't be used. If the bottom templates are still unused, then they will just appear here over and over again. As they should. Do with that what you will. Gonnym (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Hurricane "related" templates

[edit]

Adding on to the ones already nominated by User:Jonesey95 and User:WikiCleanerMan: None of these are necessary. They don't provide any functionality that could not otherwise be implemented easily, since many of them are just plain text--no styling or anything else. Most also have very few or no transclusions, nor documentations. element 15:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. These are necessary for high-impact storms that have multiple sub-articles written about or related to them with multiple impacts across many regions (such as Sandy, Irma, etc). Most users don’t have to scroll all the way down just to find the specific section. Many of these remained for several years so I do not see why it is all of a sudden an issue now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. A majority of these very notable tropical cyclones do have extensive articles (mostly impact-related/effects-related and meteorological history-related but also including tornado outbreaks and other related responses, incidents and events) that necessitate the use of this template. They are there for a reason: to help the reader easily see and read the essential information regarding the history and effects of the TC in question. And in these cases, there are just too many relevant paragraphs that are too long to be put in a single article, hence the use of the TC related template. Note that I did support the deletion of the Typhoon Mangkhut related template but that is because its meteorological history and impacts are short enough to be put in the main article. However, that situation is not applicable to most, if not all of the templates listed here. Vida0007 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These "see also" links do not belong in infoboxes and they should be moved to bottom navigation templates. Template:Hurricane Sandy related for example has already Template:Hurricane Sandy series. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. All of these links can be easily linked from the main article and vice versa. Very inappropriate way of navigation just to include in a infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful "see also"-style links in infobox, which contrary to the statement from Gonnym, actually do belong in the infobox. Numerous other non-weather articles do similar processes, including ones like Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has three separate "see also"/"related" infoboxes for the large number of child articles. To go further, 2024 United States presidential election contains the Template:US 2024 presidential elections series directly under the infobox, which also provides dozens of child-article links/see also links. This is a common practice on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why weather articles should be the exception to this common practice. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken about the template you cite. That sidebar is below and that is true. These templates are not following the proper template format for navigation. These templates are added within the infobox. See the template structure below from Hurricane Isabel article in the related section. Plus, these templates are just linking articles in bullet points. These do not follow proper navigational structure for templates.
    {{Infobox weather event
    | image = Isabel 2003-09-11 1720Z.jpg
    | caption = Isabel at peak intensity, northeast of the Leeward Islands, on September 11
    | alt = Satellite image of Hurricane Isabel at peak intensity, while maintaining a clear eye.
    | formed = September 6, 2003
    | extratropical = September 19, 2003
    | dissipated = September 20, 2003
    }}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
    | winds = 145
    | pressure = 915
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
    | year = 2003
    | fatalities = 52 (17 direct, 35 indirect)
    | damage = 3600000000
    | areas = Lesser Antilles, Greater Antilles, Lucayan Archipelago, Eastern United States, Atlantic Canada
    | refs =
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
    | season = 2003 Atlantic hurricane season
    | related = {{Hurricane Isabel related}}
    }}
    }} WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all clear violations of WP:TG: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.- this is exactly what is being done here. Just because people have done it on loads of other templates, that doesn't make it correct to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could these template at least be converted into navboxes? (e.g. Template:Hurricane Sandy series) Columbia719 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more than four links. Most only have at least two. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not three or four links? Columbia719 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – per above FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why not convert the ones with many subpages to that of Template:Katrina? It would be a much cleaner then the current format and would be outside the infobox anyway. High-profile storms such as Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Dorian, Ida, Ian, Helene and Milton definitely deserve them as they had widespread and long-lasting impacts too. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my vote above. Lack of enough links. Most have two or three. The Katrina template is a sidebar and if there are less than five links on a subject outside the subject's article, they are brought tot Tfd and it is not enough for navigation and same applies to navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Functionality needs to be kept, templates don't, whether a series for each hurricane is made or it is simply converted into plaintext, the functionality should stay. However, these templates do not necessarily need to exist. I would like to note that converting to plaintext may not be preferably as each template can be used in several infoboxes depending on how many articles the hurricanes have. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:32, 17 September 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]

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"