Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

"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? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	2	12	127	46	187
TfD	0	1	17	7	25
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	1	6	68	15	90
RfD	0	0	50	31	81
AfD	0	0	0	23	23

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

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

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 policy or guideline.

Template redirects

List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.

Moving and renaming a template

Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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	Instructions
Step 1 Tag the template	Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page: For deletion: {{subst:Tfd}} For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:Tfd|type=sidebar}} For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}} and don't add a newline after the notice. For merging: {{subst:Tfm|name of other template}} For merging an inline template: {{subst:Tfm|type=inline|name of other template to be merged}} and don't add a newline after the notice. To delete a module or a different type of template, see Template:Template for discussion § Display on articles 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/2026_June_13#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

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

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

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

June 12

Template:City of Edinburgh

• Template:City of Edinburgh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete, better to use {{Edinburgh}} for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Masters France tournaments

• Template:Masters France tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template after pages were redirected. Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete, no longer provides useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tribe

• Template:Infobox tribe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ethnic group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tribe with Template:Infobox ethnic group.
WP:INFOCOL. At the first, this may seem unreasonable. However, a merge could be considered.

One may wish to consider how Template:Infobox family works fine referring to a multitude of different types of families, whether royal, aristocratic, consort-related, business/activity-related etc., including larger and small branches, etc.

Just as many ethnic groups are understood as being part of larger ethnic groups, many which are customarly referred to as tribes can also be understood as ethnic groups within ethnic groups. Especially in the case of former, historical tribes, many if not most are indistinguishable from ethnic groups, or at least subject to the same variables. Compare migration periods. For those that don't apply to the aforementioned, perhaps the variables of Template:Infobox family or possbly Template:Infobox clan would help better backend.

All in all, letting go of the infobox for tribes doesn't mean ignoring the term or its scope or definition as such any less than in the above case of the varying scopes of Template:Infobox family. In fact with more variables offered in Template:Infobox ethnic group, the opposite effect could be said to apply. Only that for technical reasons its relevant variables (including its present two infobox-specific nisba, varna) should arguably be able to fall into those of either Template:Infobox ethnic group, Template:Infobox family or, least likely (backend technically) Template:Infobox clan? PPEMES (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Parameter/styles.css

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

Unused style page. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hanacaraka

• Template:Infobox Hanacaraka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox writing system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hanacaraka with Template:Infobox writing system.
WP:INFOCOL (Template:Infobox grapheme doesn't seem to apply). PPEMES (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge with {{Infobox grapheme}}; these serve the same purpose and we don't need a redundant infobox for a specific writing system. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Partial Support: I would support keeping it, but it's only used in Indonesian, Balinese & Hindi Wikipedias. I f we ever make pages on Balinese and Javanese letters, then it might come handy. ङघिञ (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Demography

• Template:Demography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox demographics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Demography with Template:Infobox demographics.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• oppose, two different purposes. one is for the evolution of the population over time, while the other is for the breakdown of the current population by groups. I could see merging {{historical populations}} with {{demography}} as those have the exact same purpose, but not this merger. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• do not merge per Frietjes, this makes no sense. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, or more precisely, redirect {{demography}} to {{historical populations}}, which is the better, nicer template. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly, it should be merged with {{historical populations}}, not with {{Infobox demographics}} as proposed here. Markussep ^Talk 13:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• comment: the only "merge" votes are for merging {{demography}} with {{historical populations}} which is not what is being proposed here. so, I think we can close this an open another discussion if people want to merge those templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rune

• Template:Infobox rune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox grapheme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rune with Template:Infobox grapheme.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Partially support all per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, the templates being merged here shoud be partially kept but some of their functionality transferred to the ibox grapheme. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, same objections as I left for the other proposals above: the layouts are incredibly different and it would be quite difficult to cleanly reconcile them; I don't think INFOCOL applies here, as they aren't really that similar at all. Compare the following:

• Z (ibox grapheme)
• Zayin (ibox Semitic letter)
• Algiz (ibox rune)
• Nefertiti (ibox hieroglyphs)

These are all vastly different, and I don't see how merging them together would be beneficial. See also my comment in #Template:Infobox hieroglyphs about yet another template. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox census

• Template:Infobox census (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox demographics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox census with Template:Infobox demographics.
WP:INFOCOL. Accounts of census missing from destination template. Census information could well be merged as variable. PPEMES (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, unless I am missing something, I don't see any parameters in common between these two infoboxes, so it's not clear what benefit there is from merging them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2028 Philippine local elections

• Template:2028 Philippine local elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2028 Philippine presidential elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2028 Philippine vice presidential elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes with only red links. OK to recreate when there are some article to link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:South Africa squad 2025 U-20 Africa Cup of Nations

• Template:South Africa squad 2025 U-20 Africa Cup of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

current wikipedia standard is to only create squad templates for senior major tournaments Joeykai (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Years in tennis

• Template:Years in tennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to templates in the Template:YEAR in tennis category. 8rz (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you did. Why did you add years to Template:1880 in tennis (which is not what the template is for), and nominate this, which is what the template is for? What is this template redundant to? Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please revert your entire edit history related to this as it is very much controversial and incorrect. Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I merged {{Years in tennis}} to all the templates starting with "Year in tennis" in the aforementioned category and per

the one-sided proposal without any objection, I went forward with the merger and am now nominating this template for deletion. 8rz (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Drainage basin succession templates

• Category:Drainage basin succession templates and subpages

I am nominating all of the templates in Category:Drainage basin succession templates (and its subcats) for replacement with {{drainage}}, which I created to centralise all of the 2k templates into one easy-to-update template. This means that if a new drainage basin is needed, a single template can just be edited rather than having to create yet another template. There will be no visible change to any article; code-wise it will simply be changing (for example) {{PAchelous}} to {{Drainage|Achelous}}. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are two functionalities that will be lost by replacing the R- and P-templates with this new template. First, the R-templates categorize the articles that use them into a tributaries category, for instance {{RMeurthe}} into Category:Tributaries of the Moselle. Second, the system of interlinked P-templates implies that only one P-template ({{PWeser}}) has to be modified if the Weser article is moved to for instance Weser (river). In the {{Drainage}} template it would have to be changed in 55 places. Markussep ^Talk 07:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still working on a recursive version to deal with that; will likely be a module, but if not, the new syntax editor allows for really quick find/replace for something like Weser → Weser (river). As far as the Rs go, we have moved away from templates adding content categories to articles, so the R-names should be deprecated anyway. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why? --Joy (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  About moving away from templates adding content categories to articles, could you point me to that guideline? Markussep ^Talk 12:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:TEMPLATECAT. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  That guideline recommendation lists many reasons, but it's not clear which of them apply here. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  All of them? The sortkeys one does seem to be handled by the use of PAGENAME though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  For example it says editors can't see it in wikitext. Do we need them to see it, how likely is it that this sort of a thing needs to be edited? Or that we can't remove or restructure the categories - how likely is it that these categories need that to be done? --Joy (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  OK, that's clear, thanks. Markussep ^Talk 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?

I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I... did? I made {{drainage}} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous}} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place {{drainage|Achelous}} inside of {{PAchelous}} just to show that they give exactly the same output:

{{PAchelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea

{{drainage|Achelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea

I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Navbox2

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. (We do have a CSD for that.) Izno (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Navbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nonsense; created by a vandal. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

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:Mbabel-WMDC

• Template:Mbabel-WMDC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not a subst template. Seems Template:Mbabel1c is the one used. Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Brazil/styles.css

• Template:Politics of Brazil/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Portal content pages (header bar 2)

• Template:Portal content pages (header bar 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused portal-related template. Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:SuperSport United F.C. squad

• Template:SuperSport United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the team does not exist anymore, does not need a "current squad" template Joeykai (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

June 11

Template:ND Gorica squad

• Template:ND Gorica squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already deleted before and recreated, not everything needs a template. Even in the semi-pro 2nd division they had only 4 out of 21 players with a Wikipedia article, and now they have been relegated into an amateur 4th division so all current players will leave anyway, leaving this template completely useless with 0 wikilinked players. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Pedro II of Brazil infobox

• Template:Pedro II of Brazil infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of {{Infobox royalty}} that should be copied substituted to Pedro II of Brazil and removed from Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Subst and delete. Subst to Pedro II of Brazil and remove from Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 Premier Volleyball League season

• Template:2026 Premier Volleyball League season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following a previous move discussion affecting the season order, this template is now obsolete. MarcusAbacus (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

June 10

Template:Frap

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

Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:GR road

• Template:GR road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the function of {{jct}}, but does so in a less MOS-compliant manner by obscuring the links to articles behind the images instead of displaying them separately. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello, the template was based on {{AUshield}} and {{UK road}}, as well as my experience with rapid transit icons ({{rint}} and {{ric}}). I thought that using alt text would compensate for the text duplication. Best, --Minoa (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most of the road articles have been transitioned to use jct, which provides a better experience for readers of those articles. Because jct also uses some of the same backend as {{infobox road}}, it makes for a much simpler situation to support one code base now and in the future. (The remaining road marker templates that haven't been converted to wrappers for jct should either be converted or deprecated in the future.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I understand what you mean: I should note for the record that the inability to set a maximum icon height of 20 pixels (instead of 24, to avoid messing with the default line height) was the side reason behind creating {{GR road}}. --Minoa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  The size in {jct} can be set as needed for a country, but 24 px was chosen as a default to balance some legibility without disturbing line height in the tables too much. There's also {{jctrdt}} for rail diagrams. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 9

Module:Unsubst-infobox

• Module:Unsubst-infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Unsubst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Unsubst-infobox with Module:Unsubst.
Behavior in this module can be recreated with an "infobox" function in Module:Unsubst, i.e. {{#invoke:Unsubst|infobox|$B=...}} Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

See Module:Unsubst-infobox/sandbox and Module:Unsubst/sandbox for an idea on what this merge might look like. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Rdt intro

• Template:Rdt intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and unused template, no mainspace usage. phuzion (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom – I didn't even realize that this template was still around. Useddenim (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox administrationn

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

Barely used recently created template. Template:Infobox incumbency should be the one that is used. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that this is a misspelling and that Template:Infobox administration redirects to {{Infobox incumbency}} leads me to think they knew of the template. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This is a poorly executed test page from a throwaway account that was just fucking around. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox monarch administration

• Template:Infobox monarch administration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused recently created template. Template:Infobox incumbency should be the one that is used. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Use Ghanaian English

• Template:Use Ghanaian English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating for deletion as this template is redundant to Use British English. There is no formal Ghanaian written English that differs from formal British English, and the Ghanaian English article indicates only different means of pronunciation, which is irrelevant for our purposes. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with {{Use British English}}. The article provides no evidence that Ghanaian English has its own vocabulary. A quick web search yields explanations like this one, which lists a few non-standard grammatical constructions that would fail MOS:COMMONALITY if used in article prose. This template, like many of the Use X English templates that have already been deleted, is unable to provide useful guidance to editors about how to edit the articles it is tagged with. As such, it is counterproductive. It should be replaced with {{Use British English}} wherever it is present in order to provide useful guidance. Note that this replacement has nothing to do with colonialism or hegemony, as proposed by some objectors in the past; it is solely about providing guidance to editors about grammar and word choices in articles. There is more discussion of questionable templates of this ilk at Template talk:EngvarB#More low-hanging fruit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

merge per above Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 13:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Jonah Matranga

• Template:Jonah Matranga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Majority of the articles linked here have become redirects to the main artist, so the template serves little to no purpose. – Meena • 13:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Armando Garces

• Template:Armando Garces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article on the subject, only navigates two films. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Casiopea

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

Proposing deletion as almost all the articles are redirects, members, or vaguely related topics. I had redirected the albums all as since they had either been 1 review with no information or a bunch of streaming/store services (both of which didn't contribute to notability).

The members list can be supplanted by the category, and the related bands and people don't really have that relevance to Casiopea, and aren't enough to keep the template. reppop^talk 03:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Country data Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1912)

• Template:Country data Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1912) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:DEL10, which includes "Redundant or otherwise useless templates". This template is not used on any pages in the WP:MAINSPACE.

Furthermore, as established in Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)#Merge proposal, this is a government and not a country. Thus, it should not have a country data template. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

June 8

Template:WildBrain evolution

• Template:WildBrain evolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This unsourced table does not belong on every page it talks about (see incorrect usage example at House of Cool). Instead it should be used only at the article it actually talks about WildBrain#History where it should be subst (and ideally later also referenced). Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust

• Template:University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As this trust has only three hospitals this infobox is of little value, all it does is link three articles. Navboxes should be reserved for trusts which have a larger number of hospitals, at least five, where having a navbox can aid in navigation.

This navbox serves basically as a small list only Elshad (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. 4 links is just enough. Gonnym (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. It's quite possible a future attempt at deletion will attract a different set of random editors and reach a different conclusion. Unless someone can produce a stable consensus for a given minimum number of navbox links, I don't see this as a hill worth dying on. CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hungarian-built ships of WWI

• Template:Hungarian-built ships of WWI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you could help me add it to all the pages on the template instead of threatening to delete the page for no reason? Just a thought. I've already added it to some pages, so you can withdraw the nomination now. Victory799 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - this is a recreation of Template:WWI and WWII Hungarian ships, which was previously deleted. Does not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, it is not a recreation of said template (hence the completely different title and different content). It violates neither of the two original reasons, so you can stop trying to delete it for no reason. It is being used on several pages now so it is no longer unused. Neither old nor new "justification" for why you want to delete it applies anymore. Victory799 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Go back and read what I wrote at the deletion discussion. This is a WP:CROSSCAT, and it fails every criteria at WP:NAVBOX (most significantly, #4). Parsecboy (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

extended discussion about the delete rationale

• Keep - None of what you wrote applies to the new template since it no longer conflates two different time periods (it is WW1 only), and it specifically states Hungarian-built ships and not ships of a Hungarian navy, which was most people's issue with the template. So again, you need to consider the current template and not regurgitate old criticisms of a different template. You calling it a crosscat... I don't even know what to say - plenty of existing templates are exactly that: "Template:Austro-Hungarian Navy ship classes of WWI", "Template:Supply ships of the Kriegsmarine, Western Section", "Template:WWI German Ships", "Template:WWII German Ships", "Template:Japanese torpedo boats in WWII"... these are all Ships of X country in Y period (crosscat) or Ships of X country of Y type in Z period (mega-crosscat) or Ships of X type of Y navy that served in Z region (ultra-crosscat). These are all just as problematic (or even worse!) and yet I don't see you trying your hardest to get them deleted? In fact, they're clearly fine, so then my template is too, if you want to delete mine for "being a crosscat", you can delete all of those too. Lastly, it does not fail every criteria at navbox, it fully meets the first one (they all relate to a single coherent subject, that being Hungarian-built WWI ships), it fully meets the second one (the subject is mentioned in every article, as in every article mentions that these ships were built in Hungary by Hungarian firms as political concessions necessary within the empire), it meets the third point too (the articles do relate to each other to a reasonable extent), the fourth point is the only one it doesn't really meet, but this is not a problem at all for several reasons: 1) a separate article can be made for the subject later, this is no excuse to delete the entire template now. 2) If the template meets most guide points, just because it doesn't meet one point does not warrant its deletion, after all these 5 points are not strict rules but instead a general guide. 3) Existing precedent shows that, actually you don't need a separate article on the subject, such as the Template:Japanese torpedo boats in WWII does not have its own article, instead it links to a generic list of Japanese ships article, which is not at all specific to the template. Or take Template:Supply ships of the Kriegsmarine, Western Section for example, which neither has its own article, nor does it even link to any generic article! And I found both of these examples in literally 1 minute of looking for examples which disprove what you're claiming to be a necessary criteria. If we looked across all Wiki templates, I'm sure we could find thousands that don't have a specific article tailored to the template. 4) If you're counting vague articles that loosely relate to the template (such as the one justifying the Japanese WW2 torpedo boats template), then my template does have such articles available, for example the list of the Austro-Hungarian ships article can be used, as can the Ganz/Danubius articles which clearly go into the Hungarian-built warships of WW1. The fifth point is very subjective/vague, I can easily argue that I would be inclined to link many of these articles in see also sections, but I think for many of the aforementioned templates, you wouldn't be inclined to link all of them into see also sections anyways, so as I said, clearly precedent shows this point (not a strict rule) is not always applicable/necessary, especially since many of these articles don't even use see also sections.

  So to summarise, you're using outdated criticisms of a different template instead of considering the new one, the crosscat complaint also doesn't apply or it applies to a lot of different existing templates, thus precedent disproves your complaint, and lastly the "criteria" you provided is nothing more than a general guide, and my template meets most points given, the few that it doesn't explicitly meet are also not explicitly met by many other already existing templates that have proven to not need deleting, so by their precedent my template is completely valid too.

  Or alternatively, you're just desperate to delete my template no matter the reason, as you have been reverting every edit I've done for more than a month now, which seems like it's approaching harassment/vandalism. Please find something to create instead of needlessly destroying other people's work. Victory799 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  1: Let's just say I doubt your ability to justify a hypothetical List of ships built in Hungary as a constituent kingdom of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

  2: It's not just "some criteria"; it is the criteria we use to evaluate navboxes like this one.

  3: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and you seem to be conflating this point with #4

  4: As above

  5: It would be entirely unreasonable to link, for example, SMS Inn in the see also section of SMS Szent István. That is true for just about each possible pairing, and when it's not, it's because they're members of the same class, and would already be covered by the class navbox.

  On your last point, LOL. I am literally one of the most prolific content writers on all of Wikipedia. I have been editing Wikipedia for 20 years. What are the odds that you understand the rules better than I do? Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  So you're just going to ignore the first half of my reply? You have nothing to say about the fact you deleted my previous template for two reasons, both of which I fixed with this new version, and now you're coming up with brand new excuses for why you must delete the new one? You have nothing to say about your entire crosscat argument making no sense since plenty of existing templates are crosscats that nobody ever deletes?

  But fine, I'll just respond to the few things you actually can be bothered to talk about:

  1: Firstly, not necessary (as I said and showed), secondly it would probably be more like List of ships built in Hungary (super easy to justify, I'd love to see you trying to find excuses to delete that), or Hungarian shipbuilding in Austria-Hungary or Ganz-Danubius shipbuilding, perfectly justifiable and directly link to the subject of the template. See?

  2: Clearly not, it says word for word "Good navboxes generally follow these guidelines:", absolutely nothing about "you must follow all 5 points perfectly or else it is invalid and must be deleted". Sure, it might not be a "good" navbox, just a mediocre one, but that's no reason to delete it. Never says anything about these guidelines being must-follow strict rules. Also, considering how many templates meet these guidelines even less than my one does and there's clearly no problem with them, then clearly mine will also be fine.

  3 and 4: Sure, fine, then now that I have brought those two to your attention, I can expect you to delete them, right? Because they shouldn't exist and I can't use them to justify my own? But something tells me you're only here to delete my one...

  Besides, I addressed that with point number 1, I can easily just create an article for it, no problem at all.

  5: I guess? But it would also be entirely unreasonable to link the Enns-class river monitor in the see also section of the Tegetthoff-class battleship, while it would make far more sense to link the Kaiser-class battleship... guess what, on the Template:Austro-Hungarian Navy ship classes of WWI (which btw is a crosscat), you have the unreasonable pairing of the Enns class with the Tegetthoff class, and not the more reasonable pairing of the Kaiser class. You have submarines, coastal torpedo boats, and river craft on the same template as battleships, and this is the case for all such X country's ships of Y time period templates, so tell me, what makes these ok and mine not ok?

  Oh god the ego and credentialism flexing at the end... "I'm the most important Wikipedia editor ever so I'm superior and can do whatever I want". Lol, no wonder you need special protections in place on your account! Then the final strawman at the end, I literally never even said that.

  But as a sidenote, I'd like to ask why you haven't deleted Template:Japanese torpedo boats in WWII or Template:Supply ships of the Kriegsmarine, Western Section yet? Can you justify these templates over my one and prove why they are ok and mine isn't?

  Honestly, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this template/discussion instead of a one-man judge, jury and executioner. Victory799 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking of ignoring what people say, I raised the problems with WP:NAVBOX in the TfD of the first template...

  1: except it is necessary. It's explicitly a criteria laid out in the guideline we use to evaluate navboxes. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse to ignore the guideline. Didn't your dad ever ask if all your friends jump off a cliff, are you going to follow them?

  2: And if your navbox doesn't follow any of the criteria, on what basis should we keep it?

  3/4: I have no obligation to try to delete anything just to assuage your hurt feelings; we're all volunteers, after all. You are of course free to nominate them for deletion if you choose. I don't really care about those templates, as I don't write articles in those particular areas. I have written a number of articles that are included on your template.

  5: Do you really not understand that "X of Country Y" is a clearly defined scope that is well established in reliable sources (which is covered by the topic article, List of ships of Austria-Hungary), unlike your template, which amounts to "X built in administrative division Y of country Z"? You will note that CROSSCAT includes this caveat: "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon"; the former is an example that is well attested in published references (crack open the relevant volumes of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, for example). The latter is not well supported by reliable sources. In other words, if you tried to create a List of ships built in Hungary while it was a constituent kingdom of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it would probably would be deleted, since it is would more than likely require synthetic use of sources that are prohibited by policy.

  No, the point of my final statement was to refute your last comment (which was rather WP:UNCIVIL, as was your accusations in this most recent post; you are reminded to comment on content, not contributors). The idea that I spend my time destroying other peoples' work is preposterous. As for me being a one-man judge, jury, and executioner, you will note that somebody else nominated it for deletion. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  1: Instead of just repeating "trust me, it is necessary", maybe the world's best Wikipedia editor would like to maybe quote or show where it states explicitly that all 5 of these guidelines are a strictly necessary set of rules that a template must abide by or else face deletion?

  2: How did we get from not following point number 4 to all of a sudden you're saying it doesn't follow any of the points? That's simply not the case. I justified points 1-3 and point number 5 seems to be violated by almost all templates because templates often sort based on country whereas see also sections often sort based on most similar items from any country, thus templates will always have things on them that wouldn't make sense across all of the see also sections. If everyone followed point number 5, you'd need to delete almost all "X of Country Y" type templates, so clearly point number 5 is not taken very seriously. As for point 4, the only point my template "violates", I have said and shown how it can be solved, so not a problem. If my navbox follows the guidelines, on what basis should we delete it?

  3/4: So, you're basically admitting you are just personally targeting this template? You couldn't care less about any other violations brought to your attention, but for this template, you take those violations very very seriously, and even after deleting a previous version of this template, you're still desperate to get rid of the reformed new one too. Hmmm... Then you say "I don't really care about those templates, as I don't write articles in those particular areas.", I specifically picked German and an Austro-Hungarian template because you are a self described German navy enthusiast and write in those areas, now you're saying that you actually don't care about this area at all? You then proceed to admit you wrote several articles on even Austro-Hungarian ships, which aren't even German, so clearly you do write in this area, so you're probably not deleting these articles because of your own personal bias. But sure, you're apparently very interested in Hungarian stuff and so that's why you really want to delete this template...

  To me, it seems that you're a "German navies enthusiast" who wrote some articles on Austro-Hungarian ships, believing them to be German because Austro-Hungarian = Austrian and not at all Hungarian, and Austrian = German, and now that you see me shining light on the Hungarian nature of many of these ships you want it all gone/undone because it doesn't portray things the way you personally want them to appear. Which would explain why you keep relying on weak excuses to single out this template while having no problem with even worse German navy related templates that have existed for years compared to mine being hunted down in a few days.

  5: X built in Country Y is also a very clearly defined scope, so WW1 Ships built in Hungary is fine. You calling Hungary some "administrative division of another country" is grossly reductionist and probably the source of why you've got a problem with my template. Croatia or Bosnia was "just an administrative division" of the empire, Hungary was a whole lot more. I'm not sure how much you know about how Austria-Hungary worked, so I recommend reading up about it, especially the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, because it sounds to me like you still think the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the same thing as the Austrian Empire. During the Austrian Empire, Hungary was just an administrative division, but after the compromise, Hungary gained equal status to Austria, meaning it was just as much theirs as it was Austria's. The Austro-Hungarian Empire cannot be thought of as a single unified homogenous country (like France or Germany), but instead is like two separate countries loosely connected by having the same monarch ruling as both Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, but other than at the very top, every layer lower down was separate between the Austrian half of the empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. Hungary had a separate capital city, separate government and constitution, even had their own border separating them from the Austrian Empire, and even had their own military. Hungary was practically a separate country, Austria-Hungary can be summed up as two countries, one empire. There's a good reason it became the dual monarchy and "Hungary" was put into the name of the empire, because Hungary was no longer some "administrative division", but a borderline separate, self-governing state.

  Then you bring up this caveat "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon", which, fortunately for me is quite vague/subjective. Hungarian shipbuilding in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was undeniably definitely a culturally significant phenomenon. You'd struggle to argue that it wasn't, considering the very essence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's existence was compromise and balance between Austria and Hungary, and this was largely embodied in the Austro-Hungarian naval race, which was only enabled and funded thanks to Hungarian political support in exchange for them being able to build half of the warships in their own ports, within their own borders, by their own companies, using as many of their own components as possible. Despite this being inefficient for production, this split shipbuilding was done through to the end of a war they were losing, which shows just how politically and culturally significant this agreement was (or else they would have torn it up as soon as the war breaks out). You should be aware of this if you've written some of the articles on Austro-Hungarian warships, considering it always comes up when discussing why some ships of a class were built in Austria while the others in Hungary. So clearly this is very culturally significant, and also a pretty well defined scope (what country a ship was built in), I don't know what you're trying to say about not having any reliable sources available and needing synthesis, that is not true at all, I didn't make this up considering it appeared on most Austro-Hungarian ship articles (including the ones you wrote) long before I even touched them, so this is not made up by me. So no, such an article would not be deleted for lack of reliable sources (unless you find new excuses to try and delete more things I make).

  I also found a pretty nice counterexample to justify my template: Template:WWII Australian ships has existed for 7 years without deletion, despite the fact that, according to your argument, it is "X of administrative division Y of country Z", since Australia was actually part of the British Empire during WWII. Hungary's position in the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI was actually very comparable to that of Australia's position in the British Empire during WWII, with both being almost entirely independent, yet still part of the empire through the monarch, but they governed themselves independently with their own borders and military. If in 7 years nobody (not even you) has had an issue with an analogous template and it has been kept, then my template is fine too. Unless you'd like to explain why Australia in WWII was somehow more independent from the British Empire than Hungary in WWI from the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

  Speaking of uncivil behaviour, I would appreciate it if you stopped doing it. I was merely holding a mirror to you, but you're right, I should be above that. "The idea that I spend my time destroying other peoples' work is preposterous.", you say that while trying to destroy someone's work, after having already done so to the same person not long before, while having undone all of their edits recently, as well as undoing a lot of other people's edits recently. "As for me being a one-man judge, jury, and executioner, you will note that somebody else nominated it for deletion.", yes and that person only nominated it because it was not in use yet, now that it is, their issue has been resolved and it's only you trying to get this deleted without clear logical reasons. Victory799 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please stop posting walls of text, especially heavily laced with personal attacks. If you don't stop, we'll be headed to WP:ANI.

  On #1 - that the criteria exists is prima facie evidence to support my position. Why else would we have created it? Perhaps you'd care to explain why we should ignore the criteria.

  On #2 - read my initial comment here: "Does not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX". I never said it did not meet #4 only.

  On #3/4 - I'm not going to respond to all of these personal attacks.

  On #5 - rather convenient that you ignored the explanation I already provided in favor of a strawman argument. I'll repeat it, since apparently you missed it: "the former" [i.e., the category of ships built in Austria-Hungary] "is an example that is well attested in published references (crack open the relevant volumes of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, for example). The latter" [i.e., ships built in Hungary during the Austro-Hungarian Empire] "is not well supported by reliable sources." Please do me the courtesy of arguing the points I actually make, ok?

  Oh, and on your latest WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: you forget that the Royal Australian Navy existed as a distinct organization from the Royal Navy; there was no analogous Hungarian equivalent. Apples and bowling balls, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template is now used but cannot be withdrawn due to a delete !vote. I will note that there is a "keep" from the creator in the collapsed section above, but I would request that continued discussion about this template be from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:NFL strength and conditioning coaches

• Template:NFL strength and conditioning coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NFL strength and condition coaches are not notable like position coaches. There are only a handful with articles here so it fails its singular purpose of aiding navigation. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The amount of links is fine, what isn't is the sea of red links and the team links. These navigation templates should only be blue links of the person and not anything else. Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete Most of the articles are primarily concerned with other parts if their careers with only Garrett Giemont seeming to be best known for their strength and condition coach positions. The rest being players or other kinds of coaches earlier in their career. While WP:DEFINING is about categories I think the logic behind it works in this situation as well and from my outsider view strength and conditioning coaches do not seem to reach that bar. If kept remove the sea of red like Gonnym suggested. Trialpears (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox president styles

• Template:Infobox president styles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a bad infobox. It's used inconsistently on (as I count) 41 articles in mainspace, for various presidents of various places, past or present. But

1. There's nothing inherently special about presidency here...any office holder or anyone with a title in any profession (like a professor) could have similar such information presented.
2. Worse, this information is systematic. Once you know how a particular country officially refers to presidents and such, there's no need to write it out explicitly in every such (or any such) specific case. That information should be discussed at articles about the offices themselves, not about holders of those offices.

I'd suggest simply removing all mainspace uses and delete the template. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Convert to use {{Infobox manner of address}} - there is value in having this information displayed, which is why Infobox manner of address exists. But this wrapper really does nothing but set |type=Presidential so no need for this custom wrapper. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Convert like Zackmann said. I completely agree with their take. Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Fluoroanions

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

Unused navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as this is a new template, and there are quite a few pages linked that could include this template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - while now actually used, this is a usability nightmare that would need to be WP:BLOWNUP to be useful. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Is your problem perhaps with the underlying {{Salts by element}} template? I think it's appropriate to use that here for consistency with other navboxes with similar topics. Trialpears (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep in use with an appropriate number of links and a coherent subject. That's all I need to keep it around. Trialpears (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. If it's in use, why is it here? Created in April. jp×g🗯️ 01:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:SNH48

• Template:SNH48 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox with this much unlinked text is an article masquerading as a navbox. As it stands, it is useless for navigation. WP:EXISTING. --woodensuperman 12:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

keep; is it not possible to simply remove the unlinked entries if they are so bothersome? this does not seem like a big deal to me jp×g🗯️ 17:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ifexist series

• Template:Ifexist series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused if-else type template. Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It was in use when created. Is there a reason to do this extreme pruning of templates instead of finding use for them? jp×g🗯️ 05:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not my job finding usage for templates that aren't used for multiple reasons. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's my impression that none of us have "jobs" with respect to our volunteer contributions; not really sure why it would be any more your job to file TfDs than to use templates. jp×g🗯️ 06:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I will stop commenting on irrelevant comments. If you think, the template is useful (as its creator), then use it. If not, it will keep being sent to TfD. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have been clear enough. It is not apparent to me that this self-assigned task of rotely going through lists of unused templates and indiscriminately nominating them for deletion without any effort to use them serves any purpose. What is the purpose of doing this? I regularly receive notifications that I am demanded to participate in this unpleasant adversarial bureaucratic task, which as far as I can tell accomplishes nothing. Is there a way to simply mass-nominate every template I have ever written for deletion? I would prefer this to being repeatedly antagonized every couple months with snide derogatory comments about the worthlessness and repugnance of code I wrote for free. jp×g🗯️ 17:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am demanded to participate in this unpleasant adversarial bureaucratic task You are not demanded to do anything and you are always allowed to vanish. (This is the core of what it means to be a volunteer, though depending on the timing and roles you hold your account may face other consequences.)

Coincidentally, other volunteers are always allowed to notice and say "this thing is not useful" (else it would be used) and subsequently say "we should delete it".

Wikipedia is not a sourceforge and it never has been. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. We enable that by making it easy to find useful templates. If your template goes unused, that's proof-positive that it's not useful. It is simple cleanup, and not about your value, nor the hypothetical value of the template you wrote.

Is there a way to simply mass-nominate every template I have ever written for deletion? Are they all in disuse? If not, that deletion request will be seen as pointy (whomever makes it). Based on a skim of , I see a few templates that could plausibly be deleted. I see a few others which would not be. Izno (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoroughness of the response, although I must contest the factual statement of the vague threat; I am not familiar with any circumstance in which "my account may face other consequences" due to no longer wanting to contribute technically to the project. Is this a newly enacted policy? jp×g🗯️ 00:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no reason to threaten you here. It was just a minor recognition of WP:ADMINACCT and other such flavors of policies as one might find when one is summoned to ANI that prevent one from totally disappearing off the face of the wiki-earth at any time one might please. Izno (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trialpears (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete, unused and no clear need. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Double bracket

• Template:Double bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused character template. Not sure where this can of usage would be even valid. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, or else request userfication. It is intended to be a shortcut for writing phonological and phonetic transcriptions, FWIW. See International Phonetic Alphabet § Brackets and transcription delimiters for exactly how this would be used, such as the double brackets used in phonetics, morphophonology, diaphonology, and graphemics. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't you use an Template:IPA template for any IPA-related stuff? Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Such as Template:IPA double slash. Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gonnym those don't cover all of the possible bracket types, and as {{IPA //}} states, it is just an {{IPA}} wrapper around {{//}}. If I created IPA wrappers for all of the other double bracket types we'd probably end up right back here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ oklopfer (💬) 05:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trialpears (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Now it's even directly in use on International Phonetic Alphabet § Brackets and transcription delimiters, @Gonnym. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep; not unused. jp×g🗯️ 02:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

June 7

Template:Consider merging

• Template:Consider merging (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Useless and overwrought quasi-maintenance template that does not address any real need. "Bob is considering merging" is not a cleanup issue. I don't know if it's worse in the no parameter version (may be best covered in another article. Consider performing a bold merge of the articles -- ehhm, which articles) or the cool story bro version (The content of this article may be best covered in the article Destination article because this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Merging the content of non-notable pages to other articles can improve the destination article. Consider performing a bold merge of the articles or nominating this article for merging at AfD if you suspect that the merger would be controversial).

If you can make visitors to the page read all that text, you can start an AfD or boldly merge yourself. If you instinctively feel there is some logical destination target for merging an article you feel should be merged somewhere, but you can't bother to figure out which exact article it is, it is much better to start a talk page discussion, or ask the WikiProject, or some other place where editors congregate, or write it down somewhere for later and figure it out yourself when you have more time or when you've figured out Wikipedia better.

If you know what the destination page should be, then start the prescribed process. —Alalch E. 23:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete – I have to agree with Alalch here, a template for flagging potential merges for someone else to perform/nominate, without the placer having to do anything themselves, is not going to work. These are not situations where an editor could have a genuine reason not to do something, they're situations where an editor has apparently identified a problem and chosen not to fix it.

According to its own documentation, the reason behind {{Consider merging}} is that there's a need for a template that flags articles as potential merge candidates without opening a discussion: This template does not point to or open any discussion. It is not intended to circumvent the AfD merging process and is not a backdoor to point to local talk page merge discussions. But even the old {{Merge}} templates required a discussion, so if that didn't work, then how can a template that specifically doesn't require a discussion be any better?

The template would also have a its own tracking category and a growing backlog of articles flagged for merging, which is structurally identical to the PAM process, despite the fact that the entire problem with PAM was that articles sat in a backlog for months or years with no consensus.

Its documentation mentions it can be used in a way similar to {{Notability}}, but that template exists as a maintenance tag because a full AfD notability nomination requires a WP:BEFORE search before nominating, so there's a gap between "I think this article might not be notable" and "I'm ready to open an AfD". Merging doesn't have an equivalent gap: literally any editor can perform a bold merge at any time or create an AfD merge nomination, because those don't need a BEFORE search. The asymmetry that justifies {{Notability}}'s existence just doesn't apply here. (Plus, the {{notability}} backlog currently sits at over 50 thousand articles, so I doubt a similar solution for merging would help resolve the backlog problem, which virtually everyone in the RfC agreed was the main reason for overhauling the PAM process.)

Also, for most of the merge reasons the template supports, the correct response is a bold merge, not a tag. Some of its supposed use cases don't even make sense; for example, according to WP:MERGEPROP, young or short articles and stubs that only differ in wording can be boldly merged immediately, but {{Consider merging| reason=stub }} recommends AfD despite the fact that it shouldn't be used in this case:

The content of this article may be best covered in another article because it is very short and might be better covered in a broader article. Consider performing a bold merge of the articles or nominating this article for merging at AfD if you suspect that the merger would be controversial

And even if this template were used as intended, to gauge whether a bold merge would face opposition or if the placer doesn't have a target article in mind, a talk page is far better because it actually creates a discussion where editors can comment, as Alalch says. And AfD merging nominations don't necessarily have to propose a target article, the proposer can just nominate it for merging and let others figure it out after creating the discussion. FaviFake (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: ScrubbedFalcon, Novem Linguae, Oklopfer, Voorts, Chaotic Enby as participants in the PAM–AFD implementation discussion. FaviFake (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:SMF Automated People Mover

• Template:SMF Automated People Mover (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route diagram template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete unused.—Alalch E. 23:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Proto

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

Deprecated parameter, no longer used in mainspace articles. phuzion (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Deprecated and unused.—Alalch E. 23:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This was probably missed during the major language template cleanup. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Footer Asian Games Champions Xiangqi

• Template:Footer Asian Games Champions Xiangqi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It doesn't look necessary, this sport had been on the program just twice. we can re-create this template if Xiangqi appears once again the program, there will be more pages to be linked in that case but right now it's just one person with an existing article on wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Standard template of the Category:Asian Games champions navigational boxes variety. A year was missing at the time of the nomination and I have added it. There are two blue links for the champions now. The redlinked champions are notable individuals.—Alalch E. 23:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Standard templates in that mentioned category cover one event (like this) not a sport as a whole. Just correcting. Sports2021 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

    There are multiple diving disciplines and for each there is a corresponding event, but there are not multiple xiangqi disciplines, so the whole sport is covered by one event. —Alalch E. 00:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

    • Good, that's exactly my point, that's why I think this template should be deleted until this sport appears one or two more times in the Asian Games program, then there is a good reason to have two separate templates for Men's event and Women's event of Xiangqi. Having one template covering the whole sport is not a common thing in wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

      It's a particular type of sports navbox, of the "footer X champions" variety. See, for example Template:Footer Olympic Champions in Freestyle Skiing Men. These templates are yellow, list champions' names by year and discipline and often include multiple disciplines. I don't know how many of them there are, I'm afraid to look. —Alalch E. 02:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe merge with Template:Xiangqi at the Asian Games. The current template does have too few links to be useful, but it can be merged with Template:Xiangqi at the Asian Games (removing the country links which shouldn't be included). Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

June 6

Template:Regional heads in West Sumatra

• Template:Regional heads in West Sumatra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only four blue links in a sea of red, this navbox is not helpful for navigation. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete Local officials are rarely notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Figureskatingqualificationsummary

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

The contents of this template have been transferred to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Qualification, rendering this one-use template obsolete. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:DFW Metroplex Sports

• Template:DFW Metroplex Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. For some of the more notable professional teams, this template is in competition with {{Texas sports}} and {{Dallas}}. Using all three leads to navbox clutter and redundancy to a certain extent. This is probably why the template is unused in the first place. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Spokane Zephyr FC squad

• Template:Spokane Zephyr FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Spokane Zephyr FC has folded. There are no longer any players competing for the club, leaving no need for a current squad navbox going forward. The template has been removed from all relevant player and coach articles. 24Anonymous (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - defunct club does not have a 'current' squad, so does not need a 'current' squad template... GiantSnowman 08:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, squad template has become redundant. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Old discussions

June 3

Template:1886 in tennis

• Template:1886 in tennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1885 in tennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently unused but also a navbox with a single link isn't helpful in navigating. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Currently unused and nearly useless, easily fits reason 3 to delete. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Additional links added (and will be added in the future). Also, the yyyy in tennis templates are in the plans to be merged with {{Years in tennis}}. But that's been put on the backburner, because I'm currently in the works of a multi-page split, creating a new infobox and a calculation template for it as well as busy in everyday life and don't have the time to get around doing everything. 8rz (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: P.S. Merged both sections with identical comments into this subsection. 8rz (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Abbas El Fassi vertical

• Template:Cabinet of Abbas El Fassi vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cabinet of Abdellatif Filali II vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cabinet of Abdellatif Filali I vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cabinet of Abderrahmane Youssoufi II vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cabinet of Abderrahmane Youssoufi I vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cabinet of Driss Jettou vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused political cabinet table template. Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Template became unusued only because of vandalism in an article. Information thereof could be used elsewhere. --Yabroq (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing that. If this table is only used on Government of Morocco then there is no real reason for this article content to be in a template. Are there other pages where this is needed? If there aren't, I propose to subst this to the article. Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I am combining multiple identical nominations because they were all a) unused at the time, b) removed due to vandalism, and c) are all only used on a single article. In other words, I see no point in debating each one separately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox play

• Template:Infobox play (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox musical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox opera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox play, Template:Infobox opera & Template:Infobox musical to one unified Infobox.
There is significant overlap between these three infoboxes but both also contain parameters that could be of use in the other. My suggestion is to merge all three to a parent Infobox, perhaps {{Infobox stage performance}}? Obviously not all parameters apply to all 3, but those can be omitted. Also all of these would stay as redirects but I think it would benefit all to merge. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Barte (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

An infobox stage performance would be confusing and misleading, as both these infoboxes apply to works for the stage, rather than stage performances, and sounds very similiar to Template:Infobox stage production. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@BrechtBro: all for a better title here. Again, as a reminder, both {{Infobox play}} & {{Infobox musical}} would both still work... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The infobox musical template performs two automatic actions (adding a short desc to the article, and listing an article without an infobox image in a special category) that infobox play doesn't. On a less functional note, the live theater industry itself makes a particular distinction between plays and musicals, which the film industry, for example, does not. Saratoga Sam (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Support. Play (theatre), Musical theatre, and Operas (Template:Infobox opera) are all theatrical performances (see the lead sentence in each article). The 1 or 2 unique parameters that might be unique to each is not really a reason to have 3 different infoboxes. Gonnym (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Didn't even realize there was also a {{Infobox opera}}. I have added that.

@Barte: since you had already voiced your support for the initial TFD, can you confirm if your support extends to merging {{Infobox opera}} as well? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I'm out of my depth on that one. Barte (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

While opera is a type of theatrical performance, it is generally discussed as a category of music performance rather than as theater, which explains some of the differences between these infoboxes. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Support/Comment. I think merging these would see an overall benefit as there are paramaters in one that would be of benefit to the other, however there would need to be an additional paramater for type of production. This could then potentially allow the functionality that Saratoga Sam mentioned to work.Blethering Scot 21:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose: when infobox opera was created, it was designed intentionally with few parameters, to please members of Classical music who were used to no infobox. I see no reason to give that up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

making that oppose to merging infobox opera with the others, neutral regarding a merge of the other two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – {{Infobox opera}} and {{Infobox musical}} have very different sets of parameters. For opera, these were agreed on over many discussions over many years. It would be a backwards step to merge them, and will confuse editors in both fields. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Michael Bednarek can you say more? What parameters would constitute a backwards step or would confuse editors? By my read there is lots of overlap... What is the issue here? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  {{Infobox opera}} has parameter |genre= which appears as a subtitle, preceding the composer; {{Infobox musical}} doesn't have |genre= and lists the composer in the box under "Music". {{Infobox musical}} has |Lyrics= and |book=; where should {{Infobox opera}}'s |librettist= appear, and under what heading? {{Infobox musical}}'s |productions= and |awards= is not applicable to operas and will confuse editors. {{Infobox opera}} has |native_name= and related parameter, which are barely relevant to musicals, whereas {{Infobox musical}} has |subtitle=. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Also oppose for the same reasons. These aren't the same traditions, so they won't have the same parameters. It won't make things easier for editors to have to navigate different parameters. MONTENSEM (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Michael Bednarek, specifically "genre." Occasionally we find the misuse of infoboxes, inevitably someone will use "Lyrics=" rather than "librettist=" if both were options, which is unnecessarily inaccurate Drew Stanley (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, those have distinct functions. Deiadameian (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Both templates could use work, but the two are distinct and the differences serve the infoboxes -Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Concurring with Michael Bednarek helpful and thorough comments, above. Tim riley talk 07:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears the bulk of the opposition here is (rightly, imo) against the inclusion of {{Infobox opera}} in this proposal, while little touches on the merge of {{Infobox musical}} and {{Infobox play}}. A musical (unlike opera) is a generally considered a type of play; {{Infobox play}} even duplicates the |music= and |lyrics= fields of {{Infobox musical}}, while there's no reason the former shouldn't also have a |subtitle= field, as many plays have subtitles. It seems to be the original proposal to merge play and musical deserves further discussion. I'm out of my depth in assessing the rationale provided by Saratoga Sam regarding automatic functions.—BrechtBro (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused why this is still open. While the addition of opera has complicated the conversation a little, it still seems the vast majority of people oppose the specific suggestion of a unified "stage performance" infobox. Possibly this could be closed and then reopened if so desired as just a musical v. play discussion. I also encourage a general caution around a potential Chesterton's Fence (especially given the hidden function of the different infoboxes cited by Saratoga Sam) Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Michael Bednarek DragonflyDC (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

•Oppose the templates are slightly different. ~~~ Leading-bookkeeper074 (talk page) (my contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Marvel Comics universe

• Template:Infobox Marvel Comics universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used on any articles (5 transclusions at present). Doesn't serve to aide anything but cluttering the page. Also, not an Infobox by any means. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, for now it's a tricky call. I did edit it early on, so may have been involved in the initial discussion but, if so, I don't recall and I'm returning to this kind fresh. My thoughts:
  • It does serve a purpose because there is potential for confusion with characters who originated outside the main universe, hence its use on the Squadron Supreme characters.
  • It only being used on 5 pages, might suggest it should be deployed more widely. However:
  • It is clunky and ugly (especially on mobile)
  • I feel there is a better solution to this - probably merging this into the existing character and/or set index infobox.

So I went "keep, for now" as it is working OK for the moment but probably should be done in an existing infobox. I'd love to consult J Greb on this one as they had the best overview on the comics infoboxes but they've been MIA for a while now. Emperor (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I've never seen this style of infobox, are there other examples to consider/compare? Drew Stanley (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Drew Stanley: you've never seen this style because it isn't an Infobox... This is just a block of text using the Infobox code. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, was trying to understand whether other articles or topic spaces use such "blocks" Drew Stanley (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete entirely. Doesn't serve a good use for the article it's on. If clarification is needed for a specific article, that should be in the article text, not shuffled into a separate (large!) sidenote. Izno (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Templates that are primarily blocks of explanatory text are a bad idea in general, and this one is privileging in-universe fictional details about Marvel's particular use of parallel universes in fiction – a concept that any unaware reader can learn more about in the linked article. It also isn't in any way an infobox, although that could be resolved with a rename if it is kept for some reason. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2

Template:Gothic

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

Delete or Split. This template has become an over-broad and unorganized collection of links with no cohesive inclusion criteria, violating WP:NAVBOX. Because the term "Gothic" has undergone multiple radical shifts in linguistic and cultural meaning over the last two millennia, attempting to force all of these distinct topics into a single navigational aid has resulted in severe editorial bloat. Navboxes are meant to help a reader discover highly related articles within a single cohesive topic area; they are not intended to act as a historical timeline for the semantic drift of a single word.

The following topics are completely unrelated, yet grouped together:

• 14th-century East Germanic linguistics (Ancient Crimean Gothic)
• Late medieval structural engineering (Rayonnant, Flamboyant, etc.)
• 19th-century literature (Dracula and Frankenstein)
• 1980s post-punk musical subcultures (Gothic rock and dark wave)
• Nowhere is this lack of scope more egregious than the "Related" section. It smashes together disparate topics like ossuaries, industrial music, New Romantics, the occult, and Lovecraftian horror. It looks like a personal moodboard of "if it's spooky, it belongs here."

There is zero bidirectional navigational utility in linking a reader researching a language like Crimean Gothic to 21st-century Health Goth fitness fashion. Miiversal (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Sbybst

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

Unused link template to another language Wikipedia. Links to other languages should use {{Interlanguage link}}. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

it'll be used for routemap anyway. {{Interlanguage link}} will not be able to remove the end extension of that small wiki language code. Sorry, think better next time. Railfans JPL Sidoarjo (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't need to remove that. That's the point of it. Gonnym (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

June 1

Template:Designation/colour2

• Template:Designation/colour2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest merging these with a new nomination for {{designation}} which has only 1 meaningful transclusion, along with any other subtemplates of that one. Izno (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

May 31

Template:Candidate MEP lists GL

• Template:Candidate MEP lists GL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On pages such as List of candidates in the 2024 European Parliament election in the Netherlands, there are already templates that link to the articles included in this article ({{MEP lists Netherlands}}, {{European Parliament, (Netherlands)}} and {{Candidate lists in elections in the Netherlands}}. The nominated template makes the page chaotic, in particular in the app where it is harder to see what is a table and what a sidebar. This obviously also applies to the same templates for other parties. Dajasj (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:2025 ICC Champions Trophy

• Template:2025 ICC Champions Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just 3 related pages; WP:NENAN. Vestrian24Bio 10:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Mystic

• Template:Marvel Mystic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have a feeling that this is a collection of unrelated fictional content from Marvel Comics, beyond being described as "magic". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a perfectly harmless and helpful collection of pages about magical Marvel Comics characters and objects to help comicbook readers who are not indepth familiar with them orient and inform themselves. As such it seems very unconstructive to remove it. David A (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly WP:DOESNTHURT and WP:ITSHELPFUL. Wikipedia is not specifically for "readers of comic book readers who are not in-depth familiar to orient and inform themselves". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: No valid rationale to warrant deletion. While the title could potentially be reconsidered for clarity, there is precedent with templates of similar scope, {{Marvel Cosmic}} and {{Marvel Comics deities}}. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I suspect that the cosmic one will be less controversial to delete, since it is similar to various previously deleted lists and categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, no article on the subject so inclusion criteria is unclear. Per WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 08:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - As per woodensuperman there is no parent article. Violates WP:NAVBOX and WP:NENAN. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending in a direction but I'd like to see a little bit more of a solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Module:Based on2

• Module:Based on2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary fork of Module:Based on which creates unwanted different styles for the same articles. Any change to that module should be discussed on that talk page instead. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"unwanted" by whom? There's been at least one request for an indented style for {{Based on}}; this module is a simple alternative way to achieve that. I'd be open to seeing them merged, but the separate templates felt simpler at the time (not unlike, say, {{Multiref}} and {{Multiref2}}). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a community WP:Consensus to use a specific style. If you, or another editor wants to change that, then again, propose that on that module talk page. Do not create a style fork which makes part of our episode pages look one way, and another look something else. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - This is NEVER the right way to add a feature to an existing module. As Gonnym says, if a new feature is wanted for Module:Based on it should be discussed and requested at Module talk:based on. There is no thread there indicating any such request exists. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

From last month. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 13:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

May 30

Template:Campaignbox Sino-Russian conflicts

• Template:Campaignbox Sino-Russian conflicts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused campaignbox and mere collection for different wars and conflicts. NZ Bunnies (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The entire purpose of a campaignbox is to be a collection of related wars and conflicts. I would be willing to add it to pages that are missing it. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. In the context of "special interests" and the Manchuria-Mongolia problem, a matter in which Russia is directly involved, this is very much relevant. Revisionist authors will often say that the Sino-Japanese War lasted from 1931 to 1937, which although untrue, is grounded in the truth that the Sino-Japanese conflict began in full force by 1931; though it arguably could be extended as far back as the Jiawu War. If campaign boxes are not for "different wars," then why is the Mukden incident listed in "pre-war conflicts" for the Sino-Japanese campaign box? As for different conflicts; in all the decades of Russia and China's hostile relationships, it has all ultimately been over one thing. In that case, can it not said that it was really one long conflict? Why else does the west call the hundred years war, the hundred years war?

But really, I oppose this because it makes the article awkward to read, and I thought the introduction was deleted. Boo! 汪精衞迷 (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

To the users who oppose the deletion

First, I want to make sure that 'to be a collection of related wars and conflicts' is quite false to adopt in this article. Because, there's no relation between 'Sino-Soviet split' and 'Qing-Russian conflicts'.

Second, 汪精衞迷 says 'the decades of Russia and China's hostile relationships, it has all ultimately been over one thing.' and this campaignbox is not about Sinophobia or Russophobia. Also, if you want to talk about when does Second Sino-Japanese War started, please use Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War, because this section isn't for when it starts. And what does that ' Boo!' means? NZ Bunnies (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Before I continue, I would like to issue an earnest thanks to whoever edited the "considered for deletion" box, and I would like to say in advance that I probably would not continue this discussion further, simply out of lack of motive.

It was to illustrate a point. I agree that it is not about Sino or Russophobia, because that was not my intention, either. There is very much a relationship between the Sino-Soviet split and the Qing-Russian conflicts. Ever since the Opium Wars, and the Treaty of Aigun and later Beijing, in which the Manchus ceded Outer Dongbei to the Russians, Russia has continued its desire to expand southward and expand its influence. I am not here to argue whether or not the Soviets were a continuation, or are responsible/would be responsible for earlier and later Russian states, but in practical terms, it was very much a Russian state. At first, Russian expansion southward manifested in a primarily colonial manner; wishing to assimilate the Chinese populations on the frontier as Orthodox Russians, then to settle them with their own Slavic peoples. In fact, there is even a special term for the supporters of such a project, known as the Asianists (Vostochniki), with the end goal being to establish Zheltorossiya.

It was this which first brought the Russians to fight the Qing during the Boxer Rebellion; and subsequently to occupy the rest of Dongbei, and colonise it as they did with Outer Dongbei. Yet, when the Japanese came, and kicked them out, their ambitions in inner Dongbei were shattered, and colonisation was no longer feasible. This did not mean an end to expansion, however, and this is why I oppose the deletion. While colonisation was the means, the ends was to secure the wealth of the frontier, including the vast mines and geopolitical buffer that it would provide. And given the behaviour of the Soviet Union, it is clear that they did not change much from their predecessors, despite claims to internationalism, and the equality of all peoples. While there is no direct relation between the Sino-Soviet Split and the Qing-Russian conflicts, that would be itself misleading. It is like saying there is no direct relation the July Crisis and World War II, when the reality is that the July Crisis caused the Great War, which is very much related to World War II. Once the Soviet Union could no longer depend on a friendship with China to maintain its position in East Asia; it instead took to military means, both simple means to an end of maintaining their influence. After decisively defeating China in the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet Union secured their disputed territories and permanently culled the Chinese Communists as a threat, at least, until the Soviet Union themselves collapsed. Over the decades, means and governments changed, but the end goal, the grand strategy, never did. The Boselli Government collapsed after the Battle of Caporetto, but that didn't mean Italy left the Great War, right?

Honestly, if you want to delete a campaign box, I suggest you just go delete the Anglo-French one. There's much less basis for it than there is with China and Russia, and it is a much more globalised conflict. In contrast; the Hundred Years war does have a campaign box; in fact, several. At different times, there were different reasons that the British launched their chevauches into France, and under different kings, too. Does that mean that it should be deleted? Because there's "no relation" between the conflicts at all? That's all I have to say, please take my words with grace, sorry if I may have came off as rude before.

Sincerely, a fan of Wang Jingwei. 汪精衞迷 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I can oppose with that cause, although you think campaignbox shouldn't be omitted, previous article proved that it should be deleted. And there's also the policy of MOS:CAMPAIGN

• Template:Campaignbox Russo–German conflicts - deleted

NZ Bunnies (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete a mess of a navigational template. Way too many un-organized links. Best case scenario this is a case of WP:BLOWITUP if it is to every be useful. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. NZ Bunnies (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Japan Rugby League One squad templates

• Template:Black Rams Tokyo squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Kobelco Kobe Steelers squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Kubota Spears squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mie Honda Heat squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mitsubishi Sagamihara DynaBoars squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Saitama Wild Knights squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tokyo Sungoliath squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Toshiba Brave Lupus Tokyo squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Toyota Verblitz squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Urayasu D-Rocks squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Yokohama Canon Eagles squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While these templates do link some players, all of these templates have a minimum of 40 redlinks with it unlikely these pages will be creatd. I'm not sure they help aiding the readers navigation anymore and are just a sea of red. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: the red links can and should be removed. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this. These templates are there to show full squads, so only showing a select group of players I don't think is right. I would also be opposed to deletion of some but not all of these templates. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Navigation templates are not meant to replace articles. They are meant to offer navigation between related articles. When there isn't an article, the link shouldn't be in the template, see WP:EXISTING (and preemptively answering, see the end of point #2). Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

My preference still would be for deletion, but if keep or no consensus, I will remove links to players that are 90% unlikely to have an article created for them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

May 28

Template:U.S. current election editnotice

• Template:U.S. current election editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/119th United States Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 Montana gubernatorial election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 New Hampshire gubernatorial election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 North Carolina gubernatorial election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States gubernatorial elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States House of Representatives elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Michigan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Nevada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in North Carolina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States presidential election in Wisconsin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Florida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Maryland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Michigan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Montana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Nebraska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Nevada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in New Jersey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Texas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 United States Senate elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 Washington gubernatorial election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2026 New Jersey's 11th congressional district special election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Bob Casey Jr. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every editnotice with the {{U.S. current election editnotice}} is for an article about a US election that is now past. Possibly the editnotice template itself should be deleted, since it was created shortly before the 2024 United States elections and used only once afterward, but if kept it should always have a marked expiry date shortly after the actual election finishes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting the past pagenotices, obviously. But the main template should be kept, since otherwise we'll need to create something new for 2026 (and especially 2028). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not also have a similar one for all foreign elections? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the criteria for calling a race is different country-to-country? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep The edit notices advertise the Contentious Topics restrictions which still apply, even though the election is past. Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Expired contentious topic editnotices

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Death of Mahsa Amini (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Death of Nex Benedict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Imane Khelif (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of ongoing armed conflicts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Om Parvat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Pager (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Thomas Lockley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/United States Department of Defense (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each of these contains an expired, often for a sanction that has expired. Since this is an arbitration matter for most cases, WP:AN has been notified. Should the editnotices be renewed or updated, or simply deleted? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the editnotice for United States Department of Defense. I added it, but that page has been quiet for months, now.

Donald Albury 22:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not just change them to regular CTOP editnoticee? What's the point in deleting these? All of these articles are still covered by CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Forest

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Forest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Expired in 2022. Is excessive images still an issue at Forest? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure an expiry should have been set (pinging Paine Ellsworth who set it) — the point of the {{overillustration risk editnotice}} is to indicate there's a risk of too many images, not that the article currently has too many images (in which case a maintenance tag, {{overillustrated}}, should be used instead of an editnotice), and that risk generally doesn't go away over time.

Five years out from adding that editnotice, though, I do think there is probably a better way to deal with the issue that isn't as likely to induce banner blindness. In particular, it'd be cool to set up an edit check that'd warn editors trying to add an image to an article at risk of overillustration. But until we have that, we might as well keep this around.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Binangonan

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

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

MERGE: Please merge Template:Binangonan with Template:Binangonan, Rizal. Templates were made for the Cities and Municipalities of Rizal (province) earlier this year and apologies for the duplication. Thank you! Muntizen (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added two links as the others are general for the Philippines and don't belong here. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:2027 USL season by team

• Template:2027 USL season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template full of red links for something that is a year in the future. Gonnym (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the template creator, the 2026–27 USL Super League season actually starts in August 2026. I appreciate it looks misleading due to the 2027 season header! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossEvans19 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  That makes a bit more sense. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless, and in any event too narrow. There should be a {{2027 in American men's soccer}} or something, in-line with established form at e.g. {{2025–26 in English men's football}}, rather than separate templates for each league. GiantSnowman 20:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:ACT Greens

• Template:ACT Greens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey I made this and forgot to add it to any pages, will add it to a few now Lord Beesus (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lord Beesus I see you've added it only to two articles. Are the rest of the links not related? Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• keep now that it has been added to articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Notable foreigners who visited Sri Lanka

• Template:Notable foreigners who visited Sri Lanka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Template has been linked to all relevent articles. --Blackknight12 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not convinced this meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates, failing points 3, 4 and 5 of the guidelines. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Transclusions were added but I won't withdraw now as there is an unrelated to the "unused" issue discussion about this template now. Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The template has been added to the Tourism in Sri Lanka space. I am in the process of expanding that section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackknight12 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete, no actual parent article (just a generic article about tourism). Frietjes (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia squad 2006 Asian Games

• Template:Indonesia squad 2006 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports team navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - appears valid. Any reason you didn't add to articles rather than TFDing, or getting a bot to do it? That would have been a much better use of time. GiantSnowman 09:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I don't do other people's work. If the template creator hasn't bothered using their creation, I'm not going to do the work required, which includes WP:Verifying, seeing if there is WP:Consensus to add it or it has a history of being removed, and in general be responsible for that edit. TfD is the exact venue to deal with unused templates. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for a couple reasons: (1) Nothing in the template name indicates this is for football, (2) Players from the winning U-23 Qatar squad like Mohamed Saqr don't have a squad navbox, which leads me to believe that this competition is not significant enough for a squad navbox when even gold medal winning squads don't have a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• delete, unused and we don't have squad boxes for football at the 2006 Asian games. Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia squad 2014 Asian Games

• Template:Indonesia squad 2014 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports team navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - appears valid. Any reason you didn't add to articles rather than TFDing, or getting a bot to do it? That would have been a much better use of time. GiantSnowman 09:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for a couple reasons: (1) Nothing in the template name indicates this is for football, (2) Players from the winning U-23 South Korea squad like Kim Seung-gyu don't have a squad navbox, which leads me to believe that this competition is not significant enough for a squad navbox when even gold medal winning squads don't have a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• delete, unused and we don't have squad boxes for football at the 2014 Asian games. Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia squad 2018 Asian Games

• Template:Indonesia squad 2018 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports team navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - appears valid. Any reason you didn't add to articles rather than TFDing, or getting a bot to do it? That would have been a much better use of time. GiantSnowman 09:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for a couple reasons: (1) Nothing in the template name indicates this is for football, (2) Players from the winning U-23 South Korea squad like Hwang Ui-jo don't have a squad navbox, which leads me to believe that this competition is not significant enough for a squad navbox when even gold medal winning squads don't have a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• delete, unused and we don't have squad boxes for football at the 2018 Asian games. Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia squad 2022 Asian Games

• Template:Indonesia squad 2022 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports team navigation template. If added to all pages linked from template, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - appears valid. Any reason you didn't add to articles rather than TFDing, or getting a bot to do it? That would have been a much better use of time. GiantSnowman 09:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for a couple reasons: (1) Nothing in the template name indicates this is for football, (2) Players from the winning U-23 South Korea squad like Jeong Woo-yeong don't have a squad navbox, which leads me to believe that this competition is not significant enough for a squad navbox when even gold medal winning squads don't have a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• delete, unused and we don't have squad boxes for football at the 2022 Asian games. Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

April 13

Medal templates 2

• Template:Afr1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Afr2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Afr3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asia1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asia2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asia3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eur1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eur2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Eur3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Panam1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Panam2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Panam3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:World1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:World2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:World3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GoldMedal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:SilverMedal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BronzeMedal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Olympic Gold medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Olympic Silver medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Olympic Bronze medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I missed these in the first go-round (apologies for that), but similar to the rationale in the previous nomination for similar templates, these are basically identical to {{gold medal}}, {{silver medal}}, and {{bronze medal}} (and harder to see the details anyway). Primefac (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• delete after replacing with {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Replace and Delete. The icons are so small that I can't even see what's pictured inside the circle. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I do see the differences between the templates and think that the difference itself helps to highlight that achievements were won in many kinds of competitions, be they Olympic, World, Continental and so on. CLalgo (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly to see pictured inside the circle and it's necessary to highlight different events, like olympics, worlds and continentals. {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}} can't replace of them. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Just noting that I added {{Olympic Gold medal}} and its comrades to the nomination which weren't in the category originally, but are identical to the now-deleted {{OG1}} and co. from the first nom. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with @CLalgo and @Stevencocoboy. There should be an alternate template besides {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}} to differentiate from World, Continental, and Olympic competitions. {{OG1}} was redundant when {{Olympic Gold medal}} already exists. I don't see a good enough reason to eliminate these. SpinnDoctor (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• The most important information to communicate here is what position they came in and using both color and a number like {{gold1}} () does is preferable to something like {{panam1}} or {{Olympic Gold medal}} ( and ) for legibility reasons. Reiterating what type of championship is secondary since that is expressed in plain text as well. For that reason I would prefer delete all of these but at the very least the {{GoldMedal}} () series should go since those don't communicate anything extra like the regional medals do. Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  They're difference to use. always use for result, like final standing, for example Volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's tournament. Also ( and ) always use in the infobox of national sport team, for example Italy men's national volleyball team, use in olympics, in worlds and in european events. We have use it for a long time and many years, to make more clearly and highlight different events. Both of them are necessery and that's why we need to keep them. Stevencocoboy (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a way to merge them into {{gold medal}}, {{silver medal}}, and {{bronze medal}} and make the variants available as switches? However, the caveat is that alt attributes would be required for the variants. --Minoa (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I put that up as a suggestion in the TFD for the other medal templates and no one said anything in support so I didn't bother this time around, but if folk see that as a reasonable compromise I don't see any issue with it. There are two issues here, one of having many redundant/similar templates and the other being visibility; merging them all into one would fix at least one of those issues (with deletion obviously fixing both). Primefac (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't seen notices of the previous TFD in relevant Wiki Projects, nor was noticed even as a creator of a template incorporating many of the discussed templates. Perhaps there were other uninformed editor, like me, that could have affected the direction of the discussion. CLalgo (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as per Minoa, into alts (gold, silver, bronze).--Zoupan 16:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that having gold, silver, and bronze medals with symbols of world, continents (e.g. Europe, Africa), and Olympic rings is advantageous for highlighting different events. I do not see any positivity in replacing them with generic medals symbolism with numbers instead of continents, Olympic rings, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• I'll just note (since it was raised a few times) that in neither light nor dark mode can I actually see what is inside the little medals unless I zoom in huge (or rather, distinguish between the variants), which somewhat defeats the purpose in my mind. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know why you can't while others, such as I, can. That is no reason for deletion. Enlargement? Maybe. But wholesale removal is way too extreme. If you see all images as the same, how will making them actually the same change anything for you? Your situation will stay the same, with identical images as you claim, while those who see the variety will lose it. CLalgo (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  On phone I can't see them at all, On computer I can just about recognize them now that I know they are there. My preference here is solely about us not bring able to rely on these images being recognized by more than a fraction of users while a simple 1 with good contrast can clarify the position for everyone. Trialpears (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting that "I can see it but you can't so it's your issue" is not a great mentality; an analogous situation is MOS:COLOUR, where "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information". A gold circle with a black "1" in it is clearly understood by everyone. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's why templates such as {{Infobox judoka}} do not use these images as "sole visual means of conveying information". Maybe there's a problem, somewhere with some specific usage of these templates. It doesn't mean there's a problem with their existence. Their wholesale erasure is way too extreme an act. CLalgo (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not erasure, it's consolidation; we don't need a different template for every competition. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is erasure. It is to take something that's in Wikipedia and many editors think brings value to it, and removing in from the site, making it impossible to use. You can make the case that in some cases only the generic symbols should be used, but to claim that the specialized symbols should never be used, or in fact that it should be impossible to ever use them – that's an overreach. CLalgo (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and Restore all removed ones. What the heck is going on here? I just noticed this strange discussion now. These templates are nice; I've been using them in articles for years. Maiō T. (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I support the call to restore all removed ones, as I too noticed the previous discussion only after the templates were deleted. CLalgo (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  DRV is thataway. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  If any were indeed removed from articles, then definitely they all should be restored. -- Pofka (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, any uses of the now-deleted templates were replaced, not deleted outright. If no one noticed, then my point stands that these are unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your point doesn't stand, as I for example have been alerted to the deletion only by that replacement of templates, not notified properly as one who has previously used them. CLalgo (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete all - no need for custom medal templates for every different variation. Hinders Usability and makes things inconsistent and harder to read and understand. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete all, these are purely decorative and hard to see a difference. We shouldn't be trying to convey different meanings from slightly different medals that are hard to distinguish. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Yeah, these are just walking fails of WP:ACCESS. Delete. Izno (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all: It's not this hard to see the details, but maybe the nominator (who is ALSO an admin) was looking too far away. Would be able to distinguish the medals between articles, especially those related to the Olympic Games or other events with medals. - SimpleObjects-9ei 🌸/🌻/🌞 23:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Izno. Aesthetic appeal always takes a backseat to WP:ACCESS. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Completed discussions

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.