Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 1 8 101 51 161
TfD 0 1 16 23 40
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 5 66 40 111
RfD 0 0 13 92 105
AfD 0 0 0 9 9

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

How to use this page

edit

What not to propose for discussion here

edit

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

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

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

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

Listing a template

edit

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:

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_20#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

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

Notify users

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

edit

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

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

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

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

Discussion

edit

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

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

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

Closing discussion

edit

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

Current discussions

edit

June 20

edit

June 19

edit

Template:Mister Supranational 2022 delegates

edit

There's only one blue link in that navigational box and it happens to be the sole page where the navbox is used. Clearly unhelpful for navigation. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italic disambiguation

edit

Propose merging Template:Italic disambiguation with Template:Italic dab2.
I've been looking at these two templates' modules (Module:Italic title and Module:Italic title2, respectively) for a while, and I'm not clear on why these are two separate templates. They both seem to do the same; however, the templates seem to have modules with different amounts of lines of code, but it's not clear how they are differentiated, especially considering that Template:Italic dab2 has never had any type of usage information in its documentation page in the years of its existence. Although this is a "merge" discussion, it probably may make more sense to "replace all transclusions of Template:Italic dab2 with Template:Italic disambiguation, then delete move Template:Italic dab2 without a redirect to a title without "2", such as Template:Italic disambig" since Template:Italic dab2 is an unlikely search term compared to the former. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with a merge, but will oppose deletion. I think the reason for the module fork was related to Template_talk:Infobox/Archive_16#Forcing_italics but 5 years later I don't really remember. What I remember though is that Module:Italic disambiguation couldn't do what was needed and modifying a module that was used by 2% of all pages was not something that I wanted to take responsibility for. Module:Italic title2 is used by Module:Infobox television episode (for reference, is the code diff). Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Thanks for pointing out where most/all the transclusions were coming from. It doesn't change my stance, but it definitely helps me better understand why I counted so many transclusions and couldn't track the source. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: By the way, what I meant is that the title be deleted, not the edit history. I'll update my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about the edit history, I just need the functionality of 2 to be kept in whatever result. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ideally italic 1 should be able to do whatever italic 2 is doing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

edit

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

edit
All prior XfDs for this page:

In March 2025 an RfC on the use of these templates concluded per Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) that: "There was consensus to discourage (emphasis theirs) use of these templates. Editors overwhelmingly consider these templates to be unnecessarily restrictive in their style. There are also concerns that the templates conflict with the template guideline about storing text within a template, and that the specific wording used by the templates introduces original research and puffery. Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is." However, RfC obviously isn't a deletion discussion, nor can a local consensus be used to dictate content or style.
That said, based on the wording of the closing comments and the assessment of the consensus, it would seem reasonable to at least substitute the templates when they're used and advise editors that their usage is discouraged. However, editors favoring use of the templates have taken the wording of the RfC closure as an indication that it is not appropriate even to substitute the templates. That would seem to beg the question of what "discouraging" their usage would look like in practical terms. As there are also now questions regarding how Rotten Tomatoes presents their average of rated reviews, I am, with great reluctance, forced to bring these templates here so that these questions can, hopefully, be more explicitly addressed. While I am nominating them for deletion in deference to the findings of the RfC, I would also be amenable to having the templates be automatically substituted when they are used. However, that will not address the questions surrounding the average of rated reviews. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions (for reference):
Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When the close says By-and-large, this consensus is going to be a reccomendation, it's an awful close. A RfC should end with some kind of result - either consensus for something or no consensus (status-quo). A "consensus to maybe, if you wish, to do something, but also, you don't have to" is not a valid close. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to have a prose rather than just typing the same thing over and over. If anything, getting rid of the prose will actually cause more problems. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't try to enforce WikiProject advice as if it were P&G, or to bypass scrutiny at TfD by invalidating a template through another process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the email sent to me by MadbesWiki: I am not the one who wishes to delete this, I suggested this page as the correct venue where binding consensus can be determined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:TG. Rotten Tomatoes should not be be excepted from that and thus used to hide text in thousands of articles. I read through both previous TfDs and am not convinced by those cases to keep. The few more substantive cases to keep were ultimately convoluted ways of encouraging a one-size-fit-all solution rather than encouraging consensus at given articles like any MOS:VAR issue ever. Auto-substitution is valid per WP:TG, but I don't see auto-substitution actually discouraging the use of these templates throughout this very large topic area on Wikipedia. As Trailblazer101 stated in that RfC, implementing auto-substitution would just be prolonging the issues and necessity for this template, and would ultimately negate it and likely lead back here down the road. It won't do much to meaningfully stop users from replacing and forcing text into articles. Because, as GoneIn60 wrote: Though touted as optional, it is frequently used by bot-like warriors trying to be quick on the draw, not only in newer film articles, but also back in older ones overwriting perfectly fine text. We've even seen it happen in FAs. This violates the spirit of MOS:VAR in more ways than one. Because it also hides text, some level of Wikipedia expertise is required to know where to go to seek change. So while it seemingly makes one aspect of things easier for some, it can confuse and bewilder others. I have seen this myself on many occasions. A minority of editors end up adding the template into articles. But, as Kingsif stated in the second TfD, where they are adding it, they are instead replacing similar wording that already existed there. All that does is change the existing style, which transgresses MOS:VAR because there is never a substantial reason for such a trivial wording changes. The same concerns apply to {{Metacritic film prose}}. {{Metacritic album prose}} as well. Anyone familiar with the album topic area on Wikipedia knows the overwhelming majority of album articles that include prose on Metacritic aggregates do not use {{Metacritic album prose}}. I myself have written many album articles and have done so in a variety of styles when representing those scores. I have not faced any issues there. Believe it or not, there was a time on Wikipedia before {{RT prose}} and {{MC film}} and it was not very long ago.
    And as discussed at WikiProject Film, the RT template is currently hosting text for a feature that is incredibly unclear and misleading, and which users have agreed is either ultimately meaningless and should thus be discouraged in articles altogether or decided on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually a meaningfully representative sample, a challenge which I suggested is impractical and problematic. But actually changing the template is like pulling teeth. In the second TfD, Sdkb stated:

    Rotten Tomatoes itself hides the average critic rating, requiring an extra click to get to it. Let's say that they decide in the future to stop reporting it entirely. And let's say that the community decides that given this, we don't want to include it in articles. What happens then?

    Well, guess what? That hypothetical is not even a hypothetical anymore. In the time since TfD #2, that actually happened and for nine months of the average rating feature literally not even existing anymore I still couldn't get it removed from the template despite petitioning to do so. That left countless articles outdated as editors continued to update Tomatometer scores and review counts but then inappropriately left the old, nonexistent average rating combined with it. This affected uses of RT data in articles as well after Wikidata values were not appropriately updated. Elsewhere users began updating the average ratings using the HTML source code of RT webpages, resulting in original research and rendered those articles unverifiable. As Erik pointed out, the argument that:

    If there's no template, it becomes an arduous slog through every film article on Wikipedia to remove the information

    That only makes sense if you also want the template to be in all articles, which contradicts the stated premise that using it will be optional. Either way, cleaning up such changes will always be a slog and that in itself is not reason to force extremely specific wording into articles. Wording for which there is zero consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or auto-substitute. I generally like the language used in the template, but I don't see the benefits of restricting editing in this way. As the first point in WP:TG says: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." – notwally (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No one has indicated what the text might be edited to that might affect any other article. It encompasses the percentage, the rating and the consensus in a text format? How is it "extremely specific"? What would anyone want to change it to in the future? If a change needs to be edited into the text on a particular article, they can delete the template and edit the page themselves. It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year. Kire1975 (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oklamajojoruski (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. DonIago (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these templates cause as many problems as they solve. There's a big difference between "I like it" and something this encyclopedia project should be encouraging. As User Notwally pointed out starting by ignoring the basic principles of WP:TG is a pretty bad. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Οἶδα's arguments. If deletion is not preferred, the next best solution is updating the template's language on RT's average rating update and auto substitution. Lapadite (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kire's arguments. When reading articles about movies, I find it summarizes the movies' critical responses in a succinct and consistent way. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But why is a template needed to do that? It's invisible to the reader, and people who want to summarize responses in a "succinct and consistent way" can do so by copy-pasting the text, without violating WP:TG in the process...or the template can be substituted, as mentioned more than once above. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussions. Benefits include the ability to make large-scale edits to the prose as required, such as when Rotten Tomatoes change how they present their data as mentioned in the original post, the text for all articles using the template can be amended to text that has consensus. Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article, so using the template reduces effort, prevents inconsistences over time, and reduces watchlist spam for article watchers. Small details like punctation can be optimised in the template prose instead of editors fixing individual articles for what they think is best making them different to the majority. Language used in some articles has been promotional, subjective, or misleading, so prose templates promotes WP:NPOV. Inserting this into an article can be easier than writing similar text from scratch. WP:TMP says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content", so doesn't forbid this so exceptions are allowed, boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception, not seen an actual reason to change the text for specific articles. The use of the template is optional regardless, no one is forced to use it so no wording is forced into articles. Indagate (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see the validity of removing these templates. The use of both the Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic templates helps to ensure consistency across the films detailed on Wikipedia.
Such consistency/uniformity across Wikipedia should be sought for as it also ensures parity - one film is not treated as more deserving of more detail than another film in this regard, as all films feature the average of opinion expressed on the same two external film review sites.
In turn, that also helps to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia for treating all films equally in that regard. ~2026-35740-30 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given all the comments regarding recommending substitution, is it at all possible to force it to always be substituted, and if so, would that solution be desirable or not? Assuming this isn't possible/preferable, I would delete the template alongside auto-substitution upon deletion. GooseTheGreat (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a valid reason for removing these templates. They provide a convenient and consistent way to present commonly repeated Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information, rather than requiring editors to retype substantially the same prose across many film articles. Concerns about wording, overuse, or replacing existing prose can be addressed through documentation, article-by-article consensus, or discouraging blanket use; deletion seems disproportionate. A previous RfC discouraging use is not the same thing as consensus to delete, and keeping the templates preserves a useful optional tool for editors who find them helpful. Avocadoes (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Οἶδα and notwally's arguments. I don't feel that consistency between film articles is more important than having the text easily editable by anyone who wishes to improve the article or change the flow to read better. This is the article body we're talking about, after all, not parameters in the infobox. Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it as it is - I think it serves a clear function - and I think it would be unconstructive to remove it. TheMovieGuy (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox/imagelimit.css

edit

Unused css created by an editor with a single edit. Unclear usage. Gonnym (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neuropsychology sidebar/styles.css

edit

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred the alternate styling to the stylesheet so that using the sheet allows the colour changes to show up in dark mode, see Template:Neuropsychology_sidebar/testcases. ⇌ Synpath 13:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paleozoic range

edit

Unused Paleozoic related template. Gonnym (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been included in the Eoscopus and Protobactrites articles Yixpoleg (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paleozoic 250px

edit

Unused Paleozoic timeline related template. Gonnym (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been included in the Eoscopus and Protobactrites articles Yixpoleg (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Unionist/Hold

edit

Template:Rockingham Loop

edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Unused search box (the incoming links are from its placement in a navigation template). Gonnym (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RugbyLeagueGame

edit

Template:Sea World Monorail System

edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been included in the Sea World Monorail article since 2016. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template is unused since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that now. I replaced the map coding with the RDT link. They were exactly the same in appearance, and I'm guessing the editor who removed the RDT link from the article didn't know that all it took to include it in the infobox was to add an inline parameter to the RDT, which I did just now. All should be good. Jackdude101 talk cont 04:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great that was sorted out. Withdrawn. Gonnym (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Lebanon detailed map

edit

Template:Texoma FC squad

edit

Unused sports team navigation template which had all its linked removed. Gonnym (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tormenta FC squad

edit

Unused sports team navigation template which had all its linked removed. Gonnym (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused template with no information in it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VCH volume

edit

Unused link template. Gonnym (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The template was used within another template, and may be again when I get around to it. Maybe this weekend.
I created {{VCH}} as a quick way to cite and link to the Victoria County Histories (modelled on the template used on another wiki I found). Most of the VCH links on Wikipedia are out of date since British History Online was reorganised, and a template should make it quicker to update them. Then {{VCH}} got renamed as {{Cite Victoria County History}}, with less of the functionality I had built into the original.
The purpose of {{VCH volume}} is purely functional within {{VCH}} / {{Cite Victoria County History}}: it will tell the parent template to say 'History of the County of X'; where the X is not always the same as the full name of the county (eg it is 'History of the County of Stafford' rather than 'History of the County of Staffordshire').
The redone {{Cite Victoria County History}} requires the user to add the name as used in the VCH volume. I will (when I get around to it shortly), add back the {{VCH volume}} option. Hogweard (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weekday in month recurring

edit

Template:WikiProject Editor Retention welcome/Unsigned

edit

This version doesn't seem to be used as it isn't linked from any page (project or talk pages) that make it naturally discoverable. Gonnym (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to my moving it to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, in order to preserve the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 4 § WER Welcome on Twinkle? A thought.? isaacl (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to save templates just because they were once mentioned. Templates should be used (we aren't a code repository), if they aren't, then there isn't really a need for them. We regularly delete templates that were part of past discussions or failed experiments. Gonnym (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping draft pages in the project namespace is a common practice. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be opposed to keeping stuff for no valid reason. If it's a draft, move to to Draft namespace. Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Template:Women in Music/Collaboration of the Month Past

edit

Template:World University Wrestling Championships

edit

Unused navigation template with one link, after the rest of the articles were deleted. Gonnym (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

edit

Template:Hugo van Lawick

edit

Only one film has an article. Useless for navigation. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to create articles for both People of the Forest and The Leopard Son but forgot. I would advise keeping it for navigation purposes, now that I am planning to do something about this. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:EXISTING and WP:WTAF. Even so, three articles does not meet the threshold for WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 15:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, i'll keep this in mind. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPIE

edit

Unused WikiProjcet link template. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject African Legislators in Red/config

edit

Template:WikiProject Portals/qualityscale

edit

Template:WikiProject assessment category check

edit

Template:.NET Framework version history

edit

Single use template which holds a regular table. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States squad 1986 Goodwill Games

edit

Duplicate of Template:United States Squad 1986 FIBA World Championship. The 1986 FIBA World Championship served as the men's basketball event of the 1986 Goodwill Games, so the same United States roster is already covered by the existing template. In addition, the jersey numbers included in this template appear to be unsourced, whereas player numbers for the World Championship roster can be verified through FIBA sources. Maintaining a separate template creates unnecessary duplication. Zdremon (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

edit

Module:Params

edit

I am nominating this module for deletion because this module is unnecessarily complicated and thus very difficult for anyone other than the module creator to improve, even by sandbox testing. I was only able to find 35 actual uses for this module despite the few thousand transclusions and all of those uses can be replaced with either (1) a module that can read each of the parameters sequentially or following a specific format or (2) something like {{for nowiki}} or similar to iterate over a bunch of template parameters. I have previously discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Module:Params, courtesy ping the participants from that discussion: @Grufo @Ponor @Chrisahn @Snævar @Johnuniq. I concur with the comments that essentially this module is trying to make a whole other programming language that is not suitable for Wikipedia rather than simplify template writing. Potential unsalvagable monolith that can be WP:TNTed. Useful functions regarding arguments from this module can be spun out into their own module before deletion. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping failed so retry @Grufo @Ponor @Chrisahn @Snævar @Johnuniq Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: interested in this as well. I've previously commented the same sentiments posted above about this module. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • First ban, later delete.
The module is too complex and should be removed. The English Wikipedia is a large collaborative project maintained by volunteers. We have to use tools that many volunteers can use with relative ease. This module basically introduces a third programming language besides Lua and Wikitext. Of course, neither Lua nor Wikitext are perfect, but introducing yet another language is not a good idea, especially one as complex as Module:Params.
The module was initialy created for the Latin Wikipedia (lawiki). I think @Grufo said somewhere that on lawiki too few users understand Lua or Wikitext, so Grufo created Module:Params to make it easier for others to create powerful templates. But as far as I can tell, even on lawiki Grufo is the only one who actually uses Module:Params. I looked at the edit histories of several lawiki templates that invoke Module:Params and found only edits by Grufo. It's likely that the same would happen here on enwiki: Only Grufo and very few others will understand Module:Params well enough to use it.
In conclusion: We should phase out Module:Params. As a first step, we should ban it from being used in any new or modified code. Next, we should change the templates that currently use Module:Params (mostly introduced or modified by Grufo). Some can simply be reverted to older versions, others may have to be converted to modules. In the end, we should delete the module. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, here are two versions of Template:Etymology.
The old version is syntactically ugly and hard to read, but semantically very simple. Anyone who understands if-then-else expressions can understand the template, and anyone who understands wikitext syntax can easily change the output of the template. Such changes are a nuisance because one has to repeat them five times and be careful not to break the syntax, but there are many users on the English Wikipedia who can do that.
The new version introduced by Grufo in March 2026 is syntactically nicer, but semantically much more complex. Anyone who wants to change the template needs to understand the intricacies of Module:Params. I've spent decades writing code in dozens of languages, so I can guess what excluding_non-numeric_names and trimming_values do, and maybe call_for_each_group, but I have no idea what backpurging|0|0|, setting|h/i/l or sequential mean. Why do we need three different renaming steps? I guess $# is some kind of index variable? And so on. Before I can understand the template, I have to learn a new language. Few volunteers will invest the time to do that, which means that Grufo will remain (almost) the only user who can edit such templates.
— Chrisahn (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As another example, here's an excerpt from the current version of Template:Wrapper, introduced by Grufo a week ago.
I have no idea how all that substack stuff works. Maybe Module:Params is stack-based like Forth? On the other hand, the let statements are familiar from JavaScript, OCaml, and other languages... Anyway, code like this isn't going to be maintainable.
— Chrisahn (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion would benefit from looking at concrete examples of actual problems rather than discussing the module in the abstract. The relevant question is whether the templates currently using Params would be easier to maintain if each of them were replaced by dedicated Lua modules or by long wikitext implementations. In many cases, the reason Module:Params is used in the first place is precisely to avoid having to create and maintain a separate module for a relatively narrow parameter-processing task, which would add its own maintenance burden.
It is difficult to see how creating a dedicated Lua module would be preferable for a template like {{MOS-TRANS}}, which uses Module:Params only for capturing parameters that follow a specific pattern:
Or for {{Preload}}, which uses it to append preload arguments:
It is certainly possible to write complex code using Module:Params, but that usually reflects the complexity of the underlying challenge one is trying to address.
Looking at the {{Etymology}} example, I would dwell on this comparison: “The old version is syntactically ugly and hard to read, but semantically very simple”. Something that is hard to read is usually harder to understand, review, and correct. Also, the allegedly positive side of wikitext's poor semantics hides a vulnerability: repetitiveness, which tends to create bugs, inconsistencies, and overlooked edge cases (and in fact the old version of {{Etymology}} had inconsistency bugs).
But perhaps the clearest example is {{Pagesize table}}. Recently, the version that used Params — 13 lines of code — was replaced with a 6,000-line implementation. Whatever one's view of Params, it is difficult to argue that the resulting repetitive code became easier to maintain, especially for those working from mobile devices.
One of the sentences that struck me is: “Few volunteers will invest the time to learn this additional language”. Assuming it is a language (it isn't), who said it is an additional one? For most editors Lua will be the only language they would have to learn, whereas Params would simply be a documented glossary of parameter-processing instructions invoked through familiar wikitext syntax (again, not a programming language). Others may already know Lua but prefer to work in the template namespace rather than the module namespace. Last but not least, others may feel that relying too heavily on over-specific Lua code even for trivial tasks reduces the accessibility of template maintenance and makes Wikipedia a worse place (I am one of those, by the way).
To my knowledge, there have been no maintenance problems attributable to the module. The objections raised so far seem to concern the general philosophy of the module rather than specific problems arising from its current uses. I am also not aware of maintenance problems being reported by editors who are working on templates that use the module.
If there are particular concrete problems, I would be genuinely interested in examining those examples. That seems to me to be a more productive basis for discussion than general disagreements about programming style.
We can also invite here the people who have created templates with Module:Params and ask how they feel about the concerns raised here: @Chaotic Enby (for {{ProdwarningLLM-batch}}), @Raladic (for {{MOS-TRANS}}), @Cadddr (for {{userpage}}), @Mathglot (for {{Sfnlink}} and {{Remoteref}}), @WikiMacaroons (for {{Pantone table}}), @DefaultFree (for {{Autnum plain}}), @FaviFake (for contributing at {{Wrapper}}). --Grufo (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the ping! I used Module:Params to have a list in the correct format to call {{Flowlist}} on it. It is certainly a good tool for the job as it allows to convert parameters into links and then into a bulleted list, instead of having to code a custom version of {{Flowlist}} that takes a series of titles and turns them into a list of links. And, even then, we would still need a module to move an indefinite number of parameters to that helper template.
Honestly, this module feels less like a whole new programming language, and more like a library of functions, some of them operating on other functions, that can be useful tools for specific cases. Certainly, most volunteers won't ever have to learn these functions (even I don't know most of them!), and it is more a matter of finding which one is relevant to your use case and looking at its documentation. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My usage of Module:Params in {{autnum}} and {{autnum plain}} has been limited to a single concat_and_call to invoke a subtemplate with variadic arguments. It's been very useful for this purpose, I'm thankful that Grufo wrote it, and I'm unaware of a simpler way to achieve this in pure wikitext or using an existing Lua module. I would not be bothered if a smaller module were written for this specific purpose, and basic calls to concat_and_call were replaced with calls to it.
I don't have a full understanding of Params usage outside of this. It does appear to be complicated. It also appears to be extremely well documented and learnable if necessary. I'm unmoved by arguments that it's too complicated, or that only a single person has contributed to it thus far. Looking at Chrisahn's {{Etymology}} examples above, I find the Params version to be more directly expressive of intent and written in a way that will produce cleaner diffs when modified. But I don't really have a stake in this beyond basic usage of concat_and_call, so my opinion should be taken with an appropriate quantity of salt. DefaultFree (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Casiopea

edit

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. reppoptalk 03:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've removed all redirect links from the navbox and we are left with 1 current member with an article, and 3 former members. While 4+band is enough links, since only one is a current member, I feel this doesn't really reach the limit needed. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Rugby home map

edit

Used on a single page and unlikely to feature anywhere else. Subst and delete. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete unless other articles can be found that use it. This is a simple image template and does not need to be in a template for a single use. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnicity in Delaware

edit

Only two articles, no article on the subject. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many articles would be sufficient, in your view? 3? 4? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xinjiang Wars

edit

Propose merging Template:Xinjiang Wars with Template:Campaignbox Xinjiang conflict.
"Xinjiang Wars" appears to be an unreliably sourced or originally-coined neologism. The only citation offered at Xinjiang Wars does not mention a single conflict listed, stating vaguely: "Xinjiang has been ruled by China since the 18th century, but Chinese rule has been viewed as occupation by many Uighurs, leading to the Xinjiang wars in the early and mid-20th century." Grouping the particular conflicts listed seems to be an inappropriate and unverified extrapolation from this passage. Items listed here can be listed at Template:Campaignbox Xinjiang conflict instead. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinjiang Wars. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom if indeed the article is deleted at AfD. Gonnym (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

edit

Template:Wars and battles involving Croatia

edit

This is similar to the previous two about the Serbs and the Albanians, but only slightly better in the sense that it duplicates List of wars involving Croatia. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the list already exists. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem here? "It duplicates List of wars involving Croatia?" So what? Lists are lists and templates are templates; each has different structure, different data, different place etc. What does that mean "...bottom of the article spam..."? I see that similar templates below for Albanian and Serbian wars and battles are "too busy". Why? Perhaps because there were too many wars and battles. Unfortunately! But for Wikipedia: Thank God that as many of them as possible are listed. Too many vaguenesses?! Too many questions?! --Silverije 23:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NAVBOX for context. They are laundry lists, they're not actually aiding navigation. It's very hard to imagine a genuine, average English reader actually going down to the bottom of e.g. Battle at Jurjeve Stijene and noticing a link to e.g. Battle of Lissa (1866) and thinking ah yes this box has been useful to help me navigate there. If the navigation box serves a generally implausible navigation scenario, it doesn't make sense for it to exist, it serves no actual purpose other than provide a fiddling ground for editors. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wars and battles involving Albanians

edit

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template is an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the "involving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting - it's scope creep. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. There is no Wikipedia article on the subject of the template - there's a List of wars involving Albania, but that's a reference to a place, not a people like here. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wars and battles involving Serbs

edit

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template is an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the "involving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting - it's scope creep. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. There is no Wikipedia article on the subject of the template - there's a List of wars involving Serbia, but that's a reference to a place, not a people like here. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. --Joy (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1900s shipwrecks

edit

Unused navbox. Template:Shipevents is used on the list of shipwrek pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1992 CFL West Division Standings

edit

Unused sports table. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Mort Street

edit

Template:Attached KML/Bogor–Padalarang–Kasugihan railway

edit

Template:WikiProject Poland topicon

edit

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_29#Template:WikiProject_Albania_topicon. All country WikiProjects should use Template:WikiProject country member top icon. We don't need to create new ones again. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an emblem of Poland not a flag. Fortek67 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And? The WikiProject by default use the flag. If you want to use a different image, use the parameter |image=, don't create a new template. Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then mate, go ahead and delete it. Fortek67 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuyến số 5 (Đường sắt đô thị Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh) RDT

edit

Template:Sydney bus patronage by contract region

edit

Template:Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in Missouri

edit

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the two stations changed formats to sports betting (and swapped frequencies) last year. The other was just taken silent by its owner and this has no current format. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Reform (NZ)

edit

Template:Party shading/National Party (NZ)

edit

Template:Party shading/Malaysian United Party

edit

Template:Party shading/Labour Party (NZ)

edit

Template:Panama Metro Line 2

edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panama Metro Line 1

edit

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Number of proclamations signed by Joe Biden

edit

Template:Number of proclamations signed by Donald Trump

edit

Template:Melton railway station, Melbourne

edit

Template:Legal speed limit for electric kick scooters in Europe

edit

Unused map template. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in surmising that this map exists as a template, rather than a .svg, to make editing it easier? jp×g🗯️ 07:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently unused. Even if it were used, the template is 4 lines, so there is no reason this simple image can't be used directly in an article (and it might be the reason it is unused) Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 2 RDT

edit

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 1 RDT

edit

Template:Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars

edit

Campaignbox with only one link, so nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Battle of Ilamish Steppe, you'll find that it was made recently; I want to add more to the campaignbox so the most prudent decision imo would be for me to remove it from the article and re-instate it once I've written more. Arielsigurmundur (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation templates should be created when there is something to navigate to and from it. If there aren't any other articles, then there isn't a reason to create a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars

edit

Template:Calheta parishes

edit

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Abbasid invasions of Asia Minor

edit

Unused campaignbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 NASCAR Canada

edit

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 NASCAR Canada

edit

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 NASCAR Pinty's

edit

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Evolution of Google

edit

Unused infobox timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to add this infobox onto articles right now — TheFloridaTyper | DMS — 16:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cignal Super Spikers (women) roster

edit

Template:Country data Chinese Red Army

edit

June 14

edit

Template:Name in official languages

edit

Propose merging Template:Name in official languages with Template:Name in various languages.
{{Name in various languages}} is fully backwards compatible with this template and has support for any language. I've spent some time converting all pages that used this template over to {{Name in various languages}}, so this template is now unused in the mainspace. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parameter2

edit

Propose merging Template:Parameter2 with Template:Parameter.
{{Parameter2}} was recently created as a spinoff of {{Parameter}} because the creator wished for a version of the template with syntax highlighting; see Template talk:Parameter#para2. However, it's generally advisable to avoid creating redundant templates unless absolutely necessary. In this case, we ought to just figure out how to get syntax highlighting working at the normal template and implement it there. Sdkb talk 22:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - If you want a new feature added to {{Parameter}}, add that feature... There is no reason to create a redundant copy just for syntax highlighting. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's rationale. As I said at that template's talk page, having a second worse template that just does 1 thing better is a mess FaviFake (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Syntax highlighting has been in widespread use for a long time and should be incorporated into standalone templates like {{Parameter}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with the understanding that this is an upgrade and non-breaking change, right? I.e., if it lacks |syn=yes, it will appear the same way as it did before. Mathglot (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot, comments about the upgrade to syntax highlighting itself are probably better centralized at the linked discussion. I'll reply there. Sdkb talk 06:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: No opinion on whether this formatting should be opt-in or opt-out, but it should be handled by the same template since it is doing the same thing. Rjjiii (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Functionality discussion should be held at the template talk page. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep the colored output: On other projects the colored output has been the standard for years already. --Grufo (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Asian Games Champions Xiangqi

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian royal family

edit

Template only links 5 individuals, most of whom are closely related to each other and would already be linked on the other's page, limiting the template's usefulness. Illini11 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

edit
edit

Unused navigation template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two out of four links recently became redirects after a discussion. With only two links now, that's not enough for a navbox. BLAIXX 14:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conservatism in India

edit

An absolute mishmash of links that have no coherent theme. The links clearly tied to conservatism are not India-specific; those that are India-specific aren't clearly linked to conservatism. The biographies listed appear to be largely arbitrary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It'd be more productive, in my opinion, to work on our articles related to Conservatism in India before we try to create navboxes for it. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since there are templates related to conservatism in many countries, there is no reason why only the Conservatism in India template should be removed. Also, existing template are quite beneficial. ProgramT (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OSE. The existence of other valid navboxes does not justify this one. It also has little to do with the validity of the subject - Conservatism in India is obviously notable - and more to do with the arbitrariness of the collected articles. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
bro this is very important template use your brain with the growing rw and rss extremism it's extremely necessary don't delete it u would be foolish to do so. ~2026-35577-11 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

edit

Template:Ghanaian English

edit

Redundant to {{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. (see also pending TFD for {{Use Ghanaian English}} found here). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I'm hearing of "Ghanaian English". We are taught British English, although these days people usually mix it up with American English, mostly in spelling. I suppose it's why this came up. OtiRae (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Beiyang government

edit

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) 20:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Nationalist government

edit

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) 20:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2027 Men's T20 World Cup Americas Regional Final

edit

Just plain wikitables should be replaced with WP:LST instead based on the precedent TfD. Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the remaining templates as well. Vestrian24Bio 10:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vestrian24Bio none of these pages are tagged. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a single one of these templates was tagged for deletion thus violating TFD procedure. Not a valid TFD to start with. I will note that Vestrian24Bio ignored 2 separate pings about this issue after their nomination of 50+ templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2026 Women's T20 World Cup standings

edit

Just plain wikitables should be replaced with WP:LST instead based on the precedent TfD. Vestrian24Bio 10:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the remaining templates as well. Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vestrian24Bio none of these pages are tagged. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a single one of these templates was tagged for deletion thus violating TFD procedure. Not a valid TFD to start with. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

edit

June 12

Drainage basin succession templates

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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}} → ‹See Tfd›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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've used claude.ai to see if Lua can handle the issue that Markussep raised better. The result is at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage (again, this is AI-written). Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tribe

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose I would say that tribes and ethnic groups frequently overlap, but aren't exactly interchangeable. The first and outright matter is the concern of scale and properties that separate a tribe from an ethnic group and vice versa; ethnic groups are much larger than tribes, and might not have the same level of local-level cohesion as a tribe would have... I also feel that there's not a lot of variables from IB ethnic group that we can import to IB tribe. .n⠀eandert⠀hals8 03:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unhelpful nomination that lacks WP:BEFORE. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parameter/styles.css

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hanacaraka

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Demography

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Oppose this nomination makes no sense. per Frietjes this nomination is all over the place and shows a lack of WP:BEFORE by nominator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox census

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose completely different templates. No overlap at all. I guess you could argue the names are about similar topics but that is it. ZERO attempt at WP:BEFORE by the nominator here. Recommend speedy close on this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mbabel-WMDC

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Politics of Brazil/styles.css

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Portal content pages (header bar 2)

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

June 10

Template:GR road

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]

June 9

Module:Unsubst-infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

June 8

Template:Hungarian-built ships of WWI

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:NFL strength and conditioning coaches

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:SNH48

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete - Best case scenario WP:BLOWITUP. Per nom this is an article masquerading as a navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifexist series

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
It's not my job finding usage for templates that aren't used for multiple reasons. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete as stated, unused and no clear need. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, update and deploy. The idea behind this can be useful, but it has a very niche usage and the current version does not allow to provide a fallback page in case every page exists. For instance, whoever currently maintains the {{Ill}} template has to check periodically that none of the red links provided in the examples gets created; this template can solve that. However an unchecked fallback page must be added (together with a tracking category) in case every page exists (e.g. {{Ifexist series|...|fallback=Bla bla bla}}. Other template documentation pages that need to show red links can benefit from this as well, because it spares maintainers' time. That said, again, it has very niche usage. --Grufo (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Template:Consider merging

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I lean towards delete on this issue. We went to a lot of work to remove the {{Merge}} template from Twinkle and replace it with the TW -> XFD -> AFD -> Merge workflow, so it seems odd to soon after remake the {{Merge}} template but with a different name ({{Consider merging}}). However I have already argued this on a couple talk pages and would like to hear some outside opinions on the matter, so am doing a weak delete instead of a regular delete. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the creator of the template I've thought about this for a while but I recognize some of the arguments made by those in favor of deletion. In the end I do think the template serves a (limited) purpose, especially for newer and less experienced editors.
I created the template as a follow on from the TfD consensus, specifically the part that said Editors who want templates for specific cases not suitable for an AFD merge discussion are free to create {{merge maybe}}, {{merge obvious}} (presumably challengeable like {{prod}}), {{merge local discussion}}, or whatever they think is appropriate. These must not be redudant with the AFD process, and must be integrated where possible. For example, the backlog of AFD-merge outcomes should be at least next door to the {{merge obvious}} backlog, or integrated into a unified backlog. Presumably {{merge maybe}} would be mentioned on WP:AFD but make a separate work queue, similar to {{notability}}.}}. I thought the last bit about the notability template made the most sense for the implementation so I forked that and as a result it has similar tracking categories as that template. The template does not duplicate the function of AfD (or approach the old merge template in functionality at all) and I agree that editors generally should go ahead with bold mergers or nominate things themselves, but I also know that some or many of editors won't do that and I think it would be a shame for the project if they simply let an idea go because they weren't confident enough to do a bold merger and might be to intimidated by AfD. I think the asymmetry that Favi mentions does exist in a different way here. Completing a merger requires a some amount of time and editorial competence to actually merge two different texts and remove any duplication and nominating an article for merging at AfD requires knowledge of how that process works.
I'd also add that the fact that its currently unused is a good thing, I know that it has been used even though it hasn't really be advertised anywhere or added to Twinkle.
All of that said I also recognize the arguments that Alach and Favi are making about it being better start talk page discussions, but I think that has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere (is it still allowed post merge etc. etc.) which is why I come down as a weak keep here. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Template:1886 in tennis

[edit]

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

Delete: Currently unused and nearly useless, easily fits reason 3 to delete. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment: P.S. Merged both sections with identical comments into this subsection. 8rz (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Cabinet of Abbas El Fassi vertical

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Infobox play

[edit]

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)[reply]

Support per nom. Barte (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Zackmann08: I'm out of my depth on that one. Barte (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    {{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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, those have distinct functions. Deiadameian (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Concurring with Michael Bednarek helpful and thorough comments, above. Tim riley talk 07:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
•Oppose the templates are slightly different. ~~~ Leading-bookkeeper074 (talk page) (my contribs) 07:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Marvel Comics universe

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Fair enough, was trying to understand whether other articles or topic spaces use such "blocks" Drew Stanley (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename, and probably recode to avoid using infobox, to the extent it does. This serves the function of a template well. It involves information that would be repeated across multiple articles. But the author made a huge mistake. By calling this an infobox, the author has subjected this template to the obsessive scrutiny around consolidating and generalizing infoboxes. The information it contains isn’t "in universe": The fictional characters presumably aren’t aware of their world’s numbering. Perhaps it may not continue on as a sidebar. It could be article text or an explanatory footnote or an infobox entry or some combination of these. But that would still be a good template. Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Template:Gothic

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Sbybst

[edit]

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

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

May 31

Template:Candidate MEP lists GL

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:2025 ICC Champions Trophy

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Marvel Mystic

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Module:Based on2

[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
From last month. – Rhain ☔ he
him 13:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Template:Campaignbox Sino-Russian conflicts

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
NZ Bunnies (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. NZ Bunnies (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Japan Rugby League One squad templates

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

May 28

Template:U.S. current election editnotice

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Why not also have a similar one for all foreign elections? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because the criteria for calling a race is different country-to-country? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I believe replacing {{U.S. current election editnotice}} with {{Contentious topics/editnotice|topic=ap}} on each of the individual editnotices is a good idea here to advertise the Contentious Topics restrictions which still apply, as Cabayi put it. Keep the template itself, since it has a reasonable likelihood of future use. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Expired contentious topic editnotices

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Replace with {{contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} with the correct topic for those that are covered by CTOPs per voorts, with liberal use of the |section= parameters as needed. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Forest

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Binangonan

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:2027 USL season by team

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Template:Notable foreigners who visited Sri Lanka

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Template:Indonesia squad 2006 Asian Games

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Indonesia squad 2014 Asian Games

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Indonesia squad 2018 Asian Games

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Indonesia squad 2022 Asian Games

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

April 13

Medal templates 2

[edit]

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)[reply]

Completed discussions

edit

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1358425211"