Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 February 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

February 17

edit

Template:Campaignbox Franco-Habsburg War

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted under G7 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template is alternate history, and contains information that is contrary to fact. It has no encyclopedic purpose, and might be added to drafts or articles with fictional information. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template was included in a nomination at MFD, but that is the wrong venue for a template. This template should be deleted, and TFD is the correct venue. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As a WP:G3 Db-hoax. Per the obvious. This is alternative fictional history and is un unencyclopedic at best, and misleading at worst.
Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As the creator, I was unaware that this was unacceptable use of Wikipedia and have requested all of my 'alternate history' pages to be deleted under CSD G7.under
Cursenix2 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NBA arena statues

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

The result of the discussion was delete. If someone wants to nominate the other statue template, feel free, but it was not the focus of this nomination and there was no unanimous agreement to consider it. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox is problematic for several reasons. [1] The scope of it doesn't make sense. The title is "Statues at NBA arenas" but some of the links contained are non-NBA people (e.g. Evander Holyfield). [2] NBA arenas share the building with other pro and amateur sports tenants such as the NHL, so why tether the statues to specifically one sport/tenant? [3] The navbox is largely duplicative of {{Statues of NBA figures}}, which serves a more concise purpose with a more defined scope. Basically, the proposed deletion is because the navbox makes literally no sense. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: A better example might be Wayne Gretzky, who has a statue outside of the Crypto.com arena because of his time playing for the NHL's Kings. I also am just now seeing this navbox was brought to Tfd in March 2024 (link). The fact that two different editors within a two-year period would nominate this template for largely if not entirely the same confusing reasons shows its inadequacy to begin with. There's no primary article to link to either, so it's not like readers can click a primary topic for clarity. This is WP:NENAN to a 't.' SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope of being outside an NBA arena is trivial. However, the scope of being statues of NBA figures is perfectly fine and is a valid navigation that readers can possibly use, so keep {{Statues of NBA figures}}. I will say that if the amount of total statues of sports figures isn't that large, then the template can be expanded to {{Statues of North American sports figures}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2025 6A Region 3 football standings and similar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. These were created by an editor who has not edited since August 2026. Their draft article, Draft:Utah High School Football 2025 Season, was recently deleted as abandoned. I'm pretty sure that the draft transcluded all of these high school football standings templates. None of them are useful or needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Tertiary NBA stats leaders navboxes

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NENAN and WP:CRUFT. In basketball, only the five major stats leaders categories are discussed as major achievements, ones that warrant navboxes (scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, steals). The ones above are superfluous and clog players' pages. Again, not everything needs a navbox. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Use Ugandan English

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

The result of the discussion was delete. So if we look at the votes, there are 2 for delete, and 1 for keep. So it is a narrow 2-1, however, if we look at the arguments, the arguments on delete are significantly more convincing, particularly from Jonesey95, who pointed out the similarities of Ugandan English and British English, and the other Dgp4004 supporting deletion, apparently based on the rationale from the nominator. If we look at the sole keep vote, all they say is it's a variety of English just like any other without actually addressing the issue based on P&G. And the argument from Jonesey95 raising concerns on previous arguments about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also pretty convincing. This was kept at this discussion, but as we know, or at least should know, consensus can change, and looking at the votes and arguments, I think it is time the consensus changes to delete this template, especially considering the sole keep argument is not based on WP:P&G. (non-admin closure) Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following the deletion of various other niche English variety templates, this one is also not helpful. Ugandan English is a dialect defined by its colloquialisms and non-standard uses of spelling and grammar, none of which is suitable for writing encyclopaedia articles. The existence of this template and its categories could mislead editors into thinking articles should be written in that dialect, which is not the case. For example, the article states, "Standard English spelling rules are often openly disregarded, even in official publications." Doing that would be counter to many other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These templates only need to exist for formal styles of English. If the purpose is simply to say that an article about Uganda should use British English, that is not clear from this template, and we should use {{Use British English}} instead. Mclay1 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a variety of English just like any other. Axiom Theory (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination does not contest the existence of a variety of English. It contests the usefulness of this template. Please address the nomination and its valid TFD reasoning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not usable here on the English Wikipedia. This "Use X English" family of templates is intended to provide editors with advice about word choice ("truck" v. "lorry"), spelling ("color" v. "colour"), and occasionally grammatical construction ("Since 1960" v. "From 1960"). Other than those differences, writers at the English Wikipedia are supposed to follow MOS:COMMONALITY, writing in standard English that can be understood by most readers. The article at Ugandan English describes grammar differences, none of which conform to MOS:COMMONALITY. The mostly unreferenced examples given in the vocabulary and idioms section are either common English slang like "forex" or are otherwise not usable here on the English Wikipedia without glossing, per MOS:COMMONALITY. The article provides no usable guidance about how to write in Ugandan English that is different from guidance that would be provided for British or American English, so this template is not useful or usable (TFD reason 3) on the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rulers of medieval England

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The opinions are relatively balanced between converting to an article, keeping, and deleting, but when one considers that "convert to an article" means not having the template any more, the numbers swing in the direction of deletion. However, if anyone wants to convert either of these templates into articles, I see no issue with restoration for that purpose. I would note the related "Rulers" TFD elsewhere only had one unique !vote for deletion so on aggregate the discussion did not really influence this decision. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate navigation template. It is far too complex and does not usefully fulfill the purpose of navigation. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to moving these out of template space to "Timeline of Foo" as suggested below. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should {{Rulers of the ancient Near East}} and {{Rulers of ancient Central Asia}} (both created by पाटलिपुत्र) be put up for discussion on similar grounds? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: WikiProject History, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, WikiProject England and WikiProject Wales have been notified of this discussion. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Locations of ruler timeline tables
At present Potential new home
{{Rulers of medieval England}} England in the Middle Ages
{{Rulers of medieval Wales}} List of rulers in Wales
{{Rulers of the ancient Near East}} Chronology of the ancient Near East
{{Rulers of ancient Central Asia}} History of Central Asia § Ancient era
– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’d suggest splitting it up by kingdom and/or before/after the Norman Conqeust too. Tipcake (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think separating it by kingdom may make it less helpful for quickly keeping track of which kings ruled which other kingdoms, but moving the cutoff point from the 1480s to the 1060s seems reasonable to me. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems reasonable. In a way that would answer both problems, as e.g. Deheubarth is only first attested around the middle of the eleventh century anyways and Powys did not exist between 900 and the early 1100s (despite what you might read here, but that is another problem...) Tipcake (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when I said I agreed with cutting off the table at the Norman Conquest, I was talking about the table for the English rulers, which I just took care of accordingly. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I still don't favor deletion of any of the four tables, nor do I disagree with the keep arguments, but we have to admit that the pro-deletion side is making good points. The colors were decided arbitrarily by their respective creators, and it's unusual for navboxes to contain tables (of the type intended for article bodies) or references. Plus, the few keep arguments being presented here and at the newer discussion remind me of when a similar argument was presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline. For these reasons, I rescind my defense of all four. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not presented in a suitable manner for a navigation template and I doubt it can with this level of details. Additionally, what is up with this horrendous color scheme which fails accessibility? The spanning of rows and columns here would also fail accessibility if this was not hidden in a navbox. Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the point about the colors, which were tedious to decide on, especially for the Welsh kingdoms, which were originally much darker. Now I wonder if that would've been better than the current, lighter color scheme I changed it to. The colors for some of the kingdoms on the England table came from {{Anglo-Saxon kings}}, which gets its colors from the map featured on it, so I wonder if it would be fair to critique that template over the choice of map image.

Speaking of colors, I wonder how पाटलिपुत्र was able to decide on colors for each of the polities in {{Rulers of the Ancient Near East}} and {{Rulers of ancient Central Asia}}.   for the Muslim conquests is understandable, but   is an unexpected color for the Romans. Forgive me for continuing to bring up the wrong templates here, but those ones are what inspired mine. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no reason for colors at all. This isn't a coloring book and these colors don't offer anything of value. Unlike political parties which you can argue those are colors selected by those parties, these colors are made up completely and are WP:OR. And again, they all fail in accessibility which is a policy. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, there appears to be emerging consensus favoring deletion of similar templates. In any case, whatever happens to them should also happen to these medieval Britain templates for the same reasons, otherwise it wouldn't be fair. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Adobe Illustrator valid

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

The result of the discussion was Moved without redirect to User:RAPTOR7762/Adobe Illustrator valid with comment "Userfy per TfD" by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused and has no transclusions to SVG files. Thomasfan1916 [built buses?] 04:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes may be deleted. Initially for testing but currently of no use RAPTOR7762Whats up? 04:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a set of similarly recently created and unused templates (such as Template:Igen/Adobe Illustrator). Gonnym (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
May I move the unused templates to my user namespace RAPTOR7762Whats up? 05:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you move templates to your userspace, you need to make sure that no live templates call your user pages and request the speedy deletion of the old names. Gonnym (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is unused; move to user's page per request. Gonnym (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Football stadiums in Colombia

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template that presents a list of stadiums, being the only one to present a predefined format, so its existence makes no sense when the list in the main article - List of football stadiums in Colombia - already contains the same data and also has images, all while making it easier for users to make corrections. 44 Gabriel (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_17&oldid=1342432874"