Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 31

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 merge to Template:Rangpur District. (non-admin closure) HurricaneZeta^C 15:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rangpur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rangpur District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rangpur with Template:Rangpur District.
Merge these two? DB1729^talk 11:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both seem small enough that this won't cause an issue. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems like enough of a no-brainer that this should've been a WP:JUSTDOIT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with {{Rangpur District}} being the remaining template. I planned to vote "oppose", since most district templates list just upazilas or thanas, but several are much bigger with links to a wide range of attractions, so this wouldn't deviate from an established structure, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 4 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:Prod-speedy

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prod-speedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On top of potentially coming off as condescending to new users, it also comes off as rather dubious. I don't know if it's correct about speedy deletion being preferable to PRODing, but its advice regarding tagging pages for speedy deletion rather than PRODing them is plain terrible - if someone decides to PROD an article instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, there's usually a good reason they're doing so, to say nothing of the criteria for speedy deletion being super strict to the point that very few articles would qualify for even one of said criteria. JHD0919 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 28 January 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}) 04:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 06:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 2 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.