Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 1 8 99 40 148
TfD 0 1 1 39 41
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 3 55 34 92
RfD 0 0 5 94 99
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant 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]
Shortcut
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW , and then select "XFD".)

Step 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_23#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 23

[edit]

Template:Kazakhstan 2014 Women's Rugby World Cup Squad

[edit]

Team navbox with only 1 blue player. Not enough to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barbarians August 2015 squad

[edit]

These navboxes are used incorrectly as tables in the middle of the article at Barbarian F.C.#Previous squads. These should be converted to regular wikitext, subst and the templates deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shizuoka Blue Revs squad

[edit]

Following this TFD, requesting deletion as I forgot to include this template. Nomination and comments remain the same. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Amazing Digital Circus

[edit]

Only 2 articles here are related specifically to The Amazing Digital Circus (those being the show's article itself, and it's series finale) while the rest just seem to be taken from the Glitch Productions navbox. With 2 in mind, I fear that is too little for it's own independent navbox, and this should probably be deleted since those two already fit the Glitch Productions navbox with no issues. ConeKota (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was because the articles were moved back into draft space. Monathephantom (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be recreated in the future if the drafts become articles. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into {{Glitch Productions}}. Per WP:NAVBOX, navigation templates are intended to connect a robust network of existing, closely related mainspace articles. Currently, this template only links to the parent article and a single episode article ("Remember"). The remaining links are for voice actors, crew, and the production studio, all of which are already comprehensively covered by the parent {{Glitch Productions}} template. Creating a standalone navbox for only two distinct show-specific articles causes unnecessary fragmentation. If more individual episode or character drafts pass AfC in the future, a dedicated navbox can be reconsidered at that time. Per the guideline text on WP:NAVBOX, navigation footers don't render for the ~70% of readers on mobile devices, making micro-templates with minimal link density functionally useless for navigation. A standard category or inline "See also" link is much more appropriate here until a larger cluster of distinct mainspace articles is established. ChPo ^_^ (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Template:Glitch Productions – Agreed with ChPo and ConeKota, as this template should be deleted, however primarily merge into the Glitch Productions template, as The Amazing Digital Circus, is obviously already categorised, in the Glitch Productions template, however, merging The Amazing Digital Circus template, with the Glitch Productions template, should categorise Remember, into a seperate "Episodes" section, in the Glitch Productions template, alongside with adding actors/employees into the Glitch Productions template, which are mentioned in The Amazing Digital Circus template, however not the Glitch Productions template. MrDevolver (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one seperate episode article, and it is already mentioned in the template. The "actors/employees" are also already mentioned. I don't think merging is necessary. Maybe just redirect the template. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Froggy Radio stations

[edit]

The Froggy article was drafted and most of other radio networks have a page to keep the other template. OWaunTon (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


June 22

[edit]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete per Imzadi. Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:02, 22 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 [1], 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:02, 22 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:52, 22 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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) 04:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bob FM Radio stations

[edit]

Delete The main page associated with template was deleted for failing GNG. Also, all of other templates still have their page. OWaunTon (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


June 21

[edit]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:01, 21 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]
Keep Most of it is useful description of history/ideologies prominent in India; I don't recognize anyone in Intellectuals/Commentators though Noida-gamer (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Conservatism_In_India_2 here's a revision i made
  • Used WP:DUE for navbox weightage (even though it's not official policy) - Indian Muslim Conservatives are still ~15% of the population, so giving 50% or 0% representation would be out of place, even if ideologies seem contradictory in historic contexts
  • Arbitrary biographies deleted Noida-gamer (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns remain. Conservatism is not a frequently used label in coverage of Indian politics, and when it is used, there is no consensus as to what it means. I see no means of choosing a coherent set of ideologies (by what reasoning is Swadeshi included?), or parties, or organizations, or history (of all the articles about actions taken by BJP governments, how are the ones listed to be chosen? Why is the Shah Bano case there?). Sidebars are useful when the overarching topic has coherence. Otherwise categories are more than sufficient. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values Conservatism
Many differing traditional institutions in India are conservative and non-homogenous (as for any country), WP:NAVBOX does not cite coherent ideology as a reason but rather coherent navigation pertaining to the topic of a page. Categories don't provide fast navigability to topics users are interested in.
> of all the articles about actions taken by BJP governments, how are the ones listed to be chosen
The ones chosen aren't primarily about BJP but rather sociopolitical events in India in which conservatism has been a focus or prominent side of a modern issue.
> Why is the Shah Bano case there
The case guided a political shift which ended up with the BJP in power, and includes Islamic conservatism and their impact on Indian politics. Noida-gamer (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Swadeshi is fair though, it's more economic, I deleted that Noida-gamer (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasonable arguments but they are entirely original research, which carries no weight. There are not high-quality reliable sources about conservatism in India that make these links. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete train wreck of a template, WP:OSE is not an argument. Visual eyesore that adds nothing and violates WP:SIDEBAR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of various seemingly contradictory ideologies under one "Conservatism in India" sidebar is backed by scholarly academic work [1][2][3] and these ideologies are weighted in proportion to their influence to Conservatism in India in Template:Conservatism_In_India_2. Noida-gamer (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (October 2017). "The Roots and Varieties of Political Conservatism in India". Studies in Indian Politics. 5 (2): 205–217. doi:10.1177/2321023017727968. Retrieved June 21, 2026.
  2. ^ Pirbhai, M. Reza (March 9, 2020). "Hindutva and the Meaning of Modernity". Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University. Retrieved June 21, 2026.
  3. ^ Carpentier de Gourdon, Côme (March 19, 2025). "Traditionalism, Conservatism, and the Perennial Philosophy (Part I)". Chintan. India Foundation. Retrieved June 21, 2026.
[edit]

Unused module. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox civilian attack

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

The result of the discussion was Withdraw. Going to try a different idea... (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox civilian attack with Template:Infobox event.
There is significant overlap here. Obviously not every event is a civilian attack, but based on the parameters in the Infoboxes, every civilian attack can be considered an event. There are a few parameters that would need to be added to event, but nothing major. Worth noting the numerous aliases that Infobox event already has. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as strongly as possible, per the last time this was nominated. All writers/sportspeople/politicians are people, so why don't they use the people template? No. To quote my argument from last time: "The event template is extremely ugly and I despise having to use it in any instance as an editor of many relevant articles. We have had this argument twice before. Civ attack is a more specific usage with different parameters, tailored to its usage. I like it better. Several of the relevant civ attack parameters would be weird on the event one. ... the template is 99% used for mass murder, crime and terrorist attacks, for which it fits the terminology. Using natural disaster terminology on murder gives the wrong impression. All those "arguably a little odd" parameters have been discussed at length." Infobox event is aggressively convoluted and is trying to do far too many things at once, it is a mess, a template for the broadest thing imaginable, "things that happen", is not ideal for most circumstances. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it should also be noted that there is considerable overlap of hundereds of pages where BOTH Infoboxes are used just to be able to display all necessary information. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 This is almost entirely due to one specific parameter:
Infobox event has a sentence= parameter, while infobox civilian attack does not. It is entirely used on infobox event to add it to the civilian attack infobox. This is stupid because almost all of the articles using the parameter are using infobox civilian attack. Infobox event should not have a sentence parameter and Infobox civilian attack probably should, but my requests to add it were denied because it needed an RFC or something.
But this one mistake that people have been complaining about for years and which template editors have refused to fix despite years of people asking is not worth combining the template for speeches and floods and random things with the rather specialized terrorism and mass murder template. Simply add the One Parameter that is an issue to the other template. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: while I respect the hell out of you, I think you are focusing too much on the NAME of the template and not the functionality of the template.
  • {{Infobox sportsperson}} has information specifically about their participation in sports that is not relevant to non-sports persons
  • {{Infobox officeholder}} has information specifically about holding office that is not relevant to non-officeholders.
There is no lack of overlap between {{Infobox event}} and {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Both have lists of missing, injuries, deaths. I 100% agree that civilian attack should have the sentence parameter. That seems to be one thing missing, but that would seem to speak to a good reason to merge them, not a good reason to keep them separate... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple parameters that only make sense in this template, dfens=, judge=, perpetrators=, assailants=, weapon/weapons=, numparts= and they are styled very differently. Additionally, the death language used on infobox event= is different than the one used in a way which I think makes it less appropriate for use on serious crimes.
I agree there is redundancy, but this is because infobox event is a total travesty that is trying to be 40 different things and it is doing all of them poorly. Merging the more specialized infoboxes into the one middling jack-of-all-trades one is bad and does not help clarity. Probably that template needs a culling of what parameters are not frequently used and what it is used for.
Also, I don't take this as a personal offense or anything, hah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Let me propose a novel idea that has NOT been discussed at previous TFDs (that I can see). What if we converted {{Infobox civilian attack}} to a wrapper for {{Infobox event}}?! This is more akin to the way that we have {{Infobox astronaut}} or {{Infobox artist}}, both of which have very customized parameters, but use the generic {{Infobox person}} as a base.
Let me put it this way, I 100% agree that NOT every event is a civilian attack so placing all the civlian attack params on every event doesn't make sense... BUT, can we agree that every cilivian attack is a form of an event? Are there any parameters on {{Infobox event}} that would be bad to have on {{Infobox civilian attack}}? We could keep the templates separate, but reduce the overhead maintenance by making it a wrapper... Thoughts on that idea? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the past 3 merge discussions, which all came to keep Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 28#Template:Infobox civilian attack Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 31#Template:Infobox civilian attack Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 1#Template:Infobox civilian attack PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both add {{{ sentence}}} to {{Infobox civilian attack}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:07, 21 June 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.
[edit]

No transclusions, and no incoming links to explain why it was recently converted from a redirect to a template without explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle/list of transclusions

[edit]

Unused template subpage that is outdated. A current list can always be generated from "What links here". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-US-1996

[edit]

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live.

I would typically merge these similar template nominations, but I suspect that one or more of them may be a special case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those used on Commons. Commons are the experts on this, and PD files should indeed (usually) be transferred there. It will help them if they are already correctly tagged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Template:PD-Turkey

[edit]

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ROC-GOV

[edit]

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no prejudice against local uploads to Wikipedia that should have been moved to Commons, or if an incorrect non-free license is changed to a free license. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Iraq

[edit]

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfBAG

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. This template may have been used a few times back in 2008, but it does not appear to have been used since then, with no ill effects (see Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations for examples). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SindhPA

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KF Shkupi squad

[edit]

Unused roster navbox. According to KF_Shkupi#Current_squad, the current roster has no blue-linked players. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Minnesota United FC 2 squad

[edit]

Unused roster navbox with only two blue links. According to Minnesota United FC 2, the current roster has no blue-linked players. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divisions of Scottish Baronage sidebar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RugbyLeague

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. Created in February 2026. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have several concerns with the use of the template:
  • The usage example for Paramatta Women does not work as there is no image, and most combinations have no icon as it is missing from the template/data even thought there are related images on commons.
  • The image file names suggest that it will only work for the 2026 (current) season. It would need to be adapted to work for different seasons, possibly with the addition of a parameter for this, and addition of new files to the template/data.
  • It uses a different set of icons from {{league icon}}, the standard used throughout most rugby league articles.
  • Possible copyright issue for the images as they appear to be same as used on leagueunlimited.com with small NRL and club logos added.
EdwardUK (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blocks Universe

[edit]

Unused template created by a blocked editor. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RussiaAdmMunRef/sve/munlist/krasnoufimsky

[edit]

Unused reference template. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I restored the usage. Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SMRT code transfer

[edit]

Unused rail related template. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State of the Nation Address (Philippines) date

[edit]

Unused date template. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from use almost exactly 24 hours before this TfD was filed, and I was on travel so I had zero time to realize that the page this is used on had removed the template. Anyways, it's back to being used. Keep. Chlod (say hi!) 13:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-par/ag-sen

[edit]

Unused link template. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barbarians Autumn 2025 squad

[edit]

Unused squad template for non-championship match. Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:43rd Parliament of British Columbia - Members

[edit]

Unused as 43rd Parliament of British Columbia#Members already has the data there. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1947 Philippine Senate election results

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as said edit was reverted due to it linking to a dab page, linking to a wrong party (Democratic Party (Philippines) did not exist in 1947), and that the footnotes were removed. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pagesize table

[edit]

The template isn't used anywhere. It was last used in this section on a user page by JPxG, but I rewrote the section using {{for nowiki}}. Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Libre

[edit]

Old template unused in mainspace. Template:Free culture and open content does this topic a lot better. Sign2 (talk) 00:53, 21 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]
So sorry, didn't see any of the mentions; been a bit busy with some off-wiki stuff. I'll tag the pages shortly. Vestrian24Bio 12:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 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]
So sorry, didn't see any of the mentions; been a bit busy with some off-wiki stuff. I'll tag the pages shortly. Vestrian24Bio 12:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym and Zackmann08: all of the templates in this nomination (women's) has been tagged now. Suppose it could relisted for another 7 days now... Vestrian24Bio 13:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be best so no one can claim they weren't informed of this discussion and then having us revert everything that happened. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as single-use instances of Module:Sports table. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:22, 22 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


June 20

[edit]

Angola COSAFA Cup champions navboxes

[edit]

Not a major continental or inter-continental football tournament, so such navboxes should be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2026 World Wrestling Championships

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created three months ago. Main article was deleted for being an LLM creation. Per an unsourced bit of World Wrestling Championships, this template will not even be needed until November 2026. No prejudice to recreation by a human editor if there are articles to link to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by a blocked user. Gonnym (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long fossil range/bar 280

[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. G7/T5 speedy delete KylieTastic (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Unused subpage created about eight weeks ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Residue from when we were trying different bar widths before agreeing on 250px for all three templates. Can safely be deleted through G7, or T5 for that matter. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:23, 20 June 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:Combined approval chart

[edit]

No transclusions. Created eight weeks ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Custombonked

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'll add documentation if it isn't there already. Robloxguest3 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monitor action

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well, the plan was to use this for the administrator elections that just occurred, I intend to do it sometime but if keeping it around is a problem, can userify. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pou Font

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Association football clarification

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links, except for one brief conversation that does not explain why it was created. Created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was created because sometimes articles use the term "football" when referring to association football, without specifying dialect. Since football could mean either American or association football (or any other kinds of football) depending on the dialect, I think clarifying that it refers to association football (or "soccer") would be helpful. I initially translcuded it to 1955 Spain v France football match, but that was merged later. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kru-IPA

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


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, [2] 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]
Merge. As far as I'm concerned, there's no good reason to have two templates that effectively do the same thing. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 16:48, 20 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]
Keep i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors. Not everything needs to go by the rules, and imo it makes more logical sense to keep it this way ~2026-35909-87 (talk) 16:26, 20 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]
I recommend you go try replacing the template with the identical untemplated wording in a few articles (let alone actually try to use alternative phrasing!), and see how you get on… MapReader (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be going against MOS:VAR, same as replacing untemplated text with template which would also get reverted. I haven't seen an actual reason for different wording in any specific article, so please say if there is one, the template can also be changed to support anything if needed. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it "extremely specific"?

    How is it not? If all the template did was spit out data like {{RT data|score}} {{RT data|average}} {{RT data|count}}, there would be no controversy. The controversy only exists because it generates a specific prose. It is an extremely specific way of communicating RT's review aggregation. The fact that it includes three static variables does not make its prose non-specific. The template still dictates a very specific sentence structure, a very specific ordering of information, and a very specific presentation/contextualizing of the data. The Tomatometer percentage, review count, average rating, and critics' consensus are all combined into a standardized block of prose that is used across thousands of articles. All chosen by a coterie of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. The latter being, you know, the solution to every other MOS:VAR issue ever? So the thousands of article-level editors who chose to introduce the template's prose into articles at a given moment in time are not realsitically part of the consensus that determines how that prose is later changed because it is changed at the template level. The article text simply changes, undetected. That would not be the case if the template was auto-substituted. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical reception exists. If there is disagreement at an article, change should be determined by editor consensus at the given article's talk page. There are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers, especially[3][4] in the case of the "average (of rated reviews) rating".

    What would anyone want to change it to in the future?

    Because how we present and communicate information is changed all the time here on Wiki. That is a normal part of collaborative editing and not a problem to be solved by templating prose. And if you're not convinced that "anyone [would] want to change it to in the future" then why do certain editors constantly change the existing text in articles by replacing it with these templates? They are doing this. All the time. And the text being hidden makes it all the more easier to replace article text when it looks as if it is only being removed and replaced with data, because it less obvious that the article's wording, style, and presentation have in fact been changed. Again: why should a centrally controlled prose template override normal article-level consensus? We should not be hiding text in thousands of articles. Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

    It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year.

    As stated below, you have not addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Keep. ~2026-36001-71 (talk) 22:47, 20 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. Edit: Switching to subst only would give some editors the convenience they crave and reduce the need to understand yet another template for ordinary editors, people who don't edit film articles regularly for example. -- ~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]

    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.

    Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?

    Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article

    Again this argument is completely bogus it because only makes sense if you also are suggesting that the template should be in all articles, which contradicts the entire premise that its use in aricles will be optional. And it is optional. And will continue to be optional. So "cleaning up" articles to match future changes from RT 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) 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles, so any edit wouldn't be "undetected". The templates are template-editor protected for RT, and extended-confirmed protected for Metacritic, so cannot be edited by inexperienced editors. Similar argument could be made for so many templates which are used on a similar or greater scale.
    I am not suggesting all articles should use these templates, I said use of them is optional, no one's disputing that. The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually, problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.
    There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template, it can be amended if consensus for new wording by using Template:Edit template-protected if needed. Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic as mentioned, such as giving judgement in WP voice or unclear phrasing like "approval rating". Indagate (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to say that the use of the templates is optional, then I have to ask why you felt it was appropriate to revert me when I substituted them on more than one article. If they're optional, then surely I have the right to substitute them? DonIago (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The templates were already used on those articles long-term, the option to translcude them was chosen before you substituted them, future changes to the template such as wording changes when RT changes how they present rated reviews as you mentioned won't be reflected on those articles. We have option to substitute them when adding to an article for first time, same as how we have option to transclude or not use them at that point. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it sounds patently ridiculous to me to claim that use of the templates is optional, but apparently only when they're brought to an article for the first time. That also flies in the face of the RfC closing comments, which said explicitly that their use should be discouraged. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC closing comments also said "the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually" which can be done when someone creates a reception section, using them when similar text also in the article would generally go against MOS:VAR which goes both ways. Not sure what you don't understand but please ping the RfC closer if you need further clarification. The RfC also closed with "previous discussions have not found consensus to act on these proposals, so those opposing their current use will need to demonstrate that consensus has changed within the community", doesn't seem like any new argument has been introduced here from the previous TfD's? Indagate (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles

Yeah... and they don't. I don't know why you're suggesting that any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if it is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article to see the TfD notice. And none of the past changes to the template were even the result of TfDs.

so any edit wouldn't be "undetected"

At the article-level it absolutely constitutes undetected changes. That was the entire point. Unless there is a mechanism that tells the editors and watchers at a given article that the text of that article has been changed then those changes, by definition, go "undetected" there.

The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually,

The maintenance "benefit" grows only in proportion to how many articles adopt the template. If usage is genuinely optional, and widespread adoption is not the goal, then the "benefit" is much smaller than suggested. And achieving those same results does not require hiding article prose in a template across that subset of thousands of articles. Templates which, again, have constantly encouraged replacement of locally developed text.
And this "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors.

problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.

Convenience has costs. And the cost here is hiding text in literally thousands of articles. If mass-updating prose were sufficient justification, then many forms of article text could be templated. I'll say again: Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template

You're conflating consensus about a template's existence with consensus about imposing particular wording across thousands of individual articles. The text is used at the article-level, not at the template.

Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic

Not unique to templates. We do not create prose templates whenever some editors occasionally write poor prose. Again: by that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Οἶδα (talk) 22:28, 21 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]
Uhhh...why are you convinced that templated text ensures "parity" between articles? Whether a film article uses one sentence or another to present the same data Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic does not mean either film is being treated as more or less "deserving" than the other. You are allowed to present information with different wording. One review aggregator prose template will never change that fact. Equal treatment (read: parity) between articles is the result of us applying the same content policies and sourcing standards to all articles. It does not come from us forcing identical wording across thousands of articles. Οἶδα (talk) 05:09, 22 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]
You're saying you find the template convenient (WP:USEFUL). That does not address why the text needs to remain hidden behind a template rather than substituted, and thus exempted from the basic principles of WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:23, 22 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]
WP:ILIKEIT. Whether you personally like the template does not address the concerns raised under WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. This template, when used properly with wikidata, saves a lot of time and minor edits when a RT or MC score adjusts.
Filmforme (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for using {{RT data}} and {{Cite RT}}/{{Cite MC}}. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template. {{RT data}} can be used in any text. There's no Metacritic equivalent to {{RT data}} either way. That must be updated manually. And the same few values are updated in the same way whether the text is templated or not. So that doesn't really save time. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is needed in articles. Now articles about films look weird. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL+WP:LOOKSGOOD. That does not address why the text needs to be stored in a template rather than substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it serves a clear & precise function for the reader. Do not remove it. Valueyou
Another WP:USEFUL argument. Οἶδα (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to presumption against storing article text. It seems the benefits can be retained through templating it out as a widget or something rather than as prose. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this is being listed now as 'Keep' and 'No Consensus' then the awkward Talk page notification banners ought to be removed as well, for example, as it still appears on Killers of the Flower Moon. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This TfD hasn't closed yet. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! Statistics is a fickle field and more often than not I as a mathematician register misleading formulations, especially since RT and MC use categorically different statistical methods. These templates offer participation for editors without deeper knowledge into statistics and their culprits. We in deWiki therefore have followed your procedure for our own handling of this aspect. --Eiragorn (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why substituting the templates or hard-coding the numbers would adversely impact your ability to do this? Nobody's talking about removing RT or MC scores. DonIago (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From my professional experience a lack of statistical understanding is very widespread. When the text becomes editable again (e.g. by substitution) it opens the door wide for misleading wordings. The status quo may not be perfect but is at least statistically sound. --Eiragorn (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The templates as they stand allow for editors to insert numbers without any regard for what RT/MC actually say, so I don't see how this is a valid argument with regard to these specific templates? DonIago (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved my point. Statistics is not numbers but what they mean. And to convey this correctly one has to word carefully. --Eiragorn (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might want to read elsewhere in this TfD, where it seems clear that there are significant issues with at least the current wording of the template. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see that but it's still substantially better than most I encounter "in the wild". And this is yet another reason to keep: the text inside the template can be improved for all articles at once while deleting/subst-ing would solidify the imperfect status quo. And since the majority also among WP editors does not have deeper statistic knowledge these "burned in" wordings would deteriorate even further over time. --Eiragorn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kind of indifferent, but I do think this template would be significantly more useful if it somehow automated updating RT scores and wasn't just a prose formula... I guess that could be interpreted as a weak delete. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} and associated templates were supposed to address automated updating of Rotten Tomatoes scores, but I cannot say how well that actually worked in practice, those templates always seemed massively overcomplicated to me, and in practice updates seemed to be too slow and some editors would overwrite them and update manually instead. But that is separate from this template and tangential to this discussion. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @~2026-20754-35 @Locke Cole I think User:RottenBot possibly provided this feature, they did with {{RT data}}, but it looks like the last edits were 2021. Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TG and Οἶδα. A template shouldn’t be used to force standardised, formulaic text into articles, and it’s not as if the insistence as it is by some film editors on pushing identical wording into every article enhances the output of our project ("…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike….") Further, the terminology used within the template is contestable and yet by having it locked within the template it becomes almost impossible to challenge; as SMcCandlish has oft commented, "universal acclaim" is WP:PUFFERY that ought to be deprecated site-wide as unencyclopaedic - as a literal statement it is of course impossible to prove or cite, and Metacritic’s use of this term for scores of just 81% or higher is self-evidently absurd. The template confounds this issue by using the sloppy term "indicating" in editorial voice, implying that it’s the article’s editors making this conclusion, when other phraseology might be more appropriate, such as "which according to Metacritic represents…". When I have introduced such changes into the odd article it’s always reverted on the grounds that there is somehow consensus for reciting the same formulaic text in every single film or TV article. That isn’t how WP is supposed to work. Indeed, it’s only the scores from RT and MC that represent actual data - are editors and readers not able to draw their own conclusions from a score of 90% and not have wording generated by a formula, which adds no new information or value for the reader, forced by rote into every article? MapReader (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we're on the same page anyway, but in case other editors see this before expressing their views...I feel I should be clear that I never wanted to be the one to bring this to TfD; I don't have a lot of experience with these, and I don't trust myself to word arguments about these sorts of things well. The tipping point for me was when I substituted the template on a few articles, figuring that would be seen as a reasonable compromise and true to the spirit of the closing comments of the RfC, only to have my substitution reverted. When there are editors who won't even allow other editors to depart from the template, there seems to be a significant problem that needs to be discussed. It's now bothering me that a number of the "Keep" responses above haven't even opined on the question of substituting the templates, instead treating this as a binary "keep" or "delete" scenario, even when my opening message was very clear that other options were available and might be worthy of consideration. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike…." isn't included in the prose templates so that's misleading, one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's which goes against WP:UGC as had to remove when templates not used, e.g. [5]. "Universal acclaim" has been discussed before. e.g. here at WP:FILM where no consensus for removing that so please WP:DROPTHESTICK, the exact same wording including "indicating" is used regularly regardless of template so not a linked issue to these templates, it's only quoted from Metacritic and not said in WP voice, not for us to judge whether Metacritic is "absurd". Please focus on points related to the prose templates in this discussion. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the 'acclaim' wording is to illustrate a point and not in itself at issue. I'm not aware that there is any consensus about having to use the same formulaic wording in every article, despite your long history of reverting any departures from it, and the issue with the template is that it hard-wires this into articles contrary to WP:TG. That there hasn't previously been consensus to remove misleading PUFF terminology such as "universal acclaim" does not prevent the matter being raised again, as clearly it is pertinent. The word "indicating" inside the template (or when used otherwise) is very clearly in editorial voice since it is never placed in quotation marks. MapReader (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's

Editors adding WP:USERGENERATED material to articles is nothing new or unique. And not reason itself to template prose. Not sure why you think the template magically prevents users from adding audience scores to articles. The template is only for critics' reviews. And in the example you cited, the audience part just comes right after the critics part. If it had used the template, the audience part could still be placed afterwards. Nothing about the template stops that. And in visual editor anyone can add another RT citation in seconds to support that audience rating. Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These templates provide some minimum consistency across the film articles on Wikipedia, while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data, shown in a consistent layout, provided by the templates. The convenience of having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates, but still allows users to adjust the other prose that fills out the section to reflect specific comments from a later review from a film critic.~2026-36097-01 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates

    You are confused. This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. It is about two specific templates that force specific text around that data and hides that text behind the template rather than including it directly in articles. {{RT data}} is completely different template and can be used in any text. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template.

    while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data

    This is rather incoherent. You are mixing two completely different things. The {{RT prose}} template does not in any way have to do with how we write about or balance (WP:WEIGHT) subsequent individual critics' reviews in the "Critical response" sections. That is determined by the core WP:NPOV policy which states that articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which we must consider and abide by. It is non-negotiable. Whether included reviews "align somewhat with the overall consensus of film critics" is not caused by a score being in a template that is being used to store article text around that score and does not depend on it either. Οἶδα (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stand by what I said in the 2025 RfC. They're completely pointless. JOEBRO64 07:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How would deleting {{Metacritic film prose}} effect {{Metacritic album prose}} the arguments against would seem to apply equally to both templates (and if this template is such as good idea why isn't there a template for {{Metacritic video game prose}} already?) Are there any further implications for other Wikipedia projects about deleting or keeping the Metacritic prose template that need to considered? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would be worth merging those two templates as seem duplicated but {{Metacritic album prose}} can exist without {{Metacritic film prose}}, discussion can happen depending on result of this. Video games seem to use boilerplate text for Metacritic but only for the label like "universal acclaim" with the number in a table, example 1, 2, 3. Indagate (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a reader and only rarely an editor, I was never aware that these phrases were templates. But I valued them greatly. Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial. And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.Harmenator (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said these templates cause more problems than they solve. There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores. I for one hate that some editors try to claim Rotten Tomatoes "reports" anything, like as if they are an objective news source, rather than people subjectively interpreting reviews, quantizing them into numbers and creating scores based on an undisclosed algorithm, which is absolutely subjective not objective reporting. I also hate the needlessly pretentious wording that Metacritic "assigned" a score, when "gave" a score would just as easily make the same point. (Above we have an editor complaining that quoted text, indicating "universal acclaim" is not clearly enough attributed to Metacritic. Consistency would be nice but no one is happy enough with the wording for it to be stable enough to be fixed in a template.) I wish we could have greater consistency but Wikipedia is loose and there is no willingness to enforce hard guidelines, this template causes as many problems as it claims to solve. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the conversation should shift to the wording of the template then, but as someone who uses the reception section of Wikipedia film articles quite often I think the deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves, especially for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template. Juanathanoli (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't articles be updated because the template wasn't there? It often doesn't automatically update, and if anything basic prose is easier for anyone to update. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves

    Such as...?

    for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template

    That. literally. never. happens. If the template is deleted, all instances will be replaced with the acutal text the template is currently hiding. There is no scenario where what you're describing happens. Non-issue. Οἶδα (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It would also be better to stick to the factual data - that Metacritic gave a score of 50% - and drop the trite editorial-voice commentary indicating "mixed or average reviews" that some editors insist must always be tacked on the end, despite telling readers nothing that isn't blindlingly obvious from the 50%. MapReader (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial.

    It is not "contentious". We are not "discussing reviews". We are presentating aggregates in prose. And an aggregate is merely a subjective product with distinct variables created by a review aggregator according to its own subjective methodology. Presenting those few variables with different wording does not render it impartial. The template is completely optional. And will continue to be optional. Because there are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers. Per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required."

    And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.

    Again: "Undetected" at the article level, where the text is actually seen by readers and which is actually watched by the relevant editors. That was the entire point. Because the template is storing text and thus uneditable. Any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are not watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if those changes are actually seen at the article level. And unless the article text is changed through an actual edit to the page, the only other way it will only be detected is if the template is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article at the very moment the TfD is happening in order to see the TfD notice because it does not cause any changes to the article text. It does not notify the talk pages of articles using the template nor does it send warnings to those editors who added the templates to the articles. And none of the past changes made to these templates were even the result of TfDs. They were all chosen by a small group of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    STRONG KEEP: the reason that there is a push to delete consensus review aggregators from internet searches and use recommendations algorithms instead is that corporations that "exploit entertainment product" for profit want to limit or fully disable public response to the "entertainment product" from being accessible. "Entertainment product" and "exploit" are industry terms. Wikipedia is one of the only sites that provides access to the consensus reviews of films through the Reception Critical Response paragraph. This is a public service tool on a site that is open source and consensus based and should not be eliminated. Paurielarker (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that seems pertinent to the question of whether the data plus accompanying standard text is inserted into articles by template? MapReader (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confused. AGAIN: This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. Οἶδα (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:TG. I agree on "There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores." --Preferwiki (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the arguments about the phrasing of these templates being overly reductive — the lax definition of “universal acclaim,” for instance. I think it is fine for contributors to want to replace these templates with more accurate language, and I do not think that such changes should be reverted solely because of someone's judgment that it is inappropriate to replace these templates with even identical prose. The existence of the template should not be construed as some sort of immovable status quo. But if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates. I am quite certain that someone will reply to this comment with a detailed analysis of why I'm wrong and ignorant; luckily, that doesn't invalidate my vote. I don't think these templates are a universal good; I'd be happy for the same data to be presented in some other way (not necessarily prose!) that is largely standardized across pages. But the arguments for deletion have failed to persuade me. Andrewdupont (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve done one of those posts that, while ‘voting’ one way (not that it is just a vote), set out clearly the arguments for the other! It’s the text within the template that IS the issue. Personally I would have no problem with templates that just drop in the data - the actual RT/MC score - which would keep these updated without editors having to do it manually. That’s the sort of job that templates are useful for. The problem with the current ones is that they force an entire, standardised sentence whenever they are used (which has the knock-on consequence that a few editors will insist on exactly the same phrasing even when the template isn’t being used, arguing that this is the consensus when in reality it’s simply the wording someone put into the template). MapReader (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates.

Because the template has not really changed ever since it was added to thousands of articles. It simply remains at its current wording because nobody can actually agree on any changes after the fact, not because actual consensus has determined the existing wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior to other acceptable formulations. That's just inertia. And if multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, that makes standardizing a single fixed phrasing in a template counterproductive. Deleting or at least making the template auto-substitute instead of storing the text actually reinforces the MoS. Also, there isn't WP:IMPLICIT consensus for the specific wording either, because there is only one templated version. Most editors add it because they find it convenient, not because they've reached consensus that its specific wording is superior. Οἶδα (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmenator. I don't see a problem with how things are currently done. ~★ nmaia d 10:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per kire and indagate Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Has indagate actually advanced any policy-based support for his position, rather than try to defend his historical editorial-warring? MapReader (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my vote above for policy link which answers your question, plus further explanation of other reasons, your vote only included WP:TG and other parts which I explained is irrelevant. Disagree I've edit warred over this but regardless, this isn't the place to discuss that at all. Indagate (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Where are all the other non-substituted prose templates used across running text on Wikipedia? I can't find them. If there aren't any, are the commenters in this TfD aware of that? So why are editors convinced review aggregators be the sole exception to WP:TG and thus be used across thousands of articles in contravention of the basic principles guiding the use of templates on Wikipedia? Are we seriously suggesting this one topic is so special that WP:TG does not apply to it? Why don't we also surround United States census data around uneditable prose and just call it "optional"? And not to belabor the WP:POINT, but what prevents editors who disagree with the current wording of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from creating another template with different wording? Both would be optional. Οἶδα (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other examples are {{Aired episodes}} and {{Television franchise episode count}}, examples of short boilerplate text used in the TV project, Also, {{Year article header}} used for year articles. WP:TG includes "normally" for that point, exceptions are allowed. Indagate (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my past thoughts on this from previous discussions. At the very least, these need to be substitute only templates. The vast majority of the "keep" comments (not all but most) to me just boil down to "I like how this is used on film pages", which doesn't seem like that strong of support for keeping them. The prose should be easily editable for any editor on any page that uses it to make adjustments, not locked behind a template. I prefer outright deletion, but at the very least, subst'ing them will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:55, 23 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]

Unused political party color template. Gonnym (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Unused Rugby League game templates. Gonnym (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]
Which I have done this morning. (The 'Templates for discussion' tag is mucking it up in operation though. If it can be removed, then I get get on with seeing if the paent template is functioning as it should.) Hogweard (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem withdrawing now as it is not used again. Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weekday in month recurring

[edit]

Unused date template. Gonnym (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Unused after the page it was meant for was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women in Music/Collaboration of the Month Past

[edit]

Unused. 3 years later, this collaboration was DOA, never done even once. Gonnym (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Unused after these edits. Gonnym (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Portals/qualityscale

[edit]

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject assessment category check

[edit]

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was rather a bold edit, so I guess I should provide some more rationale. I was seeing errors on pages such as Template:WikiProject Pokémon/class which were prompting editors to create incorrect categories like Category:Redirect-Class Pokémon articles, which does not exist because it is correctly named Category:Redirect-Class Pokémon pages. Rather than spend ages of my time fixing the code, I believe the onus is on WikiProjects which have decided to opt out of the standard (PIQA) scale to maintain their own assessments and categories. So the best solution I could offer was to remove the offending code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete. The examples that Chrisahn has posted are also ones that I've encountered. The params code is just not readable at all by anyone that isn't familier with that specific syntax, compared to any code written in Lua or Wikitext which is (even badly written ones). Also, pinging people you know will be on your side is the definition of WP:CANVASSING. I expect any closer to take the votes that resulted in that into consideration. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a somewhat borderline case of canvassing. A centerpiece of Chrisahn's argument is that Grufo is the only editor on la-wiki who has been able to use this bespoke module and it is likely that no or few other editor here on en-wiki will be able to figure it out. Hearing from other editors who find it useful—and useable—is relevant to the discussion. Having said that, hearing from a small handful of editors who have used it doesn't override the concern that it is inaccessible to a much larger group of editors. I think the input from these editors is valuable to the discussion but agree that the nature of their participation should be taken into consideration, which is not to say they should be discounted entirely. It would be helpful see other editors responding directly to the use cases offered by the fairly small group of editors who have use this module. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, regarding allegations of being canvassed, I had been silently following the discussion leading up to this at Module talk:Params, which is on my watchlist. Because TFD notices for Lua modules are posted to the /doc subpage, rather than directly to the module page, it escaped my attention. I was surprised to learn that a TFD was underway when I was pinged. Had there been a notice on the module talk page, I would have been aware of this TFD organically, without a ping. And I disagree that Grufo would have reason to think that I would be on [their] side just by nature of having used the module. In fact, I noted that I would not oppose replacing basic calls to concat_and_call with a simpler module! DefaultFree (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technical note: splitting out concat_and_call might work in very simple cases, but won't work in cases like {{ProdwarningLLM-batch}} and {{MOS-TRANS}}, where parameters need to be filtered, renamed, or otherwise transformed before being passed to another template. --Grufo (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete setting aside the CLEAR case of WP:CANVASSING this is a prime case of WP:TNT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT seems like an odd fit here. The rationale behind TNT is usually that a system has become so entangled or difficult to maintain that starting over is preferable to incremental repair. However, I am not aware of any maintenance problems and, despite the nominator's description, Params is highly modular and rather the opposite of a monolith: templates typically use only a small subset of its instructions, and bugs can usually be addressed within the specific instruction involved without affecting unrelated functionality. The very idea of piping operations together comes directly from the Unix philosophy of building complex behaviour from simple, reusable components. Whether one likes this particular implementation or not, it is difficult to see it as a textbook case for TNT. --Grufo (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that may help the discussion is to look at the current uses of Module:Params. Looking through the templates that currently use the module, I would roughly classify them as follows (excluding experiments, userpage templates, and similar cases).

Trivial usage of Params (6):

Ordinary usage of Params (10):

Moderately advanced usage of Params (4):

Very advanced usage of Params (use substacks) (2):

Naturally, others may classify individual templates somewhat differently, but I think the overall picture will not diverge much.

What stands out to me is that the majority of current uses appear to rely on a relatively small subset of the module's functionality, although the subset varies from template to template. This seems consistent with the idea that users can employ individual instructions without needing to make use of the more sophisticated parts of the module. The more sophisticated features that have attracted most attention in this discussion, such as substacks, are currently used only in the last two templates (aside from one use in a user page: User:Thatgaypigeon/TemplateData param). --Grufo (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grufo: you gotta stop. Responding to every comment that disagree's with you with a MASSIVE WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helpful to anything or anyone. We've been down this road before. Nothing about your nearly 11,000 byte response is worth reading or will be read. You are actually doing more harm then good. Just stop. Your bizarre rants and (as Gonnym correctly pointed out) WP:CANVASSING are getting old. Let the TFD run its course and stop dumping massive amounts of text in here as if that is going to help anything. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 23 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]
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 and subst. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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:Ethnicity in Delaware

[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) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
WP:NENAN suggests five, not counting the subject article. --woodensuperman 07:19, 20 June 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: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]
Merge per nom. - Amigao (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

June 15

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]
The explanation is very arbitrary and voluntaristic: Insinuating whether an English reader will go to the bottom of the template or not, whether he will notice this or that link, etc., is quite unconvincing and unfounded. If he is interested in something, he will read it, if not, he will go to the next page. The template is not a playground, but a help to INTERESTED readers (doesn't matter if genuine and average English or not) and an additional quality of Wikipedia, because such a template can hardly be found anywhere else. If some modifications need to be made to this template, that can be done, but deleting the template would only harm its potential readers and mean a decrease in the quality that Wikipedia, I hope, strives for. Those readers who are not interested can simply move on to another template or article. I don't know what exactly is the problem with the text of WP:NAVBOX. It says there that navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but I haven't found anywhere that anything is prohibited. As for the size, or length, of the template, we can only, for example, take a look at the template:Philosophy topics, which is much longer. --Silverije 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a fairly generic inclusionist argument. --Joy (talk) 20:31, 22 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:Attached KML/Mort Street

[edit]

Unused as Mort Street was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Bogor–Padalarang–Kasugihan railway

[edit]

Unused as Bogor–Padalarang–Kasugihan railway was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete as recreation of material previously deleted at TFD. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Reform (NZ)

[edit]

Unused political party color template. Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/National Party (NZ)

[edit]

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

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Malaysian United Party

[edit]

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

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Labour Party (NZ)

[edit]

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

Speedy delete - WP:T5 applies. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: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]
Delete Unlikely to be used on more than one article. The underlying image is used nowhere else except at d:Q23504115 and c:Category:Electric kick scooters. It might have been removed from E-scooter for being unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 2 RDT

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 1 RDT

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars

[edit]

Unsued campaignbox with only one item, so nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also a duplicate of Template:Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The links are also in Template:Campaignbox Arab–Byzantine Wars so this template does not offer anything new. Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 22 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]

Unused roster template. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Chinese Red Army

[edit]

Per WP:DEL10. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

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]
Delete – merge but don't wait on merge to delete. Agreed with adding functionality to existing template, rather than fracturing the namespace with otherwise absolutely identical features and purpose. Instead of forking functionality, if there's a frequent need to enable/disable an oppositely-defaulted feature, then a special-purpose template might be justified. C.f. {{cvt}} = {{convert|abbr=on}}, or even shorthand {{mvar|x}} = {{math|''x''}}. But forking to implement a feature is not it. Better done in template sandbox or userspace first.  — sbb (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Apparently there is an error in the module. When I tried {{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage|chain|Fulda}} (or any other river), I got "Lua error in Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage at line 436: attempt to concatenate field 'Lake Baikal' (a nil value)." It's a nice idea, but I guess it needs good documentation for anluabetes like me. Markussep Talk 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I need to emphasis this, this was done with AI so if anything from this is used, the data needs to be verified. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 23 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]
Agree, but they're not unused (at least the ones I checked, like RLoire, REms, RPo, RAngara), they'll have to be substituted. Markussep Talk 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, those weren't in the unused reports so they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 23 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 dosen't make sense to merge this, ethnic groups and tribes are very different. Abu Isa 🇴🇲 18:45, 22 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]
Oppose any intro/ 101 class on ethnography or ethnology course will tell you ethnic group and tribes are different. Take the Tribe of Israel.
Look at the ancient Israelites and their Twelve Tribes of Israel. The Israelites were an ethnic group that later formed a kingdom and was made up of 12 tribes within that ethnic framework. They were all the same ethnicity, but a different tribe. Now to be fair ethnology can be hard because sometimes tribes become their own ethnicity. The modern Jews are mostly decedents of the Tribe of Judah, with a little bit of Benjaminite and Levi mixed in.
Also look at the Native American groups. It depends on the ethnologist but they can be collectively called an ethnicity, but then you have to be careful, because depending on how you categorize it a group of Native American Nations maybe the same language group, or even Individual Native American Nations may be considered their own ethnicity.
Many Native Americans groups also have their own bands/ or tribes apart from their Nation.
Getting rid of this would create a major headache for editors knowledgeable in Social Sciences, ethnology, anthropology, etc. And may strike as disrespectful to some ethnic groups. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyguy1138: The nominator doesn't appear to be suggesting that every tribe isn't part of a larger ethnic groups, but rather sub-ethnic groups within a larger ethnic groups (in your case of the Israelite tribes). Other sub-ethnic groups such as Pomors use Template:Infobox ethnic group though they are described as a subgroup of ethnic Russians. What I'd perhaps ask is if there are any parameters of Template:Infobox tribe that are not in the ethnic group Infobox and can't be easily migrated over, though perhaps there's something I'm missing before even that. Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:24, 23 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]
Apparently this style sheet will be required per Template talk:Parameter#para2. Template:Parameter2 is set to be merged into Template:Parameter shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 23 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 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]

June 3

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]

May 31

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]

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"