Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 112 | 38 | 150 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 3 | 6 | 2 | 12 | 23 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 109 | 112 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Templates for discussion (TfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether a template or Lua module should be deleted or merged. Nominated templates are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus.
If you want to nominate a template or module for deletion or merging, follow the instructions below. The discussion could result in an outcome other than the one you nominate it for (e.g., a merge nomination can result in deletion).How to use this page
[edit]Reasons for nominating a template
[edit]- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- 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.
- 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 discussion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
What not to nominate here
[edit]The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be nominated on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates – Stub templates and categories should be nominated 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 nominated at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Template redirects – Nominate all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
- Moving and renaming a template – Use Requested moves.
- 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 nominated at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
Nominate a template
[edit]You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an template on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate templates!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate templates, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.
Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a template for deletion or for merging into another template. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related templates at once, nominate the first template using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional templates into the existing nomination.
You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the template should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, such as merge or redirect, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. For desired outcomes other than deletion, the statement typically starts with '''Propose merging''' [[Template:...]] into [[Template:...]].
Only registered users can nominate templates for deletion or merging. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate templates. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.
Methods
[edit]Twinkle
[edit]
The easiest way to nominate templates for deletion or merging is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:
- Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click
- Go back to the template, click "TW
" in the top right, and choose "XFD" - Select your desired outcome from the list (delete or merge) and write a short nomination statement
- If you want to nominate more than one template, follow these additional steps
Manual method
[edit]If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate templates at TfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.
| Step | Instructions |
|---|---|
| Step 1
Tag the template |
Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:
Note:
|
| Step 2
List the template |
and paste the following text to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can optionally add Use an edit summary such as
|
Nominate multiple templates
[edit]If nominating similar templates for deletion or merging, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition. However, if a template in the group has a significantly better chance of standing on its own merits, it should not be bundled—nominate it separately. For the sake of clarity, nominations should only be bundled near the start of the process, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following a couple other editors' comments.
- Nominate the first template, preferably using Twinkle
- To do it manually instead, follow Step 1 above. Tag every template with
{{subst:Tfd|heading=name of the first template}}or{{subst:Tfm|name of the other template|heading=name of the first template}}instead of the versions given in Step 1 , but still not changing thePAGENAMEcode. - List the template
- To do it manually, follow Step 2 above, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters
|).- Multiple templates for deletion:
{{subst:Tfd2|name of the first template|name of the second template|name of the third template|title=name of the first template|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} - Multiple templates for merging:
{{subst:Tfm2|name of the first template|name of the second template|with=main template (optional)|title=name of the first template|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=as shown in the example above.
- Multiple templates for deletion:
After nominating, notify interested parties
[edit]While listing a template at TfD is sufficient, 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, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant template policies or guidelines, and please provide a link to the TfD discussion page itself.
- Deletion sorting lists
- After nominating a template, you can optionally inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "Deletion sorting lists", such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or specific countries. Since many people watch these sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, adding your recent TfD nomination to one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. If you do it, insert
{{subst:delsort|topic|~~~~}}as a new comment at the bottom of the TfD discussion, to let others know. - Notify 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.
- Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will result in the article being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
- Notify substantial contributors to the template
- While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the templates that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template, use the Page History tool, or use Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed. To notify them, you can ping them in a comment on the TfD discussion, such as
{{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}}Notifying contributors to the templates. ~~~~{{subst:Tfd notice|Name of the template}}(if you nominated it for deletion) or {{subst:Tfm notice|Name of the template}} (if you nominated it for merging).
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator.
Discussion
[edit]Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning. People will sometimes 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 XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions
[edit]No transclusions or main article for this navbox. Created in 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:LL2OS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created over two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Shulgin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created over two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Sidebar List Canada Electoral Districts Toronto (historical) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this sidebar, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Click navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or main article for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or main article for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Eczacıbaşı VitrA - 2019 Turkish Women's Volleyball Super Cup (Winners) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Eczacıbaşı VitrA - 2020 Turkish Women's Volleyball Super Cup (Winners) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or main article for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Header notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
I created this navbox and kinda forgot about it. I reckon it has its place provide it's added to the pages it references, just like its Portuguese counterpart and other templates of the same genre. I can handle it right away, if others here feel the same. Cainamarques (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- keep Looks good. --Altenmann >talk 18:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:King Bhumibol's children who received Krom titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, main article, or incoming links for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete useless. Only 2 items. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Footer Denmark Swimming 1992 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Footer Australia Swimming 1996 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Bob Dylan songs (1990s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bob Dylan songs (2000s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bob Dylan songs (2010s–2020s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for these navboxes, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Soviet Union handball squad 1988 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Norway Women Handball squad 2008 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Norway women handball squad 2012 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation for this infobox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or incoming links for this broken infobox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Footer Spain Swimming 2012 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Footer Germany Swimming 1996 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:PD-AR-Bora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or template parameters. Created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Denmark Women Handball squad 2004 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions and no main article for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions and incoming links. Created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- There is a transclusion listed on the Pages that link to page for the article, that is the article itself. There are also redirects to the template and it is categorized as a template. IZ041 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Correction: It is categorized as a country data template with an actual category that is the category for the for the country data templates for the former provinces of France. IZ041 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Netherlands squad 2023 World Women's Handball Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions and no main article for this navbox, created a month ago. Fifth-place team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Germany Women Handball squad 2024 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions and no main article for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions and no main article for this navbox, created a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Navbox with no transclusions and no main article, created in January 2026. I asked the creator about it and they haven't used it anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep (creator's !vote) Sorry, I'm an old old man, short memory, much work.Valid group of topics. Linked. --Altenmann >talk 15:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Newly created large sidebar that is redundant to {{Lemony Snicket}}. Recommend redirecting to that navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Dear sir, I only created this template because I thought there wasn't one. Please, could you keep it, so people don't have to scroll down? The Chronicler of Chroniclers (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- And besides, this template only focuses on works associated with A Series of Unfortunate Events, not necessarily Snicket’s whole bibliography… The Chronicler of Chroniclers (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Userboxtable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Userboxtabletop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A new redundant template, as far as I can tell. We already have a well-developed set of templates for this purpose at {{Userbox table top}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, template creator here. The reason I made this was because I wanted a userbox table that still looked like a table. The set that we currently have does not have any outlines and frankly doesn't look very much like a table (which is the look I wanted), so I created one to make it easier for me to do that. You can see an example of this template at my userbox page. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 14:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Only links two articles, WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:12, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Only two articles in a sea of red links. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 14:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- keep per WP:NENAN, but remove the redlinks (connects 6 articles). Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree - it may not be a guideline, but the logic seems valid to me. I think a useful rule of thumb would be to not have more redlinks than blue, and only those that are expected to have articles created in short order. The purpose of a navbox is to navigate, and there's no point in doing so to articles that don't exist and may never exist. Redlinks in the body would still exist as plain text if they weren't linked, so it's a different standard IMHO. If anyone is actively working on any of the red links they can leave those ones in. It's easy enough to add any others back in if and when they're created. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think we should be more strict regarding red links. As examples, {{Donkey breeds of France}} and {{Sheep breeds of Italy}} have had redlinks created by the same editor for twelve years! That's not exactly "actively working", yet they are still trying to retain the redlinks. Maybe if they were working on just one navbox at a time, but even so, WP:WTAF! --woodensuperman 10:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- There were only two articles when I made the nomination. This is why WP:WTAF is worth following. --woodensuperman 05:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree - it may not be a guideline, but the logic seems valid to me. I think a useful rule of thumb would be to not have more redlinks than blue, and only those that are expected to have articles created in short order. The purpose of a navbox is to navigate, and there's no point in doing so to articles that don't exist and may never exist. Redlinks in the body would still exist as plain text if they weren't linked, so it's a different standard IMHO. If anyone is actively working on any of the red links they can leave those ones in. It's easy enough to add any others back in if and when they're created. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, no policy-based reason for deletion has been given (do we in fact have any relevant policy?). WP:REDLINK (a guideline) is perfectly clear: Red links may be used in navboxes that also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or else the links may be removed from the template. WP:NAVBOX (also a guideline) has Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data and also ... links should be blue; dead links should be red". WP:NENAN is an essay, so has no weight here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please also note the guideline states that
Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.
Red links are not articles and navboxes are not link farms. The "complete set of data" you refer to is cherry picked from WP:EXISTING, which in full is:Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
Every animal breed, where notability is not established, is not what is meant by "complete sets of data". This refers to, say, every award winner from every year, where it would be confusing if there were gaps. The omission of non-notable animal breeds is not misleading. As I've said to you many times, WP:Write the article first. --woodensuperman 09:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please also note the guideline states that
Only two articles in a sea of redlinks. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 14:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, per reasons given above. And yes, there are lot of red links; I'll start on some of those when I've done a few more geese ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- You promise this, but some navboxes you've created, such as {{Chicken breeds of France}}, have had redlinks sitting in them for twelve years! That's not exactly "actively working" on them. --woodensuperman 10:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:NBL Coaches 1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:NBL Coaches All-Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Transcluded to a single article, template contents should be moved to the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Ted Baillieu and Baillieu ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Steve Bracks and Bracks ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Rupert Hamer and Hamer ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Lindsay Thompson and Thompson ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only John Brumby and Brumby ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Joan Kirner and Kirner ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Jeff Kennett, Kennett ministry and Kennett curse are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Henry Bolte and Bolte ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Denis Napthine and Napthine ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between two articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Daniel Andrews and the articles on his ministries are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". None of these articles are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only John Cain Jr and Cain II ministry are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, only bidirectional connection is between three articles, which is too few for a good sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Breaks WP:SIDEBAR, which says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related". Only Jacinta Allan, Allan ministry and Allan government are "tightly related". The other articles are just peripherally related. WP:SIDEBAR also says "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." That is not the case here. There articles can be naturally linked to each other in prose. Steelkamp (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
I dont see any use for this template whatsoever Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a joke temple, that can only be used for vandalism. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not for vandalism. It's used for dictating that an article is based on Polandball, a massive internet meme and webcomic. ElliotGuy0000 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- this person created the template Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to explicitly point out that an article is based on Polandball because a reader can just read the article to find out it is about Polandball. Also, the only article that could ever carry such a template is the Polandball article itself, as no other articles on the English Wikipedia are primarily about Polandball. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not for vandalism. It's used for dictating that an article is based on Polandball, a massive internet meme and webcomic. ElliotGuy0000 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete because articles should not have disclaimers, and this template is a disclaimer. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:France FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Germany FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Jamaica FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Netherlands FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Peru FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:China FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:China AFC Asian Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Netherlands UEFA European Championship record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Germany UEFA European Championship record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All these tables are only transcluded to between one and three articles. A dedicated template is not necessary to store this content, they should be merged back into the national team articles. For the templates that are transcluded on multiple pages, we can use labeled section transclusion to sync the tables. Also per the recent TfD discussion here. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Unused and never used; judging by the source, this seems like it would be redundant to either {{Infobox military operation}} or {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Omphalographer (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Video game livestreaming services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Internet streaming services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Video game livestreaming services with Template:Internet streaming services.
The 'Live Streaming' group in Template:Internet streaming services is almost the exact same as this template. TechnicalNewt (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Paid contributions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Undisclosed paid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Paid contributions into Template:Undisclosed paid.
I propose simply redirecting this template because both templates are used to flag the same problem, except that this one is less developed and therefore the text in the notice is shorter. The subtle distinction between "may have been edited in return for undisclosed payments" and "contains paid contributions" is not nearly enough to warrant keeping a completely separate template, and I don't think this is reflected on the actual usages of the two templates. And besides, if {{Undisclosed paid}} is the "uncertain" version, why it it worded much more strongly then the template that's supposedly only used for demonstrably confirmed violations? If there really is a concrete need to differentiate between the two, this can be turned into a wrapper that simply tweaks the bolded text of {{Undisclosed paid}}, but keeping two separately-maintained templates for virtually the same purpose is actively harmful. FaviFake (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The templates are distinct. One is founded upon a user declaration, the other on an opinion, yet to be confirmed or denied, that paid editing is taking place. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure how I feel but I will address two things: "
why it it worded much more strongly
", undisclosed includes reference to violations of the foundation's TOS. Not saying it's correct, but that's why. "actively harmful
", disagree. Not opposed to merging the two, with undisclosed as a wrapper to the "disclosed" paid version which could include a param specifying that it is undisclosed, or suspected, as nominator put it. Regardless, I do think it is important to preserve the language of both, but indifferent to the method of such. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC) - Oppose - as stated above, these two templates "flag" different issues; paid editing is discouraged but permitted, and the creator is expected to follow guidelines such as NPOV, no PROMO, using edit requests, etc. Where as UPE is not permitted and editors can be blocked or banned for doing so. The problems within these articles can be more serious and require may greater oversight and clean up by unconnected editors. Additionally the UPE-suspected creator must respond whether or not they are editing for compensation and if so, who is paying them. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - as others have said, the two templates are for quite different purposes. {{Paid contributions}} is only for problematic contributions, made by paid editors who have disclosed their conflict, that need to be dealt with; {{Undisclosed paid}} is for any contributions that have been made by a suspected paid editor. Merging would, I think, lead to even more accidental misuse of the template. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:ROUtop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There are not active pages using it, as it was replaced with Template:ROUinttop as per MOS:RJL LaUr3nTiU (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- LaUr3nTiU, template redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created in June 2026. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I have added documentation and categories. This was created for marking non-English examples in linguistics articles, there would eventually be transclusions.
- Template:Principal fatty acids of common cooking oils (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused article content with no template parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Hershey Bar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Why do we have a template promoting one "wonderfully delicious" brand of chocolate? Fram (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly useful, even though Hershey bars taste like paraffin. No different from many other branded WikiLove templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Then those others should be replaced by non-branded ones as well. Wikipedia should not have templates lauding one specific brand, even with good intentions. Fram (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have no idea why we would keep templates about the "fishy, gooey goodness" of McDonalds fast food either, but let's start with a TfD for this one specifically. What is the purpose of advertising one specific brand of candy when supporting each other. "I think you are doing great work, have a refreshing cola!" works just as well as "I think you are doing great work, you deserve that uniquely refreshing taste of an ice-cold Coca Cola" but has none of the jucky "this message brought to you by brand X" undertones. Fram (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Bare anchored list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Anchored list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Bare anchored list with Template:Anchored list.
Per its history, this template is exactly like {{anchored list}} but uses bare-numbered anchors #1, #2,... instead of #alist-1, #alist-2,...; code copied from {{anchored list}}
. As Pppery said 9 years ago, this creates duplicate code everywhere!
Template:Bare anchored list should become a wrapper of Template:Anchored list to maintain the same functionality. FaviFake (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
The following template is a significantly duplicated version of Template:Game design, which currently contains only 1 page linking to it.
As a matter of transparency, my normal method of requesting template deletion is to remove all links to the page before proposing it for deletion as unused, which as far as I am aware, is not against policy. However, @Zxcvbnm: has taken issue with this methodology, so I am posting it here for further discussion per request
To provide full context of the page, "Video game gameplay"currently contains 103 links inside it, not including the upper headers. Of those, 76 are completely duplicate of "Game design", and 14 are links that already exist on other templates, most of them from Template:Video game monetization. This leaves only 13 links that do not exist on any other game template as of now.
These are the only links not duplicated somewhere: Brush, Idle animation, Loading screen, Procedural generation, Map seed, skybox, Level editor, Nintendo hard, Play-by-mail game, and Outline of video games.
All other pages have already been moved over to "Game design", or moved to another template. As a note, 5 of the 13 pages on this template don't even transclude the template at all, so there's probably a few more I could move over, if I'd known they existed
Is there any objections to me finishing moving the remaining 13 pages to other templates, and then requesting this template be deleted? EDIT: having walked away from this for over a week, I realized that this last line doesn't really answer the underlying question I was looking to ask, which is whether the template should be deleted. So, instead I'll ask this: ignoring the improper way I've gone about this, is there any benefit anyone can see to having these 2 very similar templates?. 13akoors (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'd debate the idea that it is not against policy, WP:DELPRO says a deletion discussion is required to delete any normal page, and procedurally deleting it for unuse after manually removing it from all articles is a form of gaming the system, even if done in good faith. I assume admins put the kibosh on the template not because it was within policy, but because it wasn't obvious it was previously used somewhere until just recently. I'd avoid that sort of tactic in the future, much less bragging about it, lest it look like you are trying to do an end run around TfD. If it ought to be deleted, it probably will anyway.
- My issue with merging the templates is that it may be dubious to call some things "game design elements". Cutscenes, for example, are not really game design unless they are playable cutscenes, but they are concepts. (Which is what the other template purports to be about, even if it's named "gameplay"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Understood. I disagree that it's gaming the system, but I have no problems doing it differently going forward.
- As for the template, the issue here isn't one of merger. It's one of usage. Let's say both templates remain. Then what we'll end up this template being 89% of the same links as "Game design", ignoring the 14 links that were on other templates. Either way, we'd need to heavily adjust both templates to make their be any reason these aren't the same. Not to mention that this template is laid out in a very unintuitive way. I have no idea what possible connections there are between Collision detection, Paper doll, and Attract mode, for example. Meanwhile, "Game design" has distinct sections for each one of these that I'd argue have much clearer delineations.
- If both templates are kept, why would someone want to use this one? Both are about high level concepts. Both are about mechanics, Both have items, and effects, and in-game environments. What use could this template provide that isn't already being provided by "Game design"? 13akoors (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose. It is, in fact, against regular practice to
to remove all links to the page before proposing it for deletion as unused
. Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. In my opinion, it is a highly inappropriate and misleading tactic to make WP:TFDREASON #3 a fait accompli prior to nominating a TfD. James (talk/contribs) 16:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)- I think I've realized from this discussion that I do not understand the line in the sand for editing Wikipedia at all. Because when i read that line, I see that as saying "When you nominate a template, you should not remove transclusions until the discussion is done". I do not see that as meaning "you must have a discussion before removing transclusions".
- Is there some guidance you can point me to that I can read on this topic. Because I don't feel that the WP:TFD and WP:DELPRO are clear enough for me to understand what exactly is expected of me as an editor, and I worry that I'm going to have more issues in the future if I don't fully understand this 13akoors (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- The main issue is that if the template is kept against the nominator's wishes, we have extra busywork reinstating the template to unknown pages. Orphaning a template is much easier, we have a list of pages to remove. Techie3 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- To partially assuage the worries of the above request, I edit Wikipedia in my spare time while doing video editing. If ordered to do so, I will personally restore the template to every page I removed it from (and also the ones that never transcluded the page to begin with, but were supposed to).
- That being said, now understanding the proper way to go about this, I would prefer to discuss the template on its merits, and not just my incorrect way of listing it for removal. I will edit my initial post to reflect this, since having walked away for about a week, I realized my initial post was not clear in what I was actually requesting. 13akoors (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- The main issue is that if the template is kept against the nominator's wishes, we have extra busywork reinstating the template to unknown pages. Orphaning a template is much easier, we have a list of pages to remove. Techie3 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
SportsMap, after years under a variety of co-branded names, ceased programming in 2024 and its affiliates transitioned to Vegas Stats & Information Network. Its website redirects to VSiN's page. Of the nine listed affiliates, one is no longer a sports station (XEPRS) and one is silent due to its owner's financial problems (KREW). I was only able to verify two stations that aired a VSiN program in their lineups. Time to take this template off the map. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- 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 for multiple reasons:
- Template:Arab pottery: Delete; deleted as G7 by BusterD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Template:Arabic pottery: Template does not exist. If the title linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion.
AnomieBOT⚡ 10:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Arabic pottery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Arab pottery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Arabic pottery with Template:Arab pottery.
This source affirms that Arabic should not be used in this case. If you wanna look at style guides, they will affirm this. "Arab" refers to the people, and "Arabic" refers to the language. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Convert mu
[edit]- Template:Convert mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cvt mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Specific instance of a conversion (Chinese mu to hectares) for a unit that should be supported in Template:Convert. If there is a usage case for a different mu unit, that can be supported as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support, but see Template:Convert mu/doc#Notes; if closed as merge, all or part of this note should be ported to Template:Convert/doc, perhaps in § Area. Also, I would not like this to be closed rapidly or with little input, as this has been discussed several times before, most recently among @Stepho, Chrisahn, Artoria2e5, Johnuniq, Dondervogel 2, and Toadspike: in August 2025, and prior to that in 2023, 2022, and 2017. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ping Stepho-wrs. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Moo? I am in support of the merge after a short look at the issue. In practical use "mu" should be specific enough since it only remains legal in PR China, unlike the other traditional-turned-metric-based units… Artoria2e5 🌉 01:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect so, but some sourcing needs to be cleaned up across all the East Asian unit articles. The 1959 reforms phased out all the non-metric units for non-agricultural use by 1990. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is possibly off-topic here but the issue has been discussed many times at convert, most recently at Template talk:Convert/Archive 3#Mu, or 'Chinese acres'. I commented: "
As mentioned in these discussions and above, there is no standard definition for mu—it's value apparently varies with time and location. Adding a unit to convert gives it an official status and people will assume that convert magically works. That's unwise when a unit has no standard meaning. A problem with convert is that it is hard (apart from relying on dubious searches) to find where a unit is used to check if the usage is correct.
" Later in the same discussion, I showed how anyone can add the unit to convert and use it as a trial. If a unit is used and that usage has consensus, it will be retained. I haven't examined this template and don't know if convert would be an equivalent. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) - My only comment then was that I do not have a feel for the size of a hectare, but (like 90 % of Wikipedia readers) I was taught SI units at school. Therefore, to ensure wide accessibility, the outputs of any conversion template should include an SI unit of area (say to square metres, square hectometres or square kilometres). My opinion has not changed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think whether a given term is an SI unit should be the decisive factor, or even a factor at all. Are you a scientist, or perhaps someone living in a non-metric country like the USA? Hectares may not be a standard SI unit (it used to be, but was delisted in June 2026), but it is a standard metric unit for land area consisting of 10,000m2, that is, a square with 100 meter sides—about 2.47 acres. The hectare is used very nearly universally in metric countries for land areas from individual lots, to parks, farms, and forests (other than the very small which use m2 or the very large, which use km2).
- The cutover appears to be roughly around 25,000 hectares; larger than that, and most use sq km. (A quick, unscientific check of Forest of Fontainebleau articles (22,000 ha) at ten European Wikipedias shows about half of them use hectares (fr, de, it, ru, ro, pl) and the others use sq km (pt, es, sv, da). 25,000 hectares is ~400,000 mu, so as a very rough approximation, that might be the point where we switch to using sq km, unless sources for a given parcel say otherwise, of course. Recall that {{convert}} supports conversion into multiple units, so both hectares and sq km could be used as the target units for a range of mu areas near the crossover.
- As far as using square hectometres, you're aware that they are equivalent to hectares, but the term is used far less frequently[1] and is virtually incomprehensible to the average person. Using that term simply because it is an SI unit and hectare is not would be a disservice to our readers, per WP:JARGON. The term hectare is the most universally understood term for areas from suburban house plots to parks and middling-size forests, and should be the term of choice. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- You have missed my point. To make things crystal clear, my argument for preferring a conversion to square kilometre is simply "nearly all WP readers know what a square kilometre is" (and not "the square kilometre is an SI unit"). By comparison, few readers would know that a hectare is 10000 square metres. (I had to look it up myself)
- It also seems appropriate to push back on the false statement "[the hectare] used to be [a standard SI unit]". The only SI units of area are the square metre and certain decimal multiples and sub-multiples. Those multiples happen to include the square hectometre, but not the hectare.
- Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The convert mu template uses hectares because it is easier to only program one target unit for it, and ha was chosen for the reasons discussed above. I have no dog in this ha vs km2 discussion. I just want to note that once it’s integrated into convert proper, any target area unit will be available. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- That would completely address my concern. I suggest choosing between what you call "convert proper" and leaving mu unconverted (with a link to an article explaining what it is). Thank you for explaining. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I have notified WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Hong Kong, and WikiProject Macau because this discussion. (WikiProject Measurement is defunct, so there is no one to notify.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I share the concern in Johnuniq's green quote above. It is simply not possible to have a single conversion rate for the "Chinese mu", which varied widely throughout history and still varies by region today. I don't think it's wise to add this to convert unless we also have a date parameter that warns the user if they're using the template anachronistically. Toadspike [Talk] 07:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- In modern usage "China" or "Chinese" colloquially refers to the mainland area of PR China (i.e. excluding the special administrative areas and parts not under their actual control). As far as that big chunk of land is concerned, there is a singular system of units, including a singular mu.
- "Varies by region today" is technically correct in the sense of "countries and regions". In other words the "regions" are country-level divisions (each with their two-letter "country code"), not divisions within a country, unlike the historical case. (I may have managed to offend both Great China unionists and "separatists" with this one. Welp.) Artoria2e5 🌉 02:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be general agreement with these templates not existing, but I'm not sure there's a clear consensus about whether to replace these with {{convert}} (or similar) or whether to just eliminate them entirely (replacing with only the numbers and/or specifically-calculated replacements depending on historic time period).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ The term square hectometres is virtually unknown. In books, the term hectares is 50,000 times more frequent than square hectometres. So being an SI unit or not being one should not make it the term of choice at Wikipedia.
- Template:Niue icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Samoa icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Tonga icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fiji icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cook Islands icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Māori icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to Template:Flagicon, which includes Niue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the nominator, just in case they haven't seen the question (or the relist). Primefac (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just to note, I have combined all of these into one nomination; they are all "This WikiProject link in a flag is identical to the Country data X template" with identical responses from a single participant. If any single template needs to be discussed separately feel free to ping me and I'll do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:WA Inc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template seems to have a very broad and poorly defined criteria for inclusion. Why are a bunch of random commentators included? Is that just any notable journalist who reported on WA Inc? Not all their articles actually mention WA Inc. And the list of politicians seems to encompass people who were directly involved (Burke, Grill, Berinson, Dowding, Parker) to people who were only tangentially involved, to people who weren't involved at all, such as Lawrence and Hawke, who only happened to be prime minister when this scandal occurred. Same with the businesspeople. Why is Robert Holmes a Court listed? Steelkamp (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Strong KeeKeep. The template is very useful in that it draws together various elements and personalities of the historic scandal in a way that does not succinctly emerge in any one of the component articles. @Steelkamp, Hawke was prominent in the John Curtin Foundation and Robert Holmes à Court was the main beneficiary of Bell and Rothwells transactions. Carmen Lawrence's involvement was in stalling the Royal Commission. Much of the WA Inc content has yet to be contributed and deletion of this template will chiefly serve the interests of those who wish to deny further disclosure of the damaging history, Bjenks (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Whether to delete this template or not has nothing to do with "the interests of those who wish to deny further disclosure of the damaging history" and everything to do with Wikipedia:Navigation template, which says:
- "Articles included in a navigation template must be more than loosely-related"
- "relatedness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition"
- "including an arbitrary selection of articles related to the template's subject can present a point of view or give the subjects of the select articles included undue weight."
- "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space."
- What reason would someone reading Central Park need to have a link to Bob Hawke? That's a very tenuous connection. Steelkamp (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Whether to delete this template or not has nothing to do with "the interests of those who wish to deny further disclosure of the damaging history" and everything to do with Wikipedia:Navigation template, which says:
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:İçli Pide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not particularly useful imo. Only like 5 strongly relevant articles; imo this should be converted into a navbox on bottom if wish to be kept. When it's a sidebar it causes MOS:SANDWICH issues, basically prevents images from being placed. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. No deletion rationale provided. Template is useful and used. It doesn't cause sandwich issues any more than any other sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's useful. It has like 5 links in it and causes sandwiching. And you're right that the sandwiching has the same issues as other sidebars; consequently I hate all sidebars and wish that all of them would be eliminated or converted to navboxes on bottom. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Australian government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox incumbency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian government with Template:Infobox incumbency.
Per WP:INFOCOL. This template's purpose is identical to Template:Infobox incumbency, but it was needlessly made for Australia. The latter is used almost universally for different countries, such as:
Premiership of Andy Burnham
Premiership of Mark Carney
Second presidency of Donald Trump
Presidency of Emmanuel Macron
It is only transcluded on 33 pages, and I would be willing to manually convert any pages that need attention to facilitate the merge. Some of the fields are already the same in name and purpose, but there will be some that need to be renamed, and perhaps added to Template:Infobox incumbency. I will, however, propose removing the following fields, as they exist and are better suited for pages using Template:Infobox government cabinet:
statusstartreasonendreason
For example:
- Albanese government should use Template:Infobox incumbency
- First Albanese ministry already uses Template:Infobox government cabinet Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support, it should be noted as well that similar articles of Australian state premiers (Crisafulli, Finocchiaro, Rockliff, Carroll, Allan all use the generic incumbency/administration infoboxes rather than the Australian specific version. There is no need for an Australian-specific version. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't a merger to Template:Infobox government cabinet be better to allow all template fields to be preserved? I don't really understand the snarky comment about this being "needlessly made for Australia" - I created Template:Infobox Australian government in March 2018 and Template:Infobox incumbency was created in May 2019. I T B F 📢 01:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies if that remark sounded snarky; that wasn't my intention. Since Template:Infobox incumbency did not exist when you created this template, it was completely reasonable of you to have created this template. However, I will still advocate for the removal of the 3 fields I listed as to avoid modifiying Template:Infobox incumbency; my reasoning is in the RM proposal. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Unused. Was removed from Riksgränsen Station and Ed Station during their migration to {{Adjacent stations}} since the latter is usually only used for train services, not for the physical infrastructure those services use. taavi (talk!) 11:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
No longer used by any templates. Logic is now handled by other templates/modules and this is no longer needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: What did you replace it with in the templates that were using this? Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Much simpler logic built into Module:Location map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Also, I only replaced it in 1 template. Not sure what other templates it was removed from, by whom and what it was replaced with. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me check the logic, perhaps tomorrow, but it does sound like this can go if the functionality has been preserved elsewhere. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I've done some more checking and I think this probably can go. Although it's better nowadays to use meta:Help:Extension:Kartographer like we do on Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me check the logic, perhaps tomorrow, but it does sound like this can go if the functionality has been preserved elsewhere. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Antigua and Barbuda MP templates
[edit]- Template:Current MP for All Saints East & St. Luke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for All Saints West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for Barbuda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. George (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's City East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's City South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's City West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's Rural East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's Rural North (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's Rural South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. John's Rural West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Mary's North (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Mary's South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Paul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Peter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Philip North (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current MP for St. Phillip South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Very few uses and not useful, could easily be replaced by standard wikitext PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 19:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: This template has not been superseded like similar templates and it is of critical importance (with entrenched usage) on Antiguan and Barbudan articles. It aids with updating articles after A&B's irregularly-scheduled elections and frequent by-elections. The only issue is that they still need to be expanded to more locality articles which could easily be accomplished.- Merge: template functions could be consolidated into one template. CROIXtalk 19:17, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Several countries have frequent elections but not templates like this Antigua and Barbuda is not special in this regard. If not full-on deletion, would you at least be ok with all of them templates being merges into one? PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 19:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would support a merge. CROIXtalk 19:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Several countries have frequent elections but not templates like this Antigua and Barbuda is not special in this regard. If not full-on deletion, would you at least be ok with all of them templates being merges into one? PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 19:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- merge, no need for individual templates here. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Hellblade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ninja Theory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Hellblade with Template:Ninja Theory.
Significant overlapping between the studio template and the franchise template OceanHok (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Hellblade template should remain separate from the Ninja Theory template, as they serve different purposes. The franchise template covers a specific video game series, while the studio template covers the developer's broader works and history. Many video game franchises have their own templates alongside developer templates, even when there is some overlap. A merger would reduce navigation value for readers interested specifically in the Hellblade series. The template could be considered for merging only if the franchise becomes inactive or no longer has enough relevant articles to justify its own navigation template. Axios512 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- There is essentially 100% overlap here though. I would understand the need for a separate template if you have games made by studios other than NT, character articles/articles about other media (see something like Template:Until Dawn), but so far I do not see the need why this needs to exist. OceanHok (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Merge: To consider why, we consider Nintendo and Mario navbox, which noone would merge. Nintendo has a lot of content other than Mario and Mario would not fit in a Nintendo Navbox. Now Hellblade has only a few items, which almost all exist in the Ninjatheory navbox, and provding a link to the character in the Navbox doesn't bloat it. Techie3 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles
. It also states: Good navboxes generally follow these guidelines: ... If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
This navbox contains links to nearly 200 members of New Zealand's 2024 Olympic team, which is certainly not a small set of articles. There is not a strong connection between all these topics besides making the Olympics in their sport for the same year. For a single sport there is a stronger connection between participants, especially in team sports, but just including a link for every member of the Olympic team in all sports is overkill (WP:TCREEP and WP:NENAN). The entire Olympic delegation can already be found at New Zealand at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is also akin to WP:PERFNAV by grouping together people by performance, which should be avoided. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Prime example of WP:NENAN and WP:TCREEP. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:NAVBOX, "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden ... " and five of the six guidelines that good navboxes "generally follow" are clearly met. Paora (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a poor use case for a navbox. Running down the guidelines for good navbox use (WP:NAVBOX):
- "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject."
These athletes are all individuals with their own careers. In some cases, their participation in the 2024 Olympics is covered in a single sentence of their biography. - "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."
Yes, the Olympics are probably mentioned. - "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." Most do not, even for pairs of athletes who participated in the same sport.
- "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." New Zealand at the 2024 Summer Olympics, as noted above. But that article serves as a better overview and aid to navigation than the template does.
- "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." I don't think so. Certainly not all 200 or so of the articles linked in this navbox.
- For what it's worth, the same logic applies to other Olympic and Commonwealth Games delegation templates, many of which appear on the same biographies as this template. Omphalographer (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject."
- keep for now, but I would support discussing this one along with Template:2024 Mexico Summer Olympic team, Template:Footer Italy athletics team at the 2024 Summer Olympics, Template:2024 Ecuador Summer Olympic team, Template:2024 Indian Olympic team, ... Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Frietjes: Well, I wanted to test the waters on this before nominating every template I could find. Why not gain a consensus here, and then nominate them thereafter if necessary? S.A. Julio (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All bluelinks redirected via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's single. C679 11:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Fushimi-ku, Kyoto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kyoto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Fushimi-ku, Kyoto with Template:Kyoto.
This is the only ward of Kyoto, or any other designated cities in Japan that has this template. I think it is better to merge the content of this page with the {{Kyoto}} Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep separate template for Fushimi-ku: The question is how many items about Kyoto are on ENwiki space. If all sites in Kyoto (that includes all metro stations) could fit on one template, that would be one thing. However I feel Kyoto is so large, with so many sites, that not all of the content could fit on Template:Kyoto. I think all wards each should have one template. en:Kyoto Municipal Subway has multiple stations, for example. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Mentors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I WP:BOLDly redirected all of the band's albums along with an unsourced "list of songs" and a few members who did not meet WP:BANDMEMBER. Unless there is valid reason to undo my redirects, this template no longer meets WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 04:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:TOC tracking on category pages where PAGESINCATEGORY returns zero (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All linked categories have been deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 6#Category:TOC tracking on category pages where PAGESINCATEGORY returns zero. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Old discussions
[edit]
Superseded by {{Current leader}} PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- This template does not seem to provide the same functionality at all. The proposed template is also listed as "alpha state, whereas the current template is used on hundreds of pages. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- {Incumbent pope} = {current leader|VAT|pope|format=short}
- {Incumbent pope 2} = {current leader|VAT|pope}
- I think Template:Incumbent pope 2 and Template:Incumbent pope make it easier to insert the current Pope into a article. I personally don't mind both existing simultaneously. @ DOSA Catholic (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Stated replacement has the same functionality and is easier to tell what output you'll get without memorization or having to back and fix your edits because you forgot which Inc pope was which. I ardently object to the Incumbent pope [1]/2 naming system on clarity reasons. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Incumbent pope (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Superseded by {{Current leader}} PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- This template does not seem to provide the same functionality at all. The proposed template is also listed as "alpha state, whereas the current template is used on hundreds of pages. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- what do you mean
This template does not seem to provide the same functionality at all
? both of these templates have the ability to provide the name of the current pope when invoked with or without the word "pope" at the start. it should also be noted that both Incumbent pope templates already use {{Current leader}} to operate as of today. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- what do you mean
- No, this is too convoluted to use. The existing one is much more accessible and is used on many articles. Applies to “Incumbent pope 2” 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how it would be convoluted to use PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- NO. Just change for the sake of change. The current template provides useful information, on hundreds of articles. Easy to use. More complicated is NOT "better". Keep the user in mind, not the coder. Vicedomino (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose both. There is no clear, logical reason for this replacement. These two templates in place are simple, do the job they're meant to do, and are used widely. The suggested replacement is unnecessarily complex. BasicBichette (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Stated replacement has the same functionality and is easier to tell what output you'll get without memorization or having to back and fix your edits because you forgot which Inc pope was which. I ardently object to the Incumbent pope [1]/2 naming system on clarity reasons. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nonsense. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Diacritic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created in 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - unused... No explanation... Burn it with fire. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox sporting event organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox recurring event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox sporting event organization with Template:Infobox recurring event.
Redundant to a better-designed and updated template. The oppose !votes at the last TfD are not now factually correct; the recurring event infobox is not for specific instances. James (talk/contribs) 15:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Agree If we can merge parameters I don’t see why we can’t merge into one main template Smithr32 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)- Agree Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree now that the former is redundant. Cheers! Johnson524 19:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Bot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bot2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Bot with Template:Bot2.
{{Bot}} is the typical banner for bots. {{Bot2}} adds a more fancy banner to indicate the status of a bot, which can be more effectively accomplished by a parameter (e.g. |banner=yes). These should be merged. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster There are several other things Bot does that Bot2 doesn't at least per their docs, or am I tripping? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces: What features are you talking about? The docs and code look identical except for the banner, but I might be missing something. If there are other things done by {{bot}}, they can be accommodated in the merged template. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Either way, truly, I think they can be accommodated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces: What features are you talking about? The docs and code look identical except for the banner, but I might be missing something. If there are other things done by {{bot}}, they can be accommodated in the merged template. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose merge The intentional differences seem to be in the default image used and the fact that {{bot2}} uses an embedded ombox for displaying the status. Other differences seem to be simple drift since 2017, where an edit was made to one but not the other. I see no reason to clutter {{bot}} with a bunch of code to optionally use omboxes for the status. Anomie⚔ 23:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Re the comments below suggesting "just replace the icon", I note there are five icons based on the
|status=in {{bot}}, not just the one in {{bot2}}. I'd suggest that people in favor of a merge should try actually drafting a merge in a sandbox first; my position is still that a merge would result in more complexity than it's worth. Anomie⚔ 11:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)- @Anomie I uploaded versions of the {{Bot2}} icon to match all five {{Bot}} icons. You can see them in the "Other versions" section at File:Emblem-system-2-blue.svg. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)- And I've sandboxed a merged template at Template:Bot2/sandbox with an added
|ombox=parameter. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)- Thanks for making the images. As for the sandbox, I see a lot of duplication: every status message is there in two different places. Anomie⚔ 11:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- And I've sandboxed a merged template at Template:Bot2/sandbox with an added
- @Anomie I uploaded versions of the {{Bot2}} icon to match all five {{Bot}} icons. You can see them in the "Other versions" section at File:Emblem-system-2-blue.svg. --Ahecht (TALK
- Re the comments below suggesting "just replace the icon", I note there are five icons based on the
- Merge. Per Bot2's documentation, it is intended as
an alternate visual style for {{Bot}} that makes the status more obvious and uses SVG icons, but takes the same parameters.
Although I respect Ahecht as an editor, I have to say that that was a terrible reason to fork a template, which doubles the maintenance burden and leads to the drift that we've seen since. The appropriate path would have been to just update the icon (I know visual changes can be controversial, but FWIW I would have supported as Bot2's image is more modern) or add a custom parameter for it. I haven't looked into the ombox or other purported differences, but fundamentally, these two banners are fulfilling the same role and we ought to have only one template for it. Sdkb talk 23:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC) - Merge. Not sure what 9-years-ago me was thinking. I would recommend just switching {{Bot}} over to the gear icon used in {{Bot2}}, since it's public domain and doesn't need to be linked. As to whether or not to include the ombox as an option I'll leave that up to consensus, but I obviously prefer that style over trying to overload the gear icon with overlays. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Artistic swimming at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or documentation. No main article for this sidebar. WP:TOOSOON. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J947 ‡ edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - no chance of being used for years. WP:TOOSOON Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC) - Merge with Template:Artistic swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics and Template:Artistic swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Let's include a mandatory parameter "|year= " and then make the discussion moot. One step further could be merging the similar synchronized swimming templates in there as well, as only the name changed. Choucas 🐦⬛ 15:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per Choucas — good idea. I wonder if there are other Olympics templates that could also benefit from this sort of merge. I'd suggest raising it at Template talk:Sidebar games events (with an invite to WT:Olympics) for broader discussion. Sdkb talk 23:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I question the ease of merging here, since there are different events at many of the Olympic games (solo, duet, team). Look at a few of the templates to see the differences. And who knows when men will be added ("I'm not a ... strong ... swimmer")? The resulting template seems likely be a mess of if and switch statements, tricky to maintain. Someone proposing a merge should first create the end-state template, with many test cases, to show how it would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or documentation. No main article for this sidebar. WP:TOOSOON. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J947 ‡ edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - no chance of being used for years. WP:TOOSOON Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC) - Merge into a renamed Template:Fencing at the Summer Olympics sidebar, along with:Template:FencingAt1896SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1900SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1904SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1908SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1912SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1920SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1924SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1932SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1936SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1948SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1952SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1956SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1960SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1968SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1972SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1976SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1980SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1984SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1988SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1992SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt1996SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt2000SummerOlympics
Template:FencingAt2012SummerOlympics
Template:Fencing at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Template:Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Template:Fencing at the 2024 Summer OlympicsAnd include a mandatory |year= parameter, so that this issue doesn't happen anymore and because this consolidation just makes sense to me. Choucas 🐦⬛ 16:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per my concurrance to a similar proposal above. Sdkb talk 23:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I question the ease of merging here, since there are different events at many of the Olympic games (men, women, epee, foil, masters, team). Look at a few of the templates to see the differences. The resulting template seems likely be a giant mess of if and switch statements, tricky to maintain. Someone proposing a merge should first create the end-state template, with many test cases, to show how it would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
World Radio Network has never had any membership. It's a business (now owned by Encompass Digital Media) relaying programs from different international radio stations, which in no way are 'members'. https://encompass.tv/solutions/radio/world-radio-network/ Dalex dalex (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) - Why not rename "WRN affiliate stations" or similar? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- They are not affiliated. Most of them are public broadcasters from various countries. They are using WRN a distribution platform. Dalex dalex (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and move to WRN Broadcast stations (or similar, reflecting the company's current name) per BillHPike. In solidarity, Miniapolis 23:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Redirect templates for WikiProjects
- Template:R ME with possibilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME from alternative name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME from alternative spelling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME from duplicated article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME from former name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME to list entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME to section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R ME without diacritics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:R scouting from merge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I am nominating all (but one, see below) templates in Category:Redirect templates for WikiProjects for merging into their non-WikiProject equivalents (example: Template:R ME from former name into Template:R from former name). These templates have no reason to exist, as they directly duplicate specific rcat templates; besides, redirects can already be monitored by WikiProjects using the TM:WikiProject banner shell. This follows consensus established at a previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5#Redirect comics templates. I actually planned to nominate these WP:Comics rcat templates I see in WP:Capricorn, but the entries seem to be vestigial, likely because User:Wugapodes/Capricorn/RedirectTemplates.json has not been updated since last discussion, and they seem consistent with what was merged before. One exception: like in the previous discussion, I am not nominating Template:R comics naming convention because it has no equivalent and therefore serves a dedicated purpose, independent from its relation to WikiProject Comics. Choucas 🐦⬛ 17:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I realize that I am saying "merge", but in this case "delete" might be more appropriate, since the "merge" would simply involve tagging all the relevant pages with the equivalent non-WikiProject template and then removing them. Choucas 🐦⬛ 17:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Pages like Deagol use the regular {{R without diacritics}} and instead include Category:Middle-earth redirects from titles without diacritics directly. In those case, you only need to remove the category without changing the rcat template.
- Also, I think just saying that the redirects can be tagged with WikiProject banner shell should not be enough. The templates should only be deleted if this tagging is actually done. Warudo (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- An automated mass edit of the talk pages of these redirects to add Template:WikiProject Middle-earth is probably not a particularly big obstacle, but it is not something that I should do or request preemptively in any case. While I see your point, I also do not believe it is the responsibility of the community at large to do maintenance that is only for the sake of specific WikiProjects. So while this can be a consideration regarding the how, I do not think it should affect the why of the proposal. Choucas 🐦⬛ 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, presumably the WikiProject editors thought that keeping track of these redirects was important enough to make dedicated rcats for them. I just don't like the idea of us coming along and breaking that functionality without providing an alternative. Warudo (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- An automated mass edit of the talk pages of these redirects to add Template:WikiProject Middle-earth is probably not a particularly big obstacle, but it is not something that I should do or request preemptively in any case. While I see your point, I also do not believe it is the responsibility of the community at large to do maintenance that is only for the sake of specific WikiProjects. So while this can be a consideration regarding the how, I do not think it should affect the why of the proposal. Choucas 🐦⬛ 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- The functionality for these redirects and their tagging was set up a long time ago. I don't have time to check right now, but I don't think anything major would break if those commenting here were wanting to update things to the current consensus on how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC) - Comment Hey there, would it be improper for me to add the Wikiproject ME entry into the banner shell of all the concerned redirects (or in a new banner shell if it was missing)? That is not something that I think would be an issue whether this nomination were to fail or succeed, but I prefer to ask since the discussion is still open. I figure it could also reassure potential participants concerned about Wikiproject ME losing track of some of their redirects if the rcats were to disappear. Choucas 🐦⬛ 16:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon this after pruning Harry Potter redirects and noticed that Middle-earth had its own rcats. What's the difference between Category:Middle-earth element redirects to lists (which uses {{Fictional element redirect}}) and Category:Middle-earth redirects to lists (which seemingly depends on {{R ME to list entry}})? Fork99 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
I have recently created the new template Template:Listed buildings in Berkshire, which includes all listed buildings with articles in Reading as well as in other districts of Berkshire. (This is similar to Template:Listed buildings in Hertfordshire or Template:Listed buildings in Buckinghamshire.) Since this Berkshire template contains all the information in the Reading template, I have replaced the Reading template with the Berkshire template on all the pages on which it appears. The Reading template could therefore be merged or deleted, since its purpose is now fully performed by the Berkshire template. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Won't these templates end up getting too large as there are over 4000 listed buildings in Berkshire and while not all will probably have articles many more probably will. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think so; the vast majority of listed buildings are Grade II buildings of some architectural interest but where there is not really very much that anyone would want to write a Wikipedia article about (many of them are just old houses). My impression from looking through all these articles and comparing them with the official listings is that we probably have articles on most of the buildings that we would want to have articles on, and that we might reasonably expect to get a few more articles on some of the more interesting buildings in future but probably no drastic increase any time soon.
- Of course if this did become a problem we could always consider dividing templates later, but for the time being I think it's best to have navboxes that allow the user to see a whole county at once, rather than just the small area consisting of a single district. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I should also have said: since the local districts in the UK are in the process of being substantially reorganised, it is not really possible to create listed building templates district by district, as a general rule. I mean, Reading is not about to be abolished, but it would not work to produce a listed building template (say) for West Oxfordshire or South Cambridgeshire, since those districts will not exist in a few years. By contrast, there is no prospect of any changes being made to the ceremonial counties, and so if templates are created at this level it is possible to do so consistently and without them being likely to become obsolete (even if the resulting templates are in some cases rather large). Dionysodorus (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Drainage basin succession templates
- Category:Drainage basin succession templates and subpages
I am nominating all of the templates in Category:Drainage basin succession templates (and its subcats) for replacement with {{drainage}}, which I created to centralise all of the 2k templates into one easy-to-update template. This means that if a new drainage basin is needed, a single template can just be edited rather than having to create yet another template. There will be no visible change to any article; code-wise it will simply be changing (for example) {{PAchelous}} to {{Drainage|Achelous}}. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. There are two functionalities that will be lost by replacing the R- and P-templates with this new template. First, the R-templates categorize the articles that use them into a tributaries category, for instance {{RMeurthe}} into Category:Tributaries of the Moselle. Second, the system of interlinked P-templates implies that only one P-template ({{PWeser}}) has to be modified if the Weser article is moved to for instance Weser (river). In the {{Drainage}} template it would have to be changed in 55 places. Markussep Talk 07:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm still working on a recursive version to deal with that; will likely be a module, but if not, the new syntax editor allows for really quick find/replace for something like
Weser→Weser (river). As far as the Rs go, we have moved away from templates adding content categories to articles, so the R-names should be deprecated anyway. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)- Why? --Joy (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- About moving away from templates adding content categories to articles, could you point me to that guideline? Markussep Talk 12:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:TEMPLATECAT. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- That guideline recommendation lists many reasons, but it's not clear which of them apply here. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- All of them? The sortkeys one does seem to be handled by the use of PAGENAME though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- For example it says editors can't see it in wikitext. Do we need them to see it, how likely is it that this sort of a thing needs to be edited? Or that we can't remove or restructure the categories - how likely is it that these categories need that to be done? --Joy (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- All of them? The sortkeys one does seem to be handled by the use of PAGENAME though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- OK, that's clear, thanks. Markussep Talk 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- That guideline recommendation lists many reasons, but it's not clear which of them apply here. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:TEMPLATECAT. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm still working on a recursive version to deal with that; will likely be a module, but if not, the new syntax editor allows for really quick find/replace for something like
- Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?
- I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- I... did? I made {{drainage}} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous}} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place
{{drainage|Achelous}}inside of{{PAchelous}}just to show that they give exactly the same output:{{PAchelous}}→ Achelous→ Ionian Sea{{drainage|Achelous}}→ Achelous→ Ionian Sea
- I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC) - 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)
- 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)
- @Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the proposed template works for all current cases, so while I am fine with using a module (which I agree will allow for easier creation of new links) the replacement doesn't have to use the module from the get-go (assuming the replacement proposal is accepted). Primefac (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- A month later and no additional opposing input, so fully support proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support replacement, this looks like sensible consolidation to me. Choucas 🐦⬛ 13:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: 300+ river templates starting with "R" appear to have been replaced with something else as part of this as-yet-to-be-concluded TFD, in edits like this. They are appearing at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates, a report of unused pages in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- That is only vaguely inspired by this TFD; I'm independently following WP:TEMPLATECAT to add categories directly to the page; the fact that the R templates have the category already and I can just subst to get them makes it a lot easier to add them. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
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.
