Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 0 32 32
TfD 0 0 1 7 8
MfD 0 0 0 4 4
FfD 0 0 1 10 11
RfD 0 0 0 30 30
AfD 0 0 0 12 12
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, adhere to the following three-step process. Utilizing Twinkle is strongly recommended as it automates and simplifies these steps. To use Twinkle, click TW in the toolbar (top right of the page), then select XFD. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps, unless specifically instructed otherwise.

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If it is an inline template, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_June_25#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the |text= before the why (or alternatively, after the }} of the Tfd2/Catfd2).

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), 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 policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

[edit]

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

[edit]

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle

[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. To use Twinkle, click its dropdown menu in the toolbar in the top right of the page: TW , and then click 'XFD'.

Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

June 25

[edit]

June 24

[edit]

Template:R protected

[edit]

Propose merging Template:R protected with Template:Redirect category shell.
This should only be used by rcatsh. Having a separate template is causing confusion, so let's just subst it into rcatsh.

I don't know why we don't just deprecate these templates, seeing as {{Rcat shell}} automatically detects protection and adds the appropriate rcat
— User:Queen of Hearts 00:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Retargeting to {{r protected}} doesn't make sense either as that rcat automatically determines the protection level, and this implies otherwise.
— User:Eejit43 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

174.138.212.166 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose there isn't a good reason to merge with the rcat category shell because sometimes it is not ideal to call the rcat category shell. Only a percentage of redirects use the category shell while others are uncategorized. But it still makes sense to call r protected individually when the category shell is not used. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 22:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yash Birla Group

[edit]

Only two links are navigable, the company the template is named for and one of the subsidiaries. CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the subsidiary is just a redirect to the main company link, the 'three' functional links (header, two items) in this template all direct to the one (dubious and promo) article. There is no functionality here - it could only be used on this one article, which doesn't satisfy a navbox, and then also isn't able to be added there anyway for reasons similar to MOS:CIRCULAR, surely? Delete with no prejudice to this being re-created if there are 2/3+ appropriate articles created which would make it a functional navbox. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aubrey Plaza

[edit]

One of multiple producers so can hardly be considered the "primary creator" for these films per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 15:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my overturn !vote at the relist discussion, which I'll quote from here: in all cases [of the "Films produced" links] Plaza is producer and main actor and, at least through our articles or a quick search, was the first producer signed on and a primary creative force in the projects being picked up and finished. Two of the film articles also indicate she was directly involved in casting. It's simply unreasonable to suggest Plaza would not be considered a primary creator, and this in addition to the character links, mean it's both a complete and tightly-focused (distinct creator connection throughout all items) navbox. - that is, Plaza produced four films (and one television show, not included at the navbox) and has two significant character articles linked, which is enough to be defining. There are also thematic connections (women's identity, specifically) between all of them, with all of them identified as Plaza projects. A navbox relating to Plaza is not out of place at any of the articles linked, and connecting them as a topic relating to her is appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to counter the nom comment, also quoting from my comment at the relist discussion: FILMNAV ... is not a deletion policy [it is a guideline on content inclusion at templates] - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FILMNAV, we only include primary creators in navboxes. It cannot be stated that Plaza was a primary creator, or auteur on a film like Black Bear where she was one of eight producers. It is not like the golden age of Hollywood, when a producer could sometimes be creative visionary. These days a lot of stars get a producer credit. Therefore inclusion of these films in the navbox is inappropriate, and including her navbox on the bottom of the pages for films that she produced, but not navboxes for the other 7 producers is WP:UNDUE when there is no indication that she was any more involved in the actional creation of the film than any of the others. Her acting roles are irrelevant and fall foul of WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 08:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, FILMNAV is neither a firm rule, nor an indicator that a navbox should exist or not. You've presented some personal interpretation (i.e. opinion/argument) here, but you're still writing it like it's more than just your opinion. But I can engage with your view and respond to it - first, there's no requirement for someone to be an auteur. That may have been your intention when writing FILMNAV, and how you interpret it, but it's not codified. I acknowledge that a lot of stars get a producer credit, but as I reasoned above (and which I would've preferred you engage with, rather than just state an unexplained disagreement), it is evident from the film articles (or, where short, a quick search) that Plaza was more involved in the actional creation of the film than [other producers]. In instances where you might find this debatable based on pure number of producers alone, my arguement also touches on the actual reader perception - Plaza is not only producer but the literal face of these films (on the posters) as main actor and, in media, the first person named. They are on a same overarching theme, so there is evidently some pseudo-auteurly creative choice re which films she produces. They are generally a director's first film, so her attachment has led to it being made. From this, rather than just counting credits (especially when FILMNAV is about creativity, not numbers) I find it is not undue (would not be unusual to see) for a navbox connecting these to Plaza and no other producers or actors to appear at the articles. Hope that goes into more detail on that part. Second, you now mention PERFNAV. This is another bit of the general writing at the NAVBOX suggestions. I note that the sentence avoids putting undue weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others suggests that one shouldn't nit-pick characters/roles to add to navboxes, however the actual standard in actual practice is to add those that exist; there are many (the third template I looked at, just of ones I know exist, is Template:Johnny Depp - has two notable characters included) templates that follow this and it is common sense that characters are included when they have articles, not chosen to try and emphasise certain performances.
    But at the end of the day, here's some direct quoting from the WP:NAVBOX guidelines: The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, ... is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors ... If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page - this makes it clear that the guideline is not about navboxes existing (nor where they should/n't be added), and that the guideline is not to be considered authoritative over discussion. So please stop using your interpretation of the text you added to this as a reason for deletion on its own, especially when written like acronym soup to try confer authority. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an argument to include Jack Sparrow at {{Johnny Depp}} because he actually created the character. However, other characters are more than just their actors. It is also worth drawing a parellel with WP:PERFCAT, where he would definitely be proscribed from Category:Johnny Depp. --woodensuperman 09:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept both premises here in general; the two characters are, in different ways, connected to Plaza at that Sparrow/Depp level. One was created for her after she auditioned, and which she helped the writers develop, and which has been played by nobody else (in comparison, we can say Jack Sparrow and the Mad Hatter were both invented prior to Depp's involvement). The other of Plaza's is an adapted character; the article (which, I thought existed before but was a redirect, and I now have created it, for transparency) is just for her version and, in practice this connects it more to her - media is generally referring to the character's appearance by Plaza's name (perhaps to distinguish, you'd have to ask them). Kingsif (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael B. Jordan

[edit]

Not primary creator for the films he produced as one of many producers for these. Once these are removed, there is nothing left. WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 15:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jordan was director of one film and producer of three, which in terms of links is just suitable enough for defining; moreover there are thematic connections between these films, all of which are predominantly identified as Jordan projects (he is also main actor in all of them). For these reasons, a navbox relating to Jordan is not out of place at any of the articles linked, and connecting them as a topic relating to him is appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FILMNAV, we only include primary creators in navboxes. It cannot be stated that Jordan was a primary creator, or auteur on a film like A Journal for Jordan where he was one of five producers. It is not like the golden age of Hollywood, when a producer could sometimes be creative visionary. These days a lot of stars get a producer credit. Therefore inclusion of these films in the navbox is inappropriate, and including his navbox on the bottom of the pages for films that he produced, but not navboxes for the other 4 producers (other than Washington, who actually directed the film) is WP:UNDUE when there is no indication that he was any more involved in the actional creation of the film than any of the others. His acting roles are irrelevant and fall foul of WP:PERFNAV. Also note that we are only talking about a total of four films in total here, which does not meet the WP:NENAN rule of thumb. --woodensuperman 08:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been over this, FILMNAV doesn't equate primary creator with auteur - and interpretations differ. Mine, as in my !vote, is that Jordan is the creative who is primarily associated with all of these projects. I have explained why this is so, which is that being director/producer and main actor and a theme that audiences associate with him and his works, does make bidirectional inclusion for Jordan and no other only-producers due (this is also why I mentioned acting roles; there are no films linked that are only acting, no characters linked, as to concern PERFNAV). As for NENAN, this should be a different discussion (and see below that it should be a discussion) - I say above that I think it's just suitable enough, and this view is informed by the thematic connection making it a more tightly-focused group than if the films were more at random. As a new reason for concern, we can discuss this.
    Now, that you continue to insist on pointing at a guideline that's about content suggestions, and which doesn't actually say what you're claiming it objectively does, is becoming increasingly frustrating. I want to AGF but it is coming across as throwing an acronym out there and hoping it intimidates. Kingsif (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halle Berry

[edit]

Have removed everything that falls foul of WP:FILMNAV, practically nothing left. --woodensuperman 15:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 23

[edit]

Template:2024–25 National League 1

[edit]

Common practive to not use tables and insert them directly to their respective page. Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to transclude from the main article if multiple pages need the sports table. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template appears in multiple rugby union team pages - I'm OK about removing but can someone give me tip on how to include table detail on team page. Thanks. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2026
      delete - am able to replicate this in club pages and looks better and thank you to Louis and Freitjes for instruction and help. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. You can place <section begin=Table /> above the table on the season page like this <section begin=Table /> {{#invoke:sports table|main|style=Rugby... then at the end of the table put <section end=Table />, then if you wan't to insert that section onto another page you can use {{#section:Name of article|Table}} (replacing name of article with the name of the article, If the page is "2025–26 Champ Rugby" use {{#section:2025–26 Champ Rugby|Table}}. Hope this helps. Louis (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025–26 National League 1

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fish and karate (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common practive to not use tables and insert them directly to their respective page. Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2024–25 RFU Championship Table

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fish and karate (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Common practice to place the table directly onto the page (see 2023–24 Premiership Rugby for example), this was previously deleted on 12 June 2024 (see here.) If the table wanted to be used on any other article, Template:Section can be used Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2025–26 Champ Rugby Table

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fish and karate (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Common practice to place the table directly onto the page (see 2023–24 Premiership Rugby for example), this was previously deleted on 22 May 2025 (see here.) If the table wanted to be used on any other article, Template:Section can be used Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


June 22

[edit]

Template:Han dynasty historians

[edit]

It's not at least clear what the definition of "notable" is for this template, and we have Category:Han dynasty historians. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electoral Districts of the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917 (right)

[edit]

Redundant sidebar. Already better served by Template:Electoral Districts of the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 21

[edit]

Template:Senegal squad 2012 African Women's Championship

[edit]

Mostly made up of now deleted articles. No need for this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRHP date for lists

[edit]

Template should definitely be deleted per WP:ELHAT. 2600:1700:6180:6290:6826:DFE8:9E69:203D (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IrishNavyFleet

[edit]

No transclusions. Merge with the more comprehensive {{Irish Naval Service}}, which appears to be preferred. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strip italics

[edit]

This template has no documentation. It would be easier to remove the apostrophes that are making the input italics than to type out {{Strip italics|<input>}}. It is therefore useless. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Noitalic, which does the same thing in a less-hacky way. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a helper function I had used within other templates. Stripping the wikiformat italics lets us use the input within a wikilink (see earlier versions of {{ganl}}). Noitalic doesn't work the same way. It's a short function so I copied it over where I had been using it, so delete this one if you see it as having no future value. I thought it was helpful. czar 03:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this actually strip italics? It looks like it strips bold mark as well?.... Izno (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vcite

[edit]

Subst: and delete: Following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 13#Template:Vcite journal, this only produces a link to "Citation Style Vancouver". There's no reason for this to be templated, and since CS Vancouver templates have gone the way of the dodo, future use is rather pointless. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Life in Kurdistan

[edit]

Misleading template wich it says it is about "Kurdistan" but if you click the misleading pipe links it goes to Kurdistan Region related pages. And not whole of Kurdistan if this template stays the name need be changed to Template:Life in Kurdistan Region, also the title page goes to a category page and not to a wiki main page.Shadow4dark (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious? it seems the main issue here is that the word iraq isn't included, and there's discomfort with using Kurdistan on its own. The edits Shadow4dark have made to the template suggest a goal of narrowing its scope unnecessarily. In reality, this template clearly applies to all Kurdish regions of Kurdistan, not just the Kurdistan Region in iraq. If we follow this logic, should we also rename {{Kurds}} to Southern Kurds or Northern Kurds? many of the topics included such as Kurdish culture, Kurdish music, Kurdish mythology, Kurdish language, Kurdish literature, Kurdish dance and Kurdish clothing, are shared across all parts of Kurdistan, not specific to one region or state. Some links currently point to articles related to the Kurdistan Region simply because content for other parts of Kurdistan has not yet been developed. For example, we have an article on Sport in Kurdistan Region, but there is no equivalent coverage yet for sports in other Kurdish regions. This reflects gaps in coverage, not the intended scope of the template. that should be clear enough.  Zemen  (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One example, the Political parties links only including Iraq parties and not the Turkish , Iranian or Syrian parties. If we say it is life in Kurdistan the scope should be broader and not limited to Iraq only. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. is that really the core of the problem? It doesn't seem reasonable to rename the entire template based on a few links related to one region. please keep your national biases out of this discussion.  Zemen  (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now Shadow4dark accusing me of violating WP:ASPERSIONS on the ANB simply for stating: "please keep your national biases out of this discussion." However, based on the nature of their edits to the template and their comments in this discussion, it appears that they are attempting to impose the perspective of one side over a neutral and inclusive approach.  Zemen  (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must also say we have older and better template Template:Kurds wich covers whole Kurdistan. Currently both are overlapping each other. Shadow4dark (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider it more carefully, {{Kurds}} focuses specifically on the Kurdish people as an ethnic group, while {{Life in Kurdistan}} relates to the geographic region of Kurdistan, which is home to multiple communities, not just Kurds.  Zemen  (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only a handful of the links go to KRG pages and those are likely due to a lack of alternatives. The two templates may be a bit redundant, but could be fleshed out more and the articles developed. Overall, it looks like this template is more about the Kurdistan region, whereas the Kurds template is international. Metallurgist (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian civil war infobox

[edit]

This template doesn't seem necessary. Syrian civil war is the only article that uses it. Furthermore, moving this template directly to the article would help with eliminating the duplicate references (see tagging on the Syrian civil war article), because a lot of these duplicate references (if not all  – I didn't check them all) are caused by this template being separate from the article. The problem is that the infobox and the article share several of the same sources, and I don't know of a way to use named references when the references are on different pages. I propose copying the template into the article and then deleting the template page, which won't be needed anymore. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wrapped the deletion template in <noinclude> tags. Was I not supposed to? 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Cabinda

[edit]

This template cannot use any parameters from its parent template as Cabinda does not have a provincial flag nor other provincial symbols, alternate names, etc. The flag previously displayed by this template is the flag of a particular separatist group, which is not used universally by Cabinda residents nor even Cabinda separatists. As such, it should be deleted. Yue🌙 01:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 20

[edit]

Template:SD abuse

[edit]

Unnecessary and inappropriately WP:BITE-y template. Only used once by the creator on an established editor's talk page. Creator is indefinitely blocked and globally locked. We have a more established warning template for incorrect speedy deletion nominations at {{Uw-badcsd}}. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5AF:9096:9EC1:275E (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is quite unnecessary; see also Template talk:SD abuse § Overlap, where the template was questioned nearly a year ago. The user who left the message, @Nikkimaria, suggested making a set of multi-level templates, which doesn't sound like a bad idea. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 02:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dontsign

[edit]

Redundant to {{uw-articlesig}}. Created in 2006 and doesn't appear to have been used since 2011. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5AF:9096:9EC1:275E (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd say that it's redundant - it's much more personal and friendly and chatty. Clearly an actual person instead of boilerplate, which is important for dealing with newbies. But you're right, I haven't really used it since 2011. DS (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BlockUsername

[edit]

Only 1 transclusion. Redundant to {{uw-username}} and other more commonly used username warning templates. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5AF:9096:9EC1:275E (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vidbir

[edit]

While there are many cases where an infobox for a specific song contest format are warranted, I do not believe this is the case here. The main reason being that there are no instances of articles covering each yearly edition of Vidbir (e.g. Vidbir 2025), and therefore this section duplicates the listings at {{Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest}} from 2016 onwards. This is in contrast to other similar navboxes, e.g. {{Melodifestivalen}}, {{Melodi Grand Prix}}, and {{Pesma za Evroviziju}}, where yearly articles distinct from that country's participation in Eurovision exist. Without these yearly articles I do not believe a navbox is warranted per the guidelines listed at WP:NAVBOX, as the other articles listed for judges, artists and songs do not form a single, coherent subject in my opinion, nor do they refer to each other to a reasonable extent. The judges are already listed on the main Vidbir articles, and the artists and songs should instead be grouped via categories. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael Jackson series

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Michael Jackson series with Template:Michael Jackson.
Redundant. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm not sure if I'm replying in the right spot (hopefully so) but there are some people who have both the side template and template at the bottom of the page (e.g. see Hillary Clinton). I personally like the sidebars better and think they make the breadth of someone's articles more evident and even easier to navigate through. But my understanding is they don't work on mobile(?) or something like that. So, the bottom ones are maybe better for people on the phone. I think a lot of casual wikipedia readers don't even know to scroll all the way to the bottom to see those templates, and I think the side templates get people more interested in more wikipedia pages/more knowledge quicker. While there may be some redundancies, I think they're basically for two different audiences, won't be seen by all the same people, and are out of the way enough to not be redundant to the point of annoyance or negative issues with the pages. There are various redundancies throughout wikipedia (e.g. info in lead repeated/re-expanded upon later or leads on related pages with info from the main article to help people get their bearings). So, wikipedia seems to accept some redundancy for clarity/ease-of-navigation sake, which is what I would personally file this under. But that's just my two cents!
HangingOutHereSeeingWhatsUp (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebars are for politicians like Hillary Clinton, not for musicians like Michael Jackson; "There are various redundancies throughout wikipedia [like] info in lead repeated/re-expanded upon later". Yes, that is the point of the WP:Lead section, to be repetitive of what the article will be about. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question: Are sidebars only meant for politicians? I've read a lot of Wikipedia policy trying to get up to speed on everything. But I don't think I've found any guidelines saying that (though I'm sure there might be!). Also, Elon Musk has a sidebar and I guess he is a "politician" in some sense of the word, but not in a traditional sense, I don't think.
Re: the lead section, you and I are saying the same thing - that there are spots in Wikipedia where redundancies are expected or even encouraged for various reasons. Therefore, not all redundancies on Wikipedia need to be removed. And personally, I would think this is one where different templates on different parts of the page help different audiences, meaning I still think they should both exist. But I look forward to hearing other opinions on this as well. HangingOutHereSeeingWhatsUp (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch ps sorry, I forgot to tag you in my response and I couldn't figure out how to do it after the fact, so just doing it now HangingOutHereSeeingWhatsUp (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not limited to politicians, as seen at Category:People and person sidebar templates. However, no musicians have one as it is reduntant to the navbox, it conflicts with the musician's infobox and the infoboxes of the musician's work, and the sidebar can be used as seen here Make America Great Again#Use by Donald Trump, an use not required for the musicians. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tbhotch. It is absolutely unnecessary to have a sidebar since we already have templates at the bottom of the page, and the sidebar is for politicians, which the artist Michael Jackson is not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 19

[edit]

Template:User renaming

[edit]

This template is not going to actually summon a renamer to change your account name; there is a proper process for doing so. Delete as confusing and unhelpful. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New account

[edit]

Subst-only template for the {{historical}} Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations; can safely be deleted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHUuser

[edit]

Not used templates which refer people refers people to the {{historical}} Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Delete both. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No email

[edit]

Part of the {{historical}} Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations process; subst the few transclusions (which ought to have been substituted in the first place) and then delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No message

[edit]

No real transclusions, and Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations is {{historical}} following an RfC. Subst the one demonstration transclusion and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk Page Proposal outcome

[edit]

Part of the talk page proposal family of templates; this one also seriously misunderstands how Wikipedia discussion works by placing more emphasis on headcount. It even includes a "vetoed by the administrators" outcome. I also don't think this level of formalization is helpful for achieving consensus; {{atop}} or {{closed rfc top}} work better if there was a discussion, which allows the closer to both explain the outcome in words and to discourage further comments. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as a documentation of information, is likely always under strain of multiple discussions, proposals, etc. It's likely to assume that such a bustling site would need some additional formalization, which includes, but is not limited to, formatting and organizing discussions, creating choices—a couple, few, several, or multiple— for the next course of action, and taking votes.
Thank you for bringing attention the existence of {{atop}} and {{closed rfc top}}, as it now reveals that perhaps {{Talk Page Proposal outcome}} is somewhat obsolete. However, it doesn't address the concern of documenting and categorizing pages who had these proposal in the first place, making them harder to find in the future, and also it doesn't address the concern of these templates, and other templates of a similar nature, being used at all for said purpose. ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 20:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A category of all pages which have proposals would be massive, to the point of being unusable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversial

[edit]

I am really struggling to see how this template is helpful. The instructional material is redundant to {{talk header}}: make constructive changes, discussion is a better idea than the revert button, be neutral, etc. The only additional information contained in the template is "this topic is controversial", which is obvious to any competent editor. Banner blindness means each banner makes it less likely people will read more important banners (such as {{contentious topics/talk notice}}). I think deleting this template is another step (after the deletion of {{calm}}) towards less cluttered talk pages. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a good template that is used on topics that can be considered highly controversial but has not reached the "Contentious topics" level of the Arbitration Committee, like many Philippines-related topics: Talk:West Philippine Sea, Talk:China–Philippines relations, Talk:Kalayaan, Palawan, Talk:Sabina Shoal, Talk:South China Sea Arbitration, Talk:Impeachment of Sara Duterte, Talk:Richard Heydarian, Talk:Bongbong Marcos, and Talk:Rigoberto Tiglao. Such topics have been subjected to multiple disputes but the nature of those disputes aren't yet eligible for ArbCom procedure that may lead to these articles being submitted under WP:Contentious topics. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as talk header clutter. I don't understand why it links to WP:Contentious topics if it doesn't apply to contentious topics and I'm sure that this only leads to editor confusion. Should go the same way as {{calm}}. I think the template's language of don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them is nonsensical: if they're reading it, they're already on the talk page! The template doesn't help editors who have already found the talk page as it only directs how they make their edits, not how they interact with others on the talk page or discuss improvements. This should be done with editnotices instead, which were made to serve that purpose. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Template was made because only a very small set of editors can create editnotices. Moxy🍁 23:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Template was made to circumvent an existing process that requires elevated privileges" is not exactly a strong argument in favor of keeping the template, sounds more like an argument for speedy deletion. Psychastes (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    circumvent .....nice term....more like in lieu of. Simply a tool used by content editors to denote passed and current disruptions. Moxy🍁 03:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, it links to the contentious topics page, and is designed to look virtually identical to the contentious topics template... Psychastes (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets give another example India is generally a controversial topic as per this motion. Usage of this template is used on articles editors believe dont warrant the editing restriction as seen at Talk:India but fall within the scope as outline by the motion. We simply cant add editor restrictions and page restrictions on every page related to India.....thus a warning with admins applying editor restrictions and page restrictions if need be. Moxy🍁 07:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very sympathetic to the idea of reducing overhead, but I have two concerns:
    1. I'm not sure it applies here - the CTOP template is used on approximately 16000 pages, while this one is only used on 3500, many of which do not cover contentious topics like India (I came here when I noticed the TFD banner on Time travel, for example). I suppose it *could* be added to many more pages but I think it says something that no one has done so, to the extent that the more onerous admin procedure outnumbers it by more than 4:1.
    2. It seems like there are two separate purposes to this template? One is "Topics that fall under WP:CTOP but which have too much overhead to add the CTOP template" and the other is "Topics that don't fall under WP:CTOP but for which there has been heated discussion in the past."
    Based on both of these concerns, I think that if the template is retained, it ought to more specifically delineate that it is NOT being used as a part of the CTOP process which I've put in an edit request for on the template's talk page pending the outcome of this discussion. Psychastes (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you say this? The template is from 2004, predating your account by five years and editnotices by four. How could you know the reason the template was made and how could it have been made to circumvent a feature that postdates it by four years? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why I got pinged for this.... I assume you're not talking to me... I've been here for over 20 years. Included editing many of the topics that this template was originally made for Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Simply used by content editors. Moxy🍁 20:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote because only a very small set of editors can create editnotices, implying causality when that clearly isn't the case. As you note now, it was in fact for the now-defunct list. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a suggestion to add edit notices instead of this template as you understand that's not possible for most....had nothing to do with the creation never imply that. Wondering if we should just link Wikipedia:Controversial articles as it's clear many aren't aware of its usage or the history behind the template. Moxy🍁 22:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HouseBlaster. Any article on any topic can be seen as controversial, really, so this template fails to provide meaningful information. Also agree about banner blindness--I didn't even notice that this template was on the J.K. Rowling talk page until now, when it's up for deletion. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1 how about the likes of Talk:West Philippine Sea and Talk:Sabina Shoal? What template or tag best suits to entries that concern the heightened geopolitical unrest between Manila and Beijing that is a magnet of heated debates and discussions (like the discussion regarding Sabina Shoal)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the last non-bot edit to West Philippine Sea was on May 1 for the article and April 20 for the talk page; and for Sabina Shoal, March 12 for article and March 8 for its talk page. Those don't seem like controversial articles to me; maybe the subject is controversial, but the editing activities on those two articles don't indicate that. Some1 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1 at least the article content dispute concerning Sabina Shoal last year got heated up and led to a 1-week page protection (see this noticeboard thread). Another contentious topic is South China Sea Arbitration, which saw one heated discussion (Talk:South China Sea Arbitration#China's Claims). But as Seav said here, the SCS/WPS-related articles aren't yet approaching the serious level of ArbCom, and the best tag for such topics is {{Controversial}}. If the concern is the existing link to WP:CTOP, then remove any reference to CTOP in the template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, there is also a "{{Controversial-issues}}" template, which also links to WP:CTOP (if the decision results in the deletion of the "Controversial" template, this other template must also be dealt with since it bears the same link). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - nothing good can possibly come from having a decoy template that looks like the contentious topics template, but which does not follow the same established procedures for application, and rather can just simply be added or removed by the whim of any editor. I'd bet the vast majority of editors who know even about WP:CTOP to begin with probably see this template and assume it's that one. This is just like when they started selling the homeopathic cold "medicines" in the pharmacy next to the real medicine and then acted surprised when people complained that the meds don't work. Psychastes (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reason with User:JWilz12345. Many Philippine-related articles that cover controversial topics gets bombarded with edit wars pushing for their own narrative. In addition to the list that that user provided, it also includes basically all Marcos-related articles and Duterte-related articles, as well as Talk:Tagalog language and Talk:Filipino language.
    This template serves as a reminder/warning for editors to be civil and have a neutral point of view, even before it is recognized for WP:CTOP. Perhaps editing parts of its message to link users to WP:CTOP would suffice instead of deleting the template outright.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 03:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose adding (or retaining) a link to WP:CTOP, which describes a very particular process not applicable to those pages. The little "Editing a contentious topic" blurb is the only relevant advice; the entire rest of the page describes how official CTOPs work. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a spectacularly useless template, even by the low standards of talk page banners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is often used for those one-off cases where the particular article is controversial but the topic is generally not a contentious one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify usage or delete. Need to update template wording and documentation. Any utility depends on accurate deployment, clear documentation (why the tag is applied on the talkpage), maintenance (ensuring it’s not left long after a dispute is resolved). The documentation already describes a timestamp parameter, but I don't think many use it. Could make a date a required paramater. Editors should explain why the article is controversial e.g. with diffs to disputes. Detag if issue quiets down. Modify documentation to encourage a note on the talk page when the template is added. e.g. “Please describe the controversy and link to relevant discussion threads on the talkpage when adding this template.” Could request a bot to detect new uses and post a reminder to editors if no Talk page explanation is given? Tom B (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that I have seen this template before and it could potentially calm down a otherwise potentially incivil talk page. Or at least that is the hope. Who knows for sure how useful these types of templates really are? I do not believe it causes harm though. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Who knows for sure how useful these types of templates really are?", we do know and have known for decades that too many banners are counterproductive and don't get read. This is the reason {{calm}} was deleted. Unless there's good evidence that these templates are changing behavior, they don't deserve the space they take up. Regardless, the template we're discussing doesn't even address incivility: it just says to use NPOV and add references when editing the article. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Template:Talk header – List of secret police organizations is an example of a controversial subject that is not under a specific contentious topic, yet it receives edits that accuse a US law enforcement agency of being a "secret police" with weak or opinionated sources. World War III is another example, which attracts speculative edits (e.g. "World War III already started because country did specific military action"). I would agree however that there is an opportunity to merge the template into the main talk header. --Minoa (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles you cite already get these kinds of edits despite having the template in place, doesn't that imply it doesn't actually achieve its intended purpose? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot guarantee that every notice will be 100% effective, but I believed that the notice would at least prompt most editors to take extra care on addressing the topic. --Minoa (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What it says is already in {{Talk header}}, so it's just contributing towards banner blindness, plus linking to WP:CTOP is misleading, as this has nothing to do with contentious topics. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the third person to say this ...perhaps I'm not seeing the talk header properly but it doesn't say anything about a contentious / controversial topic does it? Moxy🍁 20:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Controversial}} only links to two policies, NPOV (linked twice for some reason) and Verifiability, which are included in {{talk header}}. The template's link to the contentious topics procedure is irrelevant as this isn't {{contentious topics/talk notice}}. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does as noted above by multiple individuals.... with multiple examples. Moxy🍁 21:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hum Awards

[edit]

With the exception of the years the ceremony was held, the links are redirects to the main Hum Awards page. All categories redirect there as well as the retired awards and special awards. The ceremony years are already listed with links on the main Hum Awards page so template seems useless. CNMall41 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usurp

[edit]

Following an RfC, Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations (where this template was used) has been {{historical}}. As a subst-only template, there is no reason to keep these around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYK conditions

[edit]

Propose merging Template:DYK conditions with Template:DYK tools.
{{DYK conditions}} is currently a wrapper for {{DYK tools}}, but {{DYK conditions}} displays a funky header when used in user talk space. We shouldn't be using templates to make headers for technical reasons—it breaks the edit section button. Therefore, I'd suggest we subst the 10 transclusions in user talk space and then redirect to Template:DYK toolbox, which will not affect how any existing pages are displayed nor break any existing functionality. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 18

[edit]

Template:Uw-lang-jbo

[edit]

Unnecessary warning template that doesn't appear to have ever been used. Creator has been banned and globally locked since 2018. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:7773:7F4C:C62B:976F (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep part of a template system (ie. {{uw-lang-fr}}, {{uw-lang-ja}}, ...). Every language should have such a template, as we can then provide a systematic message in all languages for people entering {{uw-notenglish}} contributions, by giving a warning in the language they wrote it in, so they understand that they are at the wrong Wikipedia, and which Wikipedia version they should be using. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tooth & Nail Records

[edit]

Only two articles (Tooth & Nail Records and Tooth & Nail Records discography) which already link to and from one another without the navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rounder Records

[edit]

Only transcluded in one article. Due to the association only by label, these types of navboxes typically aren't placed on articles for each of the artists signed to the label. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikifaunaspeciesbox

[edit]

Unused template 62.18.98.169 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless template.
109.54.232.102 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chungju Hummel squad

[edit]

"Current squad" template of the club that was dissolved a decade ago. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please be gentle

[edit]

I'm bringing this up for discussion as I'm not sure it falls within community norms. WP:CIV is already both a pillar and policy (and covers precisely this issue), while the definition of messages that may offend is obviously subjective. It's also misleading to suggest that some editors may not be subject to the same information, advisory note or, yes, warning that others are; some of the most unpopular notices are also mandatory. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to my userspace. I think I'll just have it for my own use. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 13:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why, if you can't use it? —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if "unpopular" notices are necessary offensive. And I don't think that a template asking other editors to be thoughtful to a particular editor is implying that they can not be thoughtful to other editors. I'd suggest that the creator move the sentiment to a message on their own User talk page but it doesn't strike me that this template is doing any harm by existing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: It sends completely the wrong message. If a noobie comes to their page and sees that message, they have no reason not to assume that it is an official notice. (Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's in user space or not–editors should not be giving the impression that only certain types of communication are welcome.) Compare with the established templates I link to below, which say what Starfall2015 wants (well, the first one anyway), without shifting the goalposts on communication. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit the wording, or weak delete if editor refuses. You can't just say "don't give me feedback." Well, you can, but this is incredibly unwise as that is saying "the only feedback I accept is getting banned" which is presumably not what the editor really wants. Feedback is a core part of collaboration; if you can't handle a collaborative project, then unironically you should start a blog, where you can write whatever you like without anyone else having a say. If softened to just a general plea for understanding, sure, but Starfall should understand that editors might give them feedback, and this is most likely intended to help out and avoid problems, rather than something just done cruelly. SnowFire (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's just a reminder. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 09:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Starfall2015, This established template is probably what you're after; also, this one is useful for us all... —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Starfall: Your template still says "This means not using commands or warnings". This is, at best, an incredibly unwise request, and at worst misrepresenting how Wikipedia talk pages work (where warnings are literally required in certain situations). It is the equivalent of a car driver saying "this driver does not accept warnings that the road ahead is out, or that my directions are out-of-date, or that I'm about to drive off a cliff". Someone telling a driver these kind of warnings is helping them out. It's better than actually driving off the cliff. SnowFire (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Starfall2015, it is preferred that you do not move pages while they are under discussion. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PWHL drafts

[edit]

Redundant to {{Professional Women's Hockey League}}, as all three articles listed in this navbox are also listed there. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Superfluous template. --MikeVitale 03:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Samsunspor presidents

[edit]

Only 1 blue link (plus one link that just redirects back to main Samsunspor team article)- this is not enough to warrant a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PWHL Awards

[edit]

All nine articles listed in the "Individual" group have been merged, leaving just Walter Cup and List of PWHL individual award winners – both already listed in {{Professional Women's Hockey League}}. This navbox is therefore now redundant. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Superfluous template. --MikeVitale 03:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rollback granted 2

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Rollback granted 2 with Template:Rollback granted.
Duplicative. Version two contains additional essential information, so I'd suggest we simply use that language. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

June 17

Template:Suwa Faith

[edit]

As far as I can see, there is not such a thing as a "Suwa faith". The Banner talk 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Translated from ja:Template:諏訪信仰 by a now-banned user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Template:A Separate Peace

[edit]

Unnecessary navbox, nothing that isn't mention on the articles. Listing awards and filmmakers is just unnecessary, I'd be nearly empty otherwise soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridges in India

[edit]

Far too wide scope for a useful template. The Banner talk 13:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner, By meaning wider scope, you meant wider in the geographic sense or on the scope of the constituents. If you could please clarify the reason more appropriately, then would be able to add on to the discussion. So, if you do believe that the scope is wide, would it be preferable to have a template split geographically or by type of bridge? While not wanting to base an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are similar templates that certainly do exist. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split geographically at least, as this template has the potential to become excessively big. And please fix the links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any disambiguation links with the link classifier. If you could point to anything specific, will fix it. Will try and do a geographic subsection for the larger sections. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone else already fixed them. The Banner talk 12:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

Template:The Hundred (women's) competition results summary

[edit]

Unused and only edit has been creation. Displays error code. If creator intends to work on it, userfication can be granted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cit news

[edit]

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Template:Cit paper

Unused, uncommon, and WP:COSTLY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manbalar

[edit]

This template is not transclueded anywhere and has no documentation supporting its use. It looks to be entirely useless. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suspended ROC provinces

[edit]

This is a redundant template with very low likelihood of usage and all relevant article links covered by Template:Administrative divisions of Taiwan. The intended aim of the navbox seems to be to list historic ROC provinces, but most if not all of those have very short histories already covered by modern PRC provinces (Template:Province-level divisions of China). Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not really redundant, as there are independent, existed articles of former provinces linked through this template, especially for the Northern and Northeastern provinces that were abolished or changed by the Communist government after 1949, and not included in other Navboxes. The question of whether to merge those articles should be a different topic.—— Eric Liu（Talk・Guestbook） 02:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Template:Wikicite

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Wikicite with Template:SfnRef inline.
{{SfnRef inline}} and {{wikicite}} both allow the shortened footnotes created by Module:Footnotes to link to a full citation that is either handwritten or transcluding a template that does not yet create an anchor for short citations.

Wikicite can:

  1. Be placed after the full citation.
  2. Wrap around the full citation which creates popup tooltips on mouseover and highlights the full citation when clicked, similar to standard references.

SfnRef inline can:

  1. Be placed after the full citation.

I am proposing a merge rather than a redirect because SfnRef inline also:

  • Has the more clear name and should likely be the post-merge title. Wikicite's partner template {{wikiref}}, was deleted 15 years ago because it was never widely used.
  • Accepts the same numerical parameters as Module:Footnotes does in more common templates like {{sfn}}, {{harv}}, {{sfnp}}, and so on.
  • Has more clear documentation.

Both templates have the same code in their sandbox and testcases. If you have a "harv" errors script installed, you should be able to quickly see the differences in anchor creation on the testcases below. If you don't have any error script for shortened footnotes, you'll need to click the links in the "Short citations for testing examples below" to see the difference.

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that placing either of these after the full citation can be correct. For accessibility reasons, if nothing else, the emitted anchor should really be before the citation; and that is what happens when {{wikicite}} uses its |reference= parameter to enclose the full citation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64, that's a good point, and one of many things to address in the documentation. It wouldn't affect how the transcluded template is written, though, would it? Rjjiii (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding 2. Wrap around the full citation which creates popup tooltips on mouseover and highlights the full citation when clicked, similar to standard references., will this be lost with this merge? I'm rather a fan of this feature, so I wouldn't be thrilled to see it go. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael Aurel, it will not be lost; the feature would be added to {{SfnRef inline}}. Check out the sandbox examples at Template:Wikicite/testcases. The merge would result in both of the below options to wrap the full citation: 
    • {{wikicite |ref={{sfnref|Buchanan|2023}} |reference=Buchanan, Abigail. (14 November 2023). "We are making bagpipes sexy again: Inside the late Queen's beloved Scottish music school". ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'') }}

    • {{wikicite|Buchanan|2023 |reference=Buchanan, Abigail. (14 November 2023). "We are making bagpipes sexy again: Inside the late Queen's beloved Scottish music school". ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'') }}
    Rjjiii (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for the clarification. No issues in my book, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger, in every respect discussed above. This is a +5 Plan of Goodness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest to merge the other way: {{SfnRef inline}} -> {{Wikicite}} because a) the former has less than a dozen transclusions, the latter >2200; b) the name part "inline" doesn't describe how Wikicite is used, which is in the "Sources" section of articles, along with standard specific citation template, like {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}}. Checking 2 articles that use {{SfnRef inline}}, it's used there also in that section, not inline. The suggested new functionality of separating the citation anchor from the citation itself is a step backwards. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael Bednarek, thanks for the response. To better understand your positions, are you saying:
    1. That the merged template should be titled {{wikicite}} or something similar to {{Cite book}}? For transparency, there was another rarely used template called Template:Cite plain.
    2. That the merged template should continue to support wrapping the full citation, or that it should only support wrapping the full citation and existing transclusions of {{SfnRef inline}} should be converted to the {{wikicite|ref=}} format?
    Rjjiii (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1.: Yes, it should be named {{wikicite}} because that's the overwhelmingly used name now.
    2.: Of course the merged template must continue to support wrapping the full citation. I'm indifferent (though disapproving) to the current possibility of {{SfnRef inline}} to stand alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize in hopes of getting more input:

Editors agree there should be one template.

Editors raise two points that need to be addressed in the documentation of the merged template but do not affect merging the templates themselves:

  1. Should a non-wrapping anchor always come before (not after) the citation for better accessibility?
  2. Should non-wrapping anchors be discouraged?

For context: The live {{wikicite}} template can make non-wrapping anchors (follow the link Template:Wikicite/testcases#CITEREFBuchanan2023c to test), but the documentation does not mention it. {{SfnRef inline}} only creates non-wrapping anchors.

And Michael Bednarek raises one point to resolve in the template itself. Should the merged template be at

  1. {{SfnRef inline}} or
  2. {{wikicite}}

Thanks all for participating, Rjjiii (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I think in bullet points:)
  1. Non-wrapping anchors seem strictly worse than wrapping anchors. I'm not sure what the imagined use case is.
    • If you must create an sfn-linkable non-wrapping anchor, we already have {{anchor|{{harvid|Foo|Bar}}}} Is the semantic differentiation associated with ‹See TfM›/{{{1}}} valuable?
  2. Reading between the lines, I think non-wrapping anchors are already discouraged.
    • The ‹See TfM› docs say:

      This is expected to be used temporarily, in cases where an editor is not certain how to format the full citation data into a template, or does not have time to do it

      That is, the writer intended pages using ‹See TfM› to have a wrapping anchor (generated by a template) when those pages are complete.
    • Since the {{{1}}} docs don't mention non-wrapping anchors, I suspect that the "feature" is an Easter egg.
  3. Non-wrapping cites should come before. There's a well-known LaTeX problem, when one expects hyperref links to lead directly to a floated figure. But they actually point to a floated figure's caption; to see the picture, one must click the link and then scroll up. We shouldn't replicate that problem in our citation system.
  4. The name {{{1}}} seems to my mind to make much more sense for the combined functionality. OTOH, I hadn't heard of ‹See TfM› until now. What feels natural to me may just be familiarity speaking.
Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally opposed to making {{wikicite}} more complicated. It is supposed to be a very simple and straight-forward tool and does not need to grow extra features or change its current behavior. I'd advocate leaving {{wikicite}} alone and optionally telling people to stop using {{SfnRef inline}} if you think it has some kind of problem. What I would recommend is telling people at the {{wikicite}} documentation to use it along with the {{harvid}} template to create the reference IDs ready to be linked from {{sfn}} and similar templates. –jacobolus (t) 00:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: User:Rjjiii, can you please remove the "‹See TfM›" link to this discussion from rendered output of Wikicite now? It's distracting if it just sits there indefinitely. –jacobolus (t) 23:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed it. jacobolus, do you have an opinion on whether there should be one template or two? Or just opposed to adding the {{wikicite|Doe|1999|reference=}} formatting from the other template? Rjjiii (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never used or encountered {{sfnref inline}}, and since it is only currently in use 8 times across the article namespace it seems like few other people have either. I think it's fine to have one template; {{sfnref inline}} can probably be deleted with handful of uses converted to wikicite.
      As for the wikicite API: the difference is whether we think
      • {{wikicite|Doe|1999|reference=}} or
      • {{wikicite|ref={{harvid|Doe|1999}}|reference=}}
      is better. The former has the advantage of being ~15 characters more concise, but the latter is more explicit, using composition of multiple simpler templates instead of trying to cram more behavior into a single template. My own preference is generally for composition instead of complicated alternate APIs in a single template, but perhaps that ship has sailed; most template API design here is very far from my preferences. –jacobolus (t) 01:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1273714158"