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 0 161 0 161
TfD 0 1 7 0 8
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 18 0 18
RfD 0 0 25 0 25
AfD 0 0 3 0 3
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_2#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 2

[edit]

Template:CC BY 3.0 US

[edit]

Obsolete CC license; we should not encourage the use of outdated licenses any more than necessary. If you truly need to use an obsolete license, Commons has its own c:Template:Cc-by-3.0-us. Zero tranclusions, so we are safe to delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CC BY-SA 2.5 BR

[edit]

Obsolete CC license; we should not encourage the use of outdated licenses any more than necessary. If you truly need to use an obsolete license, Commons has its own c:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5-br. Zero tranclusions, so we are safe to delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 1

[edit]

Template:Liga 4 (Indonesia) seasons

[edit]

Navbox that contains only one blue link, 2024–25 Liga 4, because that was the first season of this league. Not useful for navigation until there are four or five things to link between. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social media list

[edit]

The only realistic use for this template is to violate WP:ELNO#EL10. Therefore, we should not have this template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a related discussion, there hasn't been any support for the idea of including multiple social media links on articles, so there's no purpose for having this template. (edited to add the following) I just noticed that WP:ELMIN states Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I just noticed that social media links were being listed, and made the template to make that easier. I didn't realize that WP:NOSOCIAL existed. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aerrapc. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bavarian princes

[edit]

WP:TG #3, #5: It's unclear from the name and doc (which it doesn't have) what the function, usage and scope of this template is. WP:NAVBOX #4: the title just links to Kingdom of Bavaria and there is no Prince of Bavaria or Princes of Bavaria or List of princes of Bavaria.
The navbox is redundant to Template:Kings of Bavaria as far as the kings are concerned (WP:TFD#REASONS #2), while all "princes" appear to be random inclusions from Category:Princes of Bavaria. They weren't all crown princes or pretenders or heads of the House of Wittelsbach or anything; it's just kings + random princes. Per WP:TG #6, Category:Princes of Bavaria serves a better function than this template, which should therefore be deleted. NLeeuw (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Democratic Revolution of 1954

[edit]

Non-battle campaignbox, not transcluded (WP:NAV-WITHIN). 1 actual (non-battle) article, 2 piped links to the island of Lanai, 1 to Territory of Hawaii#Hawaii 7, and 4 redlinks. NLeeuw (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VENAClassnomination

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Just one incoming link from a discussion five years ago asking if it was ever used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lightbulb is burned out

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/PSE

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkish streaming companies

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions, main article, or incoming links. Created in January 2024. Just three blue links in the navbox body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022 Quebec general election/Mille-Îles

[edit]

No transclusions, template parameters, or documentation. Created in January 2024. This appears to be article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marquess of Donegall family tree

[edit]

No transclusions, template parameters, or documentation. Created in March 2024. This appears to be article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supertall skyscrapers in China

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox resistance to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vital article level

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National federal chambers

[edit]

Unused and is a partial duplicate of Template:National upper houses. No discussion I could find makes this template necessary for a split or a separate one is needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sorry About Your Daughter

[edit]

Unused and no links to any article except for a link to a wrong bio. Pointless navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline National Basketball Association

[edit]

Unused timeline template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan is used: Timeline of the National Basketball Association#Timeline. Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Its subst. It was being used and was single-use. Still valid to delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Template:Episcopal Church sidebar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate change in the United States

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 I think you are mistaken. This template is transcluded many times, probably 50+ times for all U.S. states. E.g.
Etc. The reason why you do not see transclusions at "What links here", other than main article Climate change in the United States, is probably because there are multiple templates at work here. For example, Template:United States topic + Template:Climate change in the United States. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. This template is not transcluded. The examples you give use {{United States topic|prefix=Climate change in}}, not the nominated template. If you edit one of those sections and look at "Templates used in this section:", you will see that the nominated template is not used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the main article. Enough to keep. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so technically it is not transcluded, but in practice it is used in 50+ pages. Enough to Keep as WCM says. NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No alt text

[edit]

No transclusions. Proposed in March 2025 but does not appear to have been adopted for maintenance and tracking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and promote use. Alt text is easily forgotten and a maintenance tag for it could have use. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subscription Tools

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MessageNames

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userbox-w-2

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how hosting this in template space is undesirable. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iron Cross

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:7 Year topicon

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Broken. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsersInGroup

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AR-Senate

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music licensing

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swap

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. Two incoming links were links to the previous, deleted version of this template, which appears to have been slightly different from this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pi digits

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Aboriginal team 1868 Squad

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this just in my sandbox? I'm only half way through creating it. If it has been added to an article, let's remove from said article until I finish the template and then re-add to article? --Roisterer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Roisterer. NLeeuw (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music of NE India

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NavigationWorldTeamTrophyinFigureSkatingChampions

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this were used on articles, I would still support its removal. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pinsly Railroad Company (2024)

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Master of Sport of Russia International Class

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject tab

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Operations in India in WWI

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upcoming event

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk Page Proposal" series

[edit]

These templates were created for the purpose of creating proposals. These proposals would be placed on the talk pages of any subject, draw attention and induce focused insightful conversation, and structures a voting system as to whether the proposal would be accepted or rejected; these proposal votes usually end after two weeks. The voting system also comes included with a checking system, so that talkers can see how the number of supporters and deniers fare against each other; if one number drastically outweighs the other, the discussion can be closed early at one week. The series consists of, and is affiliated with, the following pages:

Comment: There do not appear to be any nominations in this section. Was this meant as a comment in one or more of the sections below? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no nomination in this section. It was meant to group together the templates currently on trial, which are Template:Talk Page Proposal and Template:Talk Page Proposal check. The actual nominations are listed below in the named sections. ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 19:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Talk Page Proposal
[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk Page Proposal check
[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 31

[edit]

Template:Ethical frameworks sidebar

[edit]

Duplicate of Template:Ethics, only used on 8 pages, all of which also have the other template, so no merge is needed Psychastes (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wittgenstein

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Wittgenstein with Template:Ludwig Wittgenstein.
same topic, no clear difference in scope. merge should be to "Ludwig Wittgenstein" as the one that's more complete and more widely used Psychastes (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Remain calm

[edit]

Created to be a more-intelligible version of {{calm}}, which is being deleted. This version still contributes to banner blindness and I would be shocked if it ever made someone more civil, so I think it should be deleted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Psychastes (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel like especially in a template about WP:CIVILITY, the first link should not be using an essay like its a policy or guidelines. I also think that banners like this could set editors that do pay attention to it, to treat the forum like a conflict zone, see primacy bias. I don't see this template making anyone more civil.
Legend of 14 (talk) 03:58, 1 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]

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]

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]

Template:Campaignbox Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory with Template:Campaignbox Operations Against the Sioux in North Dakota.
I propose to redirect Sully campaignbox to the Operations campaignbox per WP:TFD#REASONS no. #2 & #3 + WP:TG Guideline no. #8 + WP:OVERLAP.

The Sully campaignbox includes only 2 battles (set in North Dakota 1864), which are (since 2024) also included in the 6 battles in the Operations campaignbox (the other 4 are set in North Dakota 1863), which is actually used in all linked articles. The Sully campaignbox is only transcluded in Trans-Mississippi theater of the American Civil War, where the Operations campaignbox is also used already, making the Sully campaignbox completely redundant.
Note: the Sully campaignbox was nominated for deletion before in 2012. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 30#Template:Campaignbox Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory. It was kept at the time. But I think adding the 2 Sully battles to the Operations campaignbox in 2024 was a good move, and that there is a good reason now to merge the whole Sully campaignbox into it (effectively just redirecting the Sully campaignbox to the Operations campaignbox). NLeeuw (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Campaignbox Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory. Both links are featured in the latter campaignbox and used on both articles. There is nothing to merge and add from another template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I am used to preferring merge rather than delete at WP:CFD, because a log will state which page has merged into which other page. With deletion, that information gets lost. Therefore admins prefer merging. NLeeuw (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VoR

[edit]

This template has been around since 2024, and seems to be useless. Legend of 14 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 30

[edit]

Template:Guided by Voices

[edit]

Template is massive and in desperate need of a split. I'm thinking create Template:Robert Pollard and move all his solo work and other bands there, but I'm open to other suggestions. There may also be more purging that can be done on top of my initial pass (not enough time to check every link and see if they're all articles, but if any are redirects then they should go). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delete, leaning in favour of a split for Robert Pollard's non GBV work. Circus Devils could probably justify a navbox of its own for example. --woodensuperman 14:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support the Circus Devils template, though it may not be entirely necessary depending on the size of the Pollard box. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:19, 1 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]

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]

Template:Halle Berry

[edit]

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

Template:Sunday Night Baseball

[edit]

Appearances on specific TV programming is textbook WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 14:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saturday Night Football

[edit]

Television appearances fail WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 08:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:College Gameday (basketball)

[edit]

Television appearances fail WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 08:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESPN College Football Saturday Primetime

[edit]

Television appearances fail WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 08:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseball Tonight Personalities

[edit]

These are television appearances. Textbook WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 08:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warmen

[edit]

Since someone had the great idea to redirect every single one of their albums this template is now useless FMSky (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --woodensuperman 09:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I restored some of the album articles with reference to reviews. The template has now enough links for it to be useful again. --Mika1h (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles, remain then okay to keep. However, please do not restore unlinked or red-linked/redirected links. --woodensuperman 13:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of India

[edit]

This long and difficult to maintain template was created in 2004 when Internet penetration in India (and Wikipedia) was still in its infancy. Things have changed since then. We now have the {{Awards and decorations of the Indian Armed Forces}} which was created in 2012 which is in reasonably good shape and can be kept. For civilian awards there is numerous award lists and templates and categories for literature, arts, science & technology, cinema and sports which are also in good shape and should be kept. This template has outlived its importance and I see no reason it should be kept. Solomon7968 06:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CC BY-SA 3.0 AU

[edit]

Delete. Not used. If someone wishes to use an obsolete license for a particular reason, Commons is thataway and has its own c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-au. We really shouldn't be encouraging the use of out-of-date licenses any more than necessary. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 29

[edit]

Template:Suffixed Interstates

[edit]

Not a defining characteristic and better off handled as a list. Of note, the List of suffixed Interstate Highways is linked from the bottom of every infobox for an Interstate Highway already, so this navbox is unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think this Template will help users to be able to navigate around different suffixed interstates easier instead of having to go to one main page. Breck0530 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fort Vermilion weatherbox

[edit]

only used on one page, should be merged with the parent article Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pantheon of Discord stories

[edit]

A list of appearances infobox for a group of antagonists that don't have an article. Minimal navigational use due to the lack of a "Pantheon of Discord" article that defines the group in the first place. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This was created by an editor who frequently alternates between editing logged in and out as well. This is just a template for the sake of a template. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfalinkonly

[edit]

No documentation, no transclusions, and no incoming links to explain what it is used for. This template was created in 2005 and has probably been superseded by a different template or process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPI undeleted

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. The only incoming link is from one discussion, three years ago. Since it has no documentation, it is unclear how this template is to be used, or if has ever been used at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looks like I created this, but I don't remember the history. If nobody's ever used it in the three years since I created it, then sure, we obviously don't need it. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkey province population/Istanbul

[edit]

No transclusions, incoming links, or template parameters. Appears to be article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fantastic Beasts

[edit]

Redundant to {{Harry Potter}} --woodensuperman 14:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 28

[edit]

Template:2025 in American soccer

[edit]

A recent discussion reached a consensus that U.S. and Canada soccer club seasons should be kept in seperate navboxes according to their leagues. What then are we to make of the "Club seasons" section of this navbox and its predecessors? Not only does it clutter the navbox, there already exists {{2025 MLS season by team}}, {{2025 MLS Next Pro season by team}}, {{2025 USL Championship season}}, and {{2025 NWSL season by team}}. I feel we should either split the "Club seasons" section of this navbox and merge it into these individual navboxes, or merge the individual navboxes into the section here.

Pinging Brindille1, GiantSnowman, PeeJay, and Vestrian24Bio as participants in the aforementioned discussion, and 2pou, Blaixx, EvansHallBear, GrouchoPython, Hey man im josh, Rylesbourne, and Tomrtn as major contributors to some of the five navboxes involved. WikiProject Football, its United States and Canada task force, and WikiProject Sports have been notified of this discussion, and has been listed in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these all should not be being deleted as there is not an effective alternative for navigation CR055H41RZ (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Dutch colonial campaigns

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS:CAMPAIGN does not contain the "(or, more rarely, among several campaigns or wars)" text. I think that the template should be Deleted unless there is a reason why the campaigns should be grouped together especially. Techie3 (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @RobertJohnson35's view Genabab (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baal Nautes (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobertJohnson35 Fair points. MOS:CAMPAIGN appears to have been sufficient to get the previous campaignboxes deleted, so in this new series of nominations for deletion, I did not expect as many Keep votes. (Although everyone appears to agree Template:Campaignbox Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean should be deleted). Are there any "authoritative" rules or conventions for campaignboxes specifically, such as inclusion criteria and length? All I can find so far are some general conventions and recommendations on navigation templates and navboxes in general.
  • Benjitheijneb invoked one sentence from WP:USEFUL: There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. But WP:USEFUL adds: Usefulness is subjective, and a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why? Benjitheijneb commented: when they support Wikipedia's basic goal of facilitating access to summaries of relevant knowledge on a topic. "Conflicts a nation fought to create its colonial empire" are all relevant information to each other, by nature. But I'm not sure that is enough to fulfill the requirement, or whether a template is the best way to organise this information.
  • WP:CLNT helpfully remarks: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others.. WP:NAVBOX outlines those very well, and for this and most of the other templates I nominated on 21 May, I find myself in agreement with Disadvantages no. #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, and #11. (In my opinion, #7-9 do not apply to Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns and Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns, because they are relatively small, but their grouping is still arbitrary and subject to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH).
  • WP:NAV-RELATED states: If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. This is especially the case with wars/conflicts between country A and country B, which are very vulnerable to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This is why Template:Campaignbox Russo–German conflicts was deleted, and I nominated Template:Campaignbox Russo-French Wars, Template:Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars and Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars as a direct follow-up. You agree with this, at least partially: We can remove all the conflicts from before the formation of Spain and those for which there are no sources that say they are Franco-Spanish wars. The problem with the template space is that it can't really cite sources. (The same goes for the category space). This is why I think listifying some or all of these campaignbox templates might be a better solution than either keeping or deleting them, because...
  • ... WP:TG states: Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function. I think neither categories nor See also sections would be a better alternative than a campaignbox in (most of) these cases, but a list article would be better than a campaignbox.
What do you think? I'm open to your perspective, as you've given me good reasons to rethink why and how I nominated these campaignboxes for deletion. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you considering the raised points with such weight.
Regarding WP:USEFUL, I actually came across this consideration about whether it's enough or not when I looked where WP:What Wikipedia is redirects to as a counterpoint to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (I'm a little shocked by how much less fleshed out it is). It suggests that all rationales for inclusion have a "0th law" superceding all else of fulfilling Wikipedia's primary function as a free encyclopedia. If any policy interpretation on Wikipedia opposes its raison d'etre, it stands to reason that the policy or the interpretation are the issue, not the raison d'etre. Style guidance, like the (dis)advantages you cite from WP:NAVBOX, are in place to make articles accessible as encyclopaedic content, not aesthetics alone.
I do concede the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arguments for some of those - including this Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns on consideration - though I'd strongly argue the point on Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns, as the independent original sources cited in the text of Japanese colonial empire already synthesise the campaigns together, so they don't meet the exclusion criterion you quoted from WP:NAV-RELATED as they are "established as related by reliable sources". I do think this is a good litmus test for whether a campaignbox should be included, though I also point out the precedence of WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article".
And regarding WP:TG, I am of the opinion that a list wouldn't be better simply for accessibility: put simply, a collapsible sidebar is a neater and cleaner way of navigating from one military campaign/battle to a related one without having to (a) open a separate page with the list and (b) scroll down a lot more to find the appropriate article in that list (since list pages are typically full-width and have more line breaks, and therefore a lot more whitespace to scroll through than a campaignbox does). However, I am curious why, aside from the inability to cite sources (which I see more as an argument against templates existing at all, since none of the many sidebars and navboxes on Wikipedia have cited sources either), you think listification would be better? Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjitheijneb You're welcome! I appreciate your elaborate response in return.
  • It seems we share similar experiences in having trouble finding the relevant template policies and guidelines, or being disappointed by how unspecific they are when we do find them. Part of it is probably my relative inexperience with discussing templates as opposed to articles or categories, so I'm not always sure how these discussions go, and which arguments to invoke or avoid.
  • I'm a bit confused about what you mean by the independent original sources cited in the text of Japanese colonial empire already synthesise the campaigns together. Is than argument in favour or against keeping Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns?
  • WP:NEXIST is only relevant for the question whether a topic merits a stand-alone article, regardless of whether the article in its current state uses suitable sources to establish its notability. On the other hand, WP:NAV-RELATED requires that the there are already reliable sources in the actual articles, which establish[ that] the articles are [related]. Therefore, the navbox (campaignbox) cannot include links between articles A and B, until reliable sources in articles A and B establish that A and B are related to each other. Alternatively, that reliable sources in article C establish a relationship between A and B, or A and B establish a relationship to C, etc. (in the case of a campaignbox, A and B would be battles or operations in war C).
  • A major problem is that these templates in their headings link to Spanish Empire, Japanese colonial empire etc. as their "main article". But the "Spanish Empire" was not a campaign, front, theater or war (or, more rarely, (...) several campaigns or wars). It waged a lot of campaign and wars, but was not itself a series of campaigns or wars. The result is a hodgepodge of very disparate article that can only tangentially be related to the Spanish Empire. E.g. I struggle to see what the War of the Sicilian Vespers has to do with the Dunkirkers, or what either of those has to do with the Slaying of the Spaniards (i.e. some Basque civilian fishermen shipwrecked on Iceland were killed after they committed theft), and whether any of these three should be considered a "Spanish colonial campaign". The Campaignbox seems to think that any event involving violence outside the Iberian peninsula, with at least one participant being somehow arguably "Spanish", is sufficient to count as a "Spanish colonial campaign". I disagree. We need far stricter criteria.
  • None of these three articles currently use the campaignbox anyway. The Campaignbox links to c. 600 articles (rough estimate based on the source code), but has been transcluded in only 118 articles. So in practice, you can only navigate between about 17% of these articles; the rest is a dead end. Therefore, its practical usefulness for navigation is extremely limited. This comes very close to WP:TFD#REASONS for deletion no. #3.
  • I understand that a list does not have all the navigational benefits of a campaignbox. But especially with such a long campaignbox with barely-related articles, barely any context, and very limited transclusion, it's doubtful whether the campaignbox is good at serving the purposes you ascribe to them: a collapsible sidebar is a neater and cleaner way of navigating from one military campaign/battle to a related one without having to (a) open a separate page with the list and (b) scroll down a lot more to find the appropriate article in that list. First (a), because campaignboxes are not visible om mobile devices anyway, all readers who use campaignboxes are doing so on a PC or laptop, with a pretty large screen (perhaps even a second monitor) that allows for easy switching between various tabs. Second (b), because readers using PCs or laptops can easily use Ctrl + F to look for any detail the reader is interested in. Lists of battles, campaigns or wars will always contain more information (usually: full name of each conflict, dates, belligerents, and results/outcomes) than a mere campaignbox, that needs to be as concise as possible to prevent taking up too much space, or causing template creep. I know my experience is not necessarily representative all readers, but opening a separate page or using Ctrl + F (instead of "scrolling down a lot") is very, very easy to do on desktops or laptops. That is why, especially for very long campaignboxes with possible WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and scope issues, I think listification according to WP:CSC is a better option.
  • So unless a campaignbox is concise (no more than, say, 50 links to articles in it), transcluded on every single article, and those articles have reliable sources which establish that these articles are clearly related to each other, I don't think it has much navigational value, or otherwise a good reason to exist, instead of a well-sourced list with a clearly-defined scope. There are plenty of good campaignboxes out there that serve their purpose better than a list would. This is not one of them. We editors on English Wikipedia just haven't yet established clear conventions where to draw the line between a useful and a not-so-useful campaignbox. I do hope that this discussion will help in establishing a few conventions, because I think that we can share a lot of common ground here, and we all mean well. It's just more complicated than it might seem at first glance.
Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, going back to Wikipedia's first principles appeals to the philosophiser in me, but the real beauty of Wikipedia is that as you say, there's always a chance discussions like these can inform/update changes to those policies and guidelines too. That alone would make it worth the several paragraphs debating them!
  • Re: Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns - an argument in favour of keeping. Even though the Japanese colonial empire article is about the empire, not the campaigns, the sources it cites already identify those campaigns as being connected more intimately as the "several campaigns or wars" guidance. The notion of considering all Japanese colonial campaigns together (and not as separate and unrelated campaigns that just happen to be launched by the same nation) is supported by the original sources (see Mark Peattie citations in its Biblography section), not the original synthesis of Wikipedians. They are in keeping with WP:NAV-RELATED (good spot on the different criteria to WP:NEXIST) in that the campaigns being connected to each other is established in reliable sources in the actual article. (Nowhere does WP:NAV-RELATED specify that it has to be established in reliable sources in a specific article e.g. titled "Japanese colonial campaigns", after all; in fact, it uses articles in the plural.)
  • That said, and especially with your examples, I don't think on consideration that Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns (or the Danish, Dutch, Portuguese or Russian equivalents, which I've looked at less) establish this unity even in other articles. A big part of that stems from the fact that they span multiple stages of national evolution: hell, the Spanish one ends in 2012 with modern Spain but begins in 1228 with the Crown of Aragon: not even an entity called Spain, let alone identified uncontroversially with it (and far from the only one)! I can't find in those articles any source connecting the overseas ventures of the Crown of Aragon to even the 19th and 20th century Spanish colonial campaigns, short of original synthesis. That said, an original source which establishes connections between, for example, the First Spanish Republic onwards might be more likely to exist (and therefore warrant a smaller campaignbox of its own), but that's moot if it is not and cannot be cited in article namespace. So I'm very happy to concede the point towards Delete, Dramatically Trim or Split as appropriate to such citations that are present which I just haven't spotted. (Again, I would argue that the Japanese colonial campaigns are an exception as the campaigns of the post-Boshin War to Second World War imperial regime and within a well-demarcated timeframe are already established. If they had included the Imjin War of the 1590s under a completely different regime and most importantly which reliable sources don't typically tie with the others, I'd be arguing to remove that link from the template as a SYNTH/OR example.)
  • I think the point of the articles not currently including the navbox relevant to it is a stronger argument for "this campaignbox should be transcluded more where it is actually useful" than "this campaignbox is of limited practical usefulness for navigation". Of course it's useless for navigation if it's underused, but that implies to me that navigation is lacking and it should be used more.
  • The point about the length and cumbersomeness of a campaignbox is fair, and I don't really have good ideas for it aside from culling those articles which aren't warranted for inclusion as established by a reliable source. Other campaignboxes have attempted to resolve the issue with collapsible "sub-campaignboxes" within the already-collapsible campaignboxes. I hate this solution, personally. Whether the sub-campaignboxes should be organised by (arbitrary) campaign linkage, geographical region/theatre or year is usually going to be pure original research or synthesis. In one example that is to my knowledge fairly unique, two campaignboxes which are typically seen in scholarship as separate but directly connected sequentially have direct links to each other. I wouldn't know better for a "maximum links before it becomes too long" limit, but though 50 links is as good a ballpark as any, I wouldn't want that to be binding in a campaignbox where 52 links are justified and necessary for completeness.
  • For point (a) I... honestly don't know if any policy gives priority to desktop or mobile use for Wikipedia, actually? And no idea where we'd find that. For point (b) I don't know if my experience is representative either, but I specifically rely on campaignboxes because they don't contain more information than what's needed to jump from one article to the other (when I want to go from one battle to a related one in the same campaign, I don't need the full name, date, belligerents or results, I just want to get from A to B!). And I think that's because lists serve a purpose beyond navigation, as a summary of information (again, going back to WP:About's first principle) and that's why they exist on their own merit in article namespace, whereas campaignboxes are purely and solely navigational, not information in their own right. In an ideal world both list and campaignbox would exist where both of their uses are warranted. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Campaignbox: This template does not display in the mobile view of Wikipedia; it is desktop only. See Template:Navbox visibility for a brief explanation.
This section is an excerpt from Template:Navbox visibility.[edit]

Templates using the classes class=navbox ({{navbox}}) or class=nomobile ({{sidebar}}) are not displayed in article space on the mobile web site of English Wikipedia. Mobile page views account for approximately 68% of all page views (90-day average as of September 2024). Briefly, these templates are not included in articles because 1) they are not well designed for mobile, and 2) they significantly increase page sizes—bad for mobile downloads—in a way that is not useful for the mobile use case. You can review/watch phab:T124168 for further discussion.

In short, campaignboxes and other navboxes are invisible in the mobile view, so we are only designing campaignboxes and navboxes for desktop users. And desktop users will (almost certainly) have a keyboard and a mouse to navigate any List of Spanish colonial campaigns list article that we could theoretically converted this campaignbox into. They don't have to use their thumb to "scroll down a lot", as mobile users must (because they can't see and use campaignboxes for navigation anyway). There are so many ways to quickly navigate a list article in desktop view that a long but details-lacking, poorly-scoped, unsourced, WP:OR-ridden, and template creep-prone campaignbox like this can never hope to compete with. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding.
  • I agree that many of the wars, campaigns, battles, and others are not Spanish colonial campaigns, which is why I suggested restoring a previous version which was much shorter and had more transclusions per link. This infobox was recently changed and now looks more like a campaignbox of conflicts involving "Spain" rather than a campaignbox of Spanish colonial campaigns.
  • I think the biggest disadvantages of campaignboxes are that sources cannot be cited and that it is not accessible on mobile devices. But this is a general problem, affecting all campaignboxes, not just these ones. Still, I think that if there are one or more links that should not be in a campaignbox, they can be discussed on the talk page of the template.
  • There are many wars, such as the Eighty Years' War, that have their own lists, campaignboxes and categories coexisting at the same time and I don't think it's a problem because lists are more suitable for showing infomation while campaignboxes are more suitable for navigating between related articles. I also want to share my personal experience and it's pretty much everything Benjitheijneb said: I use campaignboxes to navigate between related articles, the fact that they are smaller and have much less information than a list is what makes it navigable. RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobertJohnson35 Thanks for your belated reply, I appreciate it! As a matter of fact, I agree with a lot of what you say. I'm a major contributor to lists, campaignboxes and categories about the Eighty Years' War. Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War (7% of which is my text) currently has about 200 links, which is many more than the "50" I proposed above, so I'm feeling a bit of a hypocrite right now haha. ;) In my defence, or rather the campaignbox' defence, there is a pretty strong consensus that the Eighty Years' War was a single "war".
If you're really, really interested...

...there has been an academic discussion amongst Dutch historians between about the 1960s and 2010s that there is something wrong with the term "Eighty Years' War", and we should consider the 1609 to 1648 period a separate "war", and that there was one or were two preceding "wars" or periods of "war" or "revolt" between 1566/8 and 1609, but because ultimately nobody could agree where to draw the lines and what to call each period, most scholars have defaulted back to agreeing that the whole 1566/8 to 1648 period was a single "war". There has been a looong discussion about this on Dutch Wikipedia, which I can link to if you'd like to read it all.

On the other hand, there is no argument that I know of that suggests that "Spain" or the "Spanish Empire" was in a nearly constant state of military colonial campaigning from 1213 to 2012. Even the 7 March 2025 version which you suggested restoring claims a nearly constant state of military colonial campaigning from 1402 to 1975. There is no thematic link between all these articles, except that "Spain" or the "Spanish Empire" was one of the belligerents, and that the conflicts took place outside Europe and European waters. That's an improvement from the current campaignbox, which broadens that scope to all conflicts outside the Iberian Peninsula (including the rest of Europe and European waters), but not much. How is this different from Template:Campaignbox Portuguese battles in the Indian Ocean (which everyone, including you, agreed to delete)? The only criteria were that Portugal was one of the belligerents, and that the conflicts took place somewhere, anywhere, in the Indian Ocean, regardless of time, exact place, enemies, allies, co-belligerents, historical and military context, etc. We all agreed that that was not good enough, and so we deleted it.
I think a good campaignbox looks something like Template:Campaignbox Mediterranean Campaign of 1793-1796. A clear scope with a main article and interconnected battle articles, not to long, very useful for navigation. Would you agree? NLeeuw (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'd like to point out that Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns (~600 links), Template:Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars (~116 links) and Template:Campaignbox Ottoman–Habsburg Wars (~64 links) have sooo much WP:OVERLAP that they have become a major source of template creep. I randomly clicked on the page Siege of Oran (1556), only to find an article containing just 116 words, and then an avalanche of these three campainboxes PLUS Template:Major Ottoman sieges (~113 links) at the bottom. That means that these 4 campaignboxes/navboxes contain a total of about 893 links (many of them duplicates) to other articles in an article that itself has just 116 words. This not a Wikipedia article anymore, it has become a template dumping ground. Maybe it's time address this template creep? I agree campaignboxes can have a lot of value, and there are no easy solutions, but surely something needs to be done. NLeeuw (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good campaignbox looks something like Template:Campaignbox Mediterranean Campaign of 1793-1796. A clear scope with a main article and interconnected battle articles, not to long, very useful for navigation. Would you agree? It does, but it is also a formally-defined theatre of a single formally-defined war within a formally-defined series of wars with a fortuitously small number of engagements to include (21 by my count). It is easy and obvious to make that into a good campaignbox. But that doesn't mean that others don't have value. Like, I know on a common-sense level (even if I can't source it off the top of my head) that the 1497 Conquest of Melilla and the 1507 Battle of Mers-el-Kébir are intimately connected as part of the same wave of campaigns, even though they have entirely different belligerents and regions (Castile vs. Habsburg Spain, Wattasids vs. Tlemcen, Morocco vs. Algeria), and that it is useful for a reader wishing to learn about one would also find the other informative. There is an argument that there should be easier navigation between them (they arguably need the campaignbox for that more than a "formal" war does, where the war's article will likely provide links to many/most/all related battles in-text), and a strong reason to believe scholarship would support a connection between them despite being on-paper separate. Guidelines are used to define how far into grey areas templates can diverge before they are no longer acceptable. They shouldn't be defined by nice neat examples which fit comfortably outside grey areas. Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A novel thought: why shouldn't campaignboxes - and indeed all navboxes - be possible to add citations to? (Perhaps not mandatorily, but optionally where the navbox has been questioned, like this one). They could be hidden in the template under noinclude, since their point would be to justify the template's scope existing from a behind-the-scenes perspective to Wikipedia guideline interpretation, not to make the navbox a source of information to the reader. It's not a current practice, but since WP:NAV-RELATED does demand a level of sourcing for it, it does seem like doing so would align with WP:IGNORE and WP:COMMONSENSE guidance.
  • I definitely do not think that mobile viewers being unable to view a campaignbox makes a difference on arguing for or against any campaignbox existing. Both are decisions made to maximise ease of navigation, but compromising to accommodate different mediums. Visible campaignboxes on mobile devices would be awful for navigation and accessibility due to their size on small screens; either way, navigation is a little harder by default, and nobody can really fix that. But there's no reason to make desktop users suffer without a navigation tool that is appropriate for desktop on principle.
  • Though as @NLeeuw points out, the older version of the template is better but still faces the same issues. I also again point out that large time and regime jumps - like treating the Crown of Castille as synonymous with Spain - are highly suspect. You could possibly provide an argument - and more importantly, sources - for a Template:Castilian colonial campaigns in Africa, showing scholarly opinion that they share more in common than simply one belligerent and one broad geographic region. But you'd be hard-pressed to find one which acknowledges that it shares more than those two characteristics with the Rif War. Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your two thoughtful responses, I appreciate it. I'd like to take some time to re-read all arguments so far, and then think of how to reply.
    Right now, I'm leaning towards doing 3 things
    1. Restoring the 7 March 2025 version of this campaignbox for now (which we three seem to agree was at least better than it is now);
    2. Drafting a guideline for campaignboxes in general in order to centralise all these little snippets of policies, guidelines, conventions and manuals of style in order to WP:CENTRALise future discussions;
    3. Separately, I might draft an essay on why I think that, in some cases, it is better to listify certain categories or templates than to delete or keep them. That way, I can refer to it, and don't have to explain it every time it comes up. (This will be a work in progress, first little more than a note-to-self, but eventually I think it can become helpful in recurring discussions at CfD and TfD).
    No. #2 is probably most important. This discussion, while interesting, has become a lot more complicated than it has to be if we had a centralised guideline with core principles that we all agreed on. The fact that we do not, means that it is very difficult to focus the discussion and reach consensus. I'm very glad to see that there is a willingness to reach agreement or compromise; we are just hindered by the lack of a clear framework to help us reach it. That means we were probably not ready to discuss these campaignboxes yet. And I probably shouldn't have nominated so many simultaneously. Anyway, let me think about it a bit more. NLeeuw (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: @RobertJohnson35 rightfully compared Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns to Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War (which I've contributed to myself). My answer to that is that we should probably split it up according to the various periods the main article has been split up in during the major overhaul in late 2022, which I spearheaded. The relevant comparison was how the main article for Hundred Years' War had been split up in three phases (Edwardian, Caroline, and Lancastrian) plus related conflicts; I see now that they've done the same with the campaignboxes:
    Spillover:
    I am perfectly willing to split up Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War into 1 main one and 10 smaller ones for the periods I myself wrote the period articles.
    Similarly, if we decide to restore the 7 March 2025 version of Template:Campaignbox Spanish colonial campaigns, might it be a good next step to split it by century? The result would be 6 smaller, more easily usable campaignboxes for the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century. (Since the Crowns of Castile and Aragon were formally united during the War of the Castilian Succession of 1475–79, I won't be too picky about the fact that the Castilian Conquest of the Canary Islands began before and ended after the union, nor that the battles of Santa Cruz de la Mar Pequeña (1478) and Guinea (1478) took place just before the union was formally recognised in 1479). Pragmatically, I am willing to overlook the fact that the criteria for location (outside Europe) and opposing forces (anyone) are very loose, just because the campaignboxes become a lot smaller in practice. For me, this could be an acceptable compromise. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benjitheijneb YES! Template:Campaignbox End of Han and Template:Campaignbox Three Kingdoms splitting at the year 220 and linking to each other is a great solution! I was thinking of something similar for the campaignboxes Spanish colonial campaigns by century. But I was worried about setting a "bad" precedent. You have reminded me of a good precedent. This might be the key to reaching a lot of agreement. NLeeuw (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I started drafting a 'guideline' (which I'm labelling an 'essay' for now) at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes. It seeks to combine and concisely summarise all the policies, guidelines, conventions and essays etc. that we invoked during this discussion, and more. I'm not sure what will be the result, but at the moment I'm thinking that all or some of this will need to be incorporated into MOS:CAMPAIGN, the only official guideline of 2 sentences about campaignboxes, that is very vague, but pretty much the only firm rules specifically for campaignboxes that have ever been written down. We'll see where this goes. I'm very open to suggestions, additions, corrections, anything. NLeeuw (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't really find it neccessary and it might be too many campaignboxes. Perhaps we could divide the template by periods of Spain? Like the Transtamara era, Habsburg era, Bourbon era, Francoist era, etc, although it might be less confusing and easier to divide it by centuries, whatever you think is best.
    About the WP:OVERLAP, I agree with you that it's a problem, do you have any ideas to solve this? The only solution I see is to separate the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars from the Spanish-Ottoman Wars. I mean, not including the Campaignbox Habsburg-Ottoman Wars in articles that only include Habsburg Spain to reduce the number of campaignboxes in an article. The only problem is that there are articles in which both would still coincide, like in the Algiers expedition (1541). Let me know what you think. RobertJohnson35 – talk 22:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good question. My first incling would be to look for which war the Algiers expedition (1541) would fit in. That answer might not be easy to find in English Wikipedia. E.g. apparently it's not Habsburg–Ottoman war of 1540–1547, because that was apparently all only in the Balkans, Kingdom of Hungary (according to the infobox), even though the belligerents are the same. The article itself states: Charles V made considerable preparations for the expedition, wishing to obtain revenge for the recent Siege of Buda (1541), which definitely was part of the Habsburg–Ottoman war of 1540–1547, so perhaps the theatre of that war should be broadened?
    It's certainly not Ottoman–Venetian War (1537–1540), because even though it once again pitted the Spanish Empire and the Regency of Algiers against each other in the Mediterranean, Venice signed peace with the Ottomans on 2 October 1540, so Algiers expedition (1541) can't be part of it anymore. It's not part of Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1560) either, because Spain and Algiers weren't involved and it wasn't in the Mediterranean. Etc.
    But perhaps in Turkish, Spanish, German or Hungarian Wikipedia? Sure enough, trwiki has a main article tr:1515-1577 Osmanlı-İspanya Savaşı (1515–1577 Ottoman-Spanish War). eswiki also writes that es:Jornada de Argel was Parte de guerra hispano-otomana de 1515-1577 (part of the Hispano-Ottoman War of 1515–1577), but it has no main article. Etc. NLeeuw (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dewiki enlights little more. de:Algier only briefly mentions The state of war with the Western powers gave piracy the formal legitimacy of the privateering customary in war. The attempts of the European powers to conquer the city and put a stop to piracy failed. In 1541, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, sent his troops against Algiers. He failed, as did the Danes in 1770 and Spain with its army in 1775. So rather than "revenge for the siege of Buda in 1541" (which Spain was not involved in), Charles V apparently attacked Algiers in order to put an end to piracy/privateering (which I find more likely). Meanwhile, de:Türkenkriege connects the failed 1541 Spanish Algiers expedition to the 1535 Spanish conquest of Tunis: Pirate fleets allied with the Ottomans undertook raids against Spanish and Italian coastal towns in the 16th century. For its part, Habsburg Spain undertook campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and its vassals in North Africa and conquered Tunis in 1535, while the conquest of Algiers failed in 1541. As with the Venetian case, the best way to look for a proper scope to a war or campaign is to find a peace treaty that ended a war. NLeeuw (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is is a navbox that goes under the infobox, the use of the full width tfd template pushers the article lede a long way down the screen - for example on Rif War any content other than the infobox is off the screen. Can someone fix this please. We shouldn't break articles for the reader when we are nominating templates for deletion - even if it is only for a limited period of time.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigel Ish Moved to Rif War#See also for now per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Feel free to do this in any other article where you find the notification annoying. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As promised, I've also created a new essay on listification, see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Listification. It's still under construction, but it contains all the basics. In short: if there is ever strong doubt about whether all the battle articles really belong together in a campaignbox, listification might sometimes be a good solution. It doesn't necessarily apply in this case, but I expect to see this a lot at TFD and CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Franco-Spanish wars

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. There is also a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH going on, such as framing Albigensian Crusade as a "Franco-Spanish war" even though "Spain" didn't exist yet. Follow-up to:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish-Ottoman wars

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish–Ottoman wars is a template created by spliting Ottoman–Habsburg wars one in it's Mediterranean theater. Nor to mention that legally the Spanish-Ottoman war declared by Charles I at the start of XVI century never ended until a formal peace treaty was done in 1782 at the time of Charles IV of Spain. So all those conflicts are completely related as campaigns and theaters of a 3 century war Sr L (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. The House of Habsburg and the Ottoman Empire were constantly, uninterruptedly, ongoing, continuously, unendingly, without break or pause, at war with each other 24/7 for 300 years. Peace treaty? What is that?[Joke]
Kidding aside, this campaignbox simply does not conform to MOS:CAMPAIGN. NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the split necessary. The conflict between Spain and the Ottomans stopped being part of the Ottoman-Habsburg wars when Spain ceased being ruled by the Habsburgs after the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. per Template:Infobox_military_conflict it states the Campaignboxes may be used more rarely among plural campaigns or wars CR055H41RZ (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were only truces since the start of war durinng Empire of Charles V era, but never a formal peace treaty until Treaty of Karlowitz for Austrian Habsburg and Treaty of Constantinople [es] for Hispanic Monarchy (under Bourbons at that time). And even then, there were a bit of successive conflicts until Napoleonic era. Sr L (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were wrong, the template documentation admits multiple wars or campaigns in a single campaignbox, so there's no reason to delete it anyway. RobertJohnson35 – talk 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Russo-French Wars

[edit]

Propose deleting per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. Follow-up to:

NLeeuw (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Franco-Russian Wars fullfy the same conditions like other templates concerning geopolitical rivalries between 2 militar powers (which constitutes a particular conflict), like Anglo-Spanish War or Anglo-French Wars Sr L (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH. NLeeuw (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per @Sr L(talk). Leutha (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the wars listed at Franco-Russian War are primarily Franco-Russian wars, so on what article would this template be due? Useless for navigation because there is nowhere it should be used. We cannot weigh down every multilateral conflict article with multiple bilateral conflict templates like this. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wars held by both French Empires against Russia are Good articles to use the template, also specific campaign of European Conflicts during Bourbon era, in which French and Russian forces were involved directly due to the polítics of alliance hostiles between them 38.25.9.253 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Srnec makes very good points. As nom, I should have mentioned this in my rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marcin Rozynek

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions. Most links in the body go to the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDS-US-East

[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 Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no transclusions. Appears to have been removed in favor of three other navboxes in Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple navigational boxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Jonesey95 is correct. It does need to be removed. Dmm1169 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 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:Collapse AI bottom

[edit]

Redundant to {{end}}. Recommend redirect, as we have done for many similar templates. See this 2020 TFD for precedent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City of Colchester

[edit]

This template attempts to gather articles linked to the settlement that is around, but not restricted to, what was the town of Colchester, while excluding other areas in what was the Borough of Colchester, now the City of Colchester.

So the template is, at best, misnamed. But that also means that it is based on an entirely undefined area: there is an unparished area, dealt with in the Colchester article, that is Colchester 'proper', but this includes peripheral areas. So it is based on an entirely undefined area. As such, there can be no real criteria as to what is or is not included.

The creator has a short but distinctive history of creating largely fanciful content, such as inventing 10 subdivision of Colchester that bore no resemblance to local government wards or anything else. He continues this by creating here an entity that simply does not exist of "Myland and Highwoods": content is not to be trusted.

It might be that some (but not all) of this could usefully be gathered in a template for Colchester as defined in that article (renamed), or merged into an expanded version of "Human settlements of the City of Colchester in Essex, England", with additional articles. But as it stands it is untenable, and erroneously named. Kevin McE (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 27

[edit]

Template:A Course of Action

[edit]

The article for the band A Course of Action was deleted at AFD earlier this month. Only three blue links remain (an album and two members), leaving little to navigate. ✗plicit 23:35, 27 May 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]

Template:EngvarB

[edit]

This discussion is to deprecate Template:EngvarB, not to delete, merge or rename it. I am proposing this after discussion at Template talk:EngvarB#Proposal to deprecate or rename this template and subsequent activity on that talk page.

Template:EngvarB is used by the Wikipedia:EngvarB script to maintain consistent spelling within articles. Template:EngvarB states "deprecated: for non-specific but not North American spelling".

Template:EngvarB should not usually be added to new articles. If necessary, a specific language tag such as Template:Use New Zealand English should be added. In the absence of strong national ties WP:TIES, the article can be tagged with whatever variety of English it currently uses. Therefore, Template:EngvarB should be marked deprecated to warn editors that better alternatives exist.

It could be argued that the template is useful to help categorise articles that do not have strong national ties, and are written in a non-specific but not North American English. The template is apparently helpful to the EngvarB script, and isn't doing any harm. This may be so, but deprecating it would also be helpful, in the majority of cases, to warn editors that better alternatives exist. Deprecation is not deletion. cagliost (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is an informal project going on at Template talk:EngvarB (1, 2, 3) to replace uses of EngvarB with specific language tags, where possible. No one has raised any objections to this project, nor do I think anyone could. This project is made harder by new articles being created and tagged with EngvarB. More work is created, to identify national WP:TIES if any, and re-tag the article. Deprecation would help here, so articles would be created with the correct tag in the first place. cagliost (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already deprecated: An issue here is that sometimes it's not obvious which variety to tag with, just because something uses what might be called British, Commonwealth or International English. (Another issue is that the templates are possibly misnamed: they are used almost completely if not completely as {{Use Fooian spelling}}.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The template was previously deprecated, but this was removed. I want to restore the deprecation tag, to help educate and inform editors who might be tempted to incorrectly tag a new article with EngvarB even when MOS:TIES exist, that better alternatives are available.
I don't want this discussion to get sidetracked into other issues. cagliost (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions like this don't belong in the backwoods, and it's not about what you want. While the backstory of the script is indeed WP:TIES, this template is a maintenance template meant to indicate when an article has been updated by the Engvar script. People who want to see it deleted or deprecated appear to be unaware of how it is linked to the workings of the script. Unlike Template:British English, it's purely for maintenance. It is harmless and has absolutely no effect on the reader experience. In case anyone is really interested, the nomenclature is simple: EngvarA through C reflect the three script buttons are indeed abbreviations for the 3 main codes present in WP: EngvarA is short of "American variety of English", EngvarB for British, and C for Canadian (X could be for Xanaduan, Y for Yemeni and Z for Zimbabwean). Even if deleted, I see no simple way of maintaining an article without either inserting this template or at least updating it. Therefore I would argue strongly that this ought to be kept. -- Ohc revolution of our times 06:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if deleted": This proposal is not for deletion. cagliost (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cagliost: The script is as complex as it needs to be. {{EngvarB}} is a functional template; "EngvarB is shorthand for British Commonwealth". Rich has nailed it: The other "English_templates" are merely informative (and dig nationalist ghettoes). -- Ohc revolution of our times 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my perspective, if you want to streamline the templates, it would make more sense to redirect all the "English_templates" except for American and Canadian to {{EngvarB}} instead of the other way around, and eventually deprecating same. -- Ohc revolution of our times 19:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "You've seen the issues created by having dozens of templates, based on nationalistic feelings". No, I haven't. Using different varieties of English on Wikipedia is not "nationalist ghettoes" but Wikipedia policy (WP:TITLEVAR, MOS:RETAIN, MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others"). This script, with EngvarA, B, C, seems like an attempt to enforce only a few varieties of English, against policy. There is no such thing as, "English variety B", and {{Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted with consensus. We are not obligated to keep Template:EngvarB around to help your script. If the script doesn't support other varieties of English, it is the script which should change. Even so, I am not proposing to delete Template:EngvarB, but to deprecate it, reflecting the fact that EngvarB should not be added to articles except in exceptional circumstances.
    If you wanted to "redirect all the English_templates except for American and Canadian to EngvarB" you would need a much more widely publicised discussion, and it would be unlikely to succeed. cagliost (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cagliost: Deprecating this template is retrograde, like throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Far from being an attempt to enforce only a few varieties of English, against policy, the script and its partnering template were developed with WP:TIES and WP:COMMONALITY in mind. They bring much needed uniformity within any given article, and as a result we don't have to put up with inconsistent spelling – for example both "labor" and "labour"; "traveling" and "travelling" – within the same article. My guess is that the script has been run on quite a few miles north of a million articles. As I explained, putting {{EngvarB}} in the same basket as {{Use Ugandan English}} is like comparing "Apples and Pears" (or "Choux et Carottes", as the French would say). This "Groundhog day" scenario repeats rather annoyingly every few years when a new generation of editors comes along and misunderstands what the template is for and how its workings are intertwined with the script, and seeks to change things. I'm open to solutions to changing the script and template in a holistic and coherent revamp. However, in the absence of an alternative that works for both reader and script maintenance, I don't see at all how the need for EngvarB template will disappear. I'm getting the feeling that we are starting to go around in circles, so I won't flog the dead horse, and hope that you too will drop the dead donkey. -- Ohc revolution of our times 12:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the reason this template keeps being nominated for deletion and deprecation is (1) its name, which does not comply with template naming guidelines, (2) the "clarification needed" notes and inaccurate text that existed and have existed in its documentation for many years, (3) the questions raised on the talk page that have gone unanswered for many years, (4) the fact that some script or process keeps getting it added inappropriately to articles that have clear MOS:TIES, and (5) the editor above who claims to be the maintainer of the EngvarB script does not respond to bug reports about the script, which applies this template in ways contrary to MOS:TIES and the script's own documentation. Something fundamental about this template is broken. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot thickens! I think this version better reflects the original intention. The modifications that have been made to the doc since simply reflect what others may erroneously interpret or want of this template and may somewhat depart from the description of the mission. I ought to go and replace it. -- Ohc revolution of our times 16:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tem

[edit]

{{Tem}} works identically to {{Template link}}. DB1729talk 02:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way this works is abbreviations are often automatically replaced with the full name version by tools such as AWB. The availability of the abbreviation helps editors to work faster. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
But there's already {{t}} and {{tl}}, which are shorter and both have over 5000+ transclusions, so this is not needed. There are 10 other redirects as well. Vestrian24Bio 12:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of deleting it if it's identical. As the creator of the template, I created it when I was having trouble finding a template that already served its purpose.ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 02:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


May 26

[edit]

Template:Uns-ip

[edit]

I don't think we need a WHOIS search link in unsigned comments. It's only two clicks away in the normal {{subst:Unsigned}} (contributions -> WHOIS), and normally-signed comments include no such link. Fewer than five uses since 2017 (when the WHOIS tool link was updated), so other editors evidently don't see the value in such a link, either. Therefore, delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned2Fix

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Unsigned2Fix with Template:Unsigned.
{{subst:Unsigned}} can be updated to take a |fix=yes parameter, which allows making use of the new-and-improved functionality of Module:Unsigned. Very few substitutions, so it is unlikely this will break anyone's workflow. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InfoboxCivilWar

[edit]

No transclusions. Redundant to other infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:6 Metre World Cup medallists

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or template parameters. Appears to be article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promozione

[edit]

These navigational boxes do not link to anything football-related besides the heading. All the links are to the regions with nothing specific to their football teams or leagues. In contrast, see Template:Eccellenza which does provide links to the actual regional leagues. ... discospinster talk 16:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from non-preferred capitalisation

[edit]

Newly created redundant template, as {{R from miscapitalization}} and {{R from alternative capitalization}} already exist. It's either a miscapitalization (an error in capitalization), or an alternative capitalization which may be acceptable outside of the scope of Wikipedia (as in complying with our MoS, but clearly not an error). This template seems to have been created so that one user can use it for a maintenance report and bypass redirects. What differs with this template is that the user wants to bypass piped redirects by using this template.

  • {{R from alternative capitalization}}:

    From other capitalisation: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, or it leads to a title that is associated in some way with the conventional capitalisation of this redirect title. This may help writing, searching and international language issues.

    • If this redirect is an incorrect capitalisation, then {{R from miscapitalisation}} should be used instead, and pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target. Miscapitalisations can be tagged in any namespace.
    • Use this rcat to tag only mainspace redirects; when other capitalisations are in other namespaces, use {{R from modification}} instead.
  • {{R from miscapitalization}}:

    From a miscapitalisation: This is a redirect from a capitalisation error. The correct form is given by the target of the redirect.

    • This redirect is made available to aid searches or to maintain links. Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the correct form without using a piped link hiding the correct details.
    • This template tags redirects with the Redirects from miscapitalisations category, a subcategory of Redirects from incorrect names, so template {{R from incorrect name}} should not be used with this template.
  • {{R from non-preferred capitalisation}}:

    This is a redirect from a capitalisation not in agreement with Wikipedia capitalization guidelines. The preferred form is given by the target of the redirect.

    • This redirect is made available to aid searches or to maintain links.
    • This template tags redirects with the Redirects from miscapitalisations category, a subcategory of Redirects from incorrect names, so template {{R from incorrect name}} should not be used with this template.

What even is a "non-prefferred capitalization"? Entirely unnecessary, and adds confusion. Seems to be part of a person's personal crusade to unnnessarily tag and bypass redirects, when we have perfectly acceptable templates that already exist that tell us when we should and shouldn't do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring over rcats. Seriously? In any event, I still think this rcat should be deleted for the reasons josh stated. This was not something that should have been boldly created before discussion was finished. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"reasons josh stated"? I can't find reasons. "Entirely unnecessary, and adds confusion" is just an opinion; I don't see anyone being confused about this. It's a simple experiment in solving the problem that neither of the existing tags expresses enough for people to agree on how to use them. If we find a better way forward it's easy to back out this experiment; or we can tweak the wording, change what category it uses, etc., very easily, if we follow up in the discussion about it, rather than torpedo the effort while it's ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now without prejudice. This should not have been created before there was consensus in the linked discussion, but now that it has been created it should not be deleted before the discussion concludes. If there is a consensus for the template or something like it can then remain, if there is a consensus against the template then it can be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Thryduulf, with no prejudice against the linked discussion finding consensus to delete it, although I personally disagree with the creation of the template as fait accompli. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. @Dicklyon: While the proof of concept has been semi-boldly created, be aware of WP:FAITACCOMPLI concerns regarding transcluding it on more redirects while the VP discussion is ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I placed that tag on about 20 articles where Josh had previously undone the "miscapitalization" tag. That was to help drive the discussion, before he brought this deletion request instead of reacting more sensibly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wrexham A.F.C. Player of the Season

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Wrexham A.F.C. Player of the Season with Template:Wrexham A.F.C. Player of the Year.
They are the same with different names EchetusXe 08:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conservatism in Singapore

[edit]

The title suggests a broad overview of conservative thought or political movements in the country, but the template exclusively covers the People's Action Party (PAP) and its politicians, even including the PAP logo as its image. This gives an inaccurate impression that conservatism in Singapore is limited to the PAP, when in fact other parties and figures, some of whom oppose the PAP, also hold conservative views on social, economic or cultural issues. As it stands, this template is misaligned, misleading and frankly unnecessary. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That can be solved by improving the template, which is not a reason to delete the template itself. ProgramT (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Don't edit this line dagger

[edit]

Delete The template is unused. It was discussed for deletion before, but then the tools that count transclusions did not include modules, so it was not clear that it was really unused. Now it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aristotelianism sidebar

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Aristotelianism sidebar with Template:Aristotelianism.
No clear distinction between the scope of these two templates, we ought to merge to Template:Aristotelianism which is the older and more complete one Psychastes (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

May 25

[edit]

Wynne and Rae are unused and Doug Ford is only used only one page. Quick links for articles for people should not be used in my view when each nominated has a either a navbox, sidebar, or category for them. And all links in each three are already linked on their articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's no policy being cited here. All of these templates are small, and keeping them up won't do any harm.
Legend of 14 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Ford is single-use and used only a disambiguation page. A template just to transclude a link to two articles is not a good use of template space when directly linking those articles is sufficient. What is the point of a quick links template for people when there isn't a need for it? And if you no intention of using the two that are unused or can't be found to be used, then there is no need keep as is template space. WP:TFD makes it clear, "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." WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demotivator

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in March 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep transcluded jp×g🗯️ 19:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination rationale no longer the case, plus this is totally harmless. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to userspace if they want. These kind of fluff templates are actually harmful as they don't confirm to accessibility guidelines. The colors there can (and will) easily fail contrast for almost zero benefit. Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I do not even remotely understand this claim. What in the world contrast standard could conceivably claim that pure white on pure black is an accessibility failure? jp×g🗯️ 03:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the colors. All of the ones this template generates by default -- #FFFFFF #AAFFFF #FFAAFF #FFFFAA #CCCCFF #FFCCCC #CCFFCC -- have extremely high passing scores on every standard I could find. What are you referring to? jp×g🗯️ 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: You have made no response here, so I will call your attention here again: the claim you've made here is objectively false. I would prefer you strike it. jp×g🗯️ 18:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CompUnits

[edit]

No transclusions. No incoming links to explain why it was created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 25 May 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›/‹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 ‹See TfM›{{{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 ‹See TfM›{{{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]

May 20

Template:Strip nomobile

[edit]

This hack lets navboxes be read on mobile, however, in every single case this was used in an article, the article reading experience is worse than with a standard table, and since references are never used in navboxes, then using these in articles leads to a giant block of unsourced data. Delete template and remove usages of navboxes mid-article, where used. Gonnym (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The whole work around the WMF until it works just plainly sucks. Izno (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly restricting to non-mainspace with {{main other}}. The template has been used poorly, but it also has legitimate use-cases – it's a tool like {{strip categories}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This template simply isn't necessary outside of (our) mainspace; the relevant code rips out content with certain classes (nomobile, navbox, vertical-navbox) only in content namespaces, of which we have only one: main. Izno (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page creator here. Your statement doesn't seem to be correct as the demo linked in the documentation is in User: namespace. And it's legitimately used in that namespace:

    This is a local userspace copy of the code used by Template:Strip nomobile, which as of the time I am writing this page, is at risk of deletion. As my userpage relies on the existence of this code for its functionality on mobile (specifically with User:NegativeMP1/Contributions box), I have archived it here for my own personal use.

    — NegativeMP1, User:NegativeMP1/nomobile

    It can also be useful for testing purposes. Keep. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant code:
    The reason why it is not present on that page is instead simple CSS hiding the content. And indeed, in the rendered page of interest is 
    <table id="Container" role="presentation" class="nomobile toccolours searchaux"> ... </table>
    In namespaces other than the main namespace, simple TemplateStyles can be used to unhide the relevant content, whether exploratory or otherwise.
    I was precise in what I said regarding where MobileFrontend removes this content. Izno (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a while so thanks for refreshing my memory. Using TemplateStyles does bring some complications. It seems you can't create the needed .css in userspace:
    Page User:Alexis Jazz/Nomobile.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "CSS"). Changing the content model can be requested using {{edit interface-protected}} on the talk page.
    Beyond that, if you were to use TemplateStyles to force-display nomobile, if I'm not mistaken, it would render all elements with nomobile visible on that page, not just the ones you actually want. This could be solved with the introduction of some new class with the end result being that usage will be so cumbersome it'll require a template. And that TemplateStyles would have to do something like .nomobile{display:unset !important} or .nomobile{display:block !important}, but to the best of my knowledge such a solution overrides what nomobile does, whereas {{strip nomobile}} actually removes the nomobile class from whatever it encapsulates. If you want display to be what it would be if there was no nomobile class, frankly I wouldn't know how to make that happen using TemplateStyles. But if that is possible, I'd appreciate being enlightened. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not just navboxes but also useful templates like {{Life timeline}} that require {{Strip nomobile}} to be displayed in articles. And re: references, there's a way to do this in a P&G-compliant way by simply including a cite after the template for cases where all the info is cited to one source.
I'm very interested in improving the article-reading experience, and would prefer to also have a template that converts navboxes to tables so we don't have to duplicate information. It's a relatively common practice to include navboxes in articles; see e.g. Mauritania at the Africa Cup of Nations#Squads, the issue is just in most of those cases the sections are completely unreadable on mobile. So while I agree using {{strip nomobile}} sometimes isn't ideal and we should work on improving those articles, there are valid use cases and it's always better than having a blank page anyways. --Habst (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I've struck my !vote and will change to Userify (because future template editors could learn from the code) thanks to the great work creating Module:Navbox or wikitable by User:Frietjes. --Habst (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life timeline probably doesn't need nomobile at this point. It was probably added there because collapsing wasn't supported by mobile, but it is now. Izno (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but as long as there are features that are locked out of the mobile view, there will always be a use-case for {{strip nomobile}}. The specifics of which templates are using those features at the moment can change and doesn't really affect the core issue. --Habst (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue is that this template papers over what in most cases is an incorrect use of a template, categorically. The cited navboxes should not be used in the sections they are in, and that's the only case where this template is being used in mainspace.
There may be specific templates that need assistance, but what they definitely need is to ditch nomobile in most cases. Collapsing (or lack thereof) is no longer a sufficient reason to deny users access to whatever information, on any page, and not just the ones where someone has said "strip nomobile" should be employed here. So it goes for what I anticipate are most casual uses of the nomobile class. And separately, if any template is using one of the navbox classes and it's not derived from {{sidebar}} or {{navbox}}, it basically shouldn't be at this point (since I went through multiple years ago and removed classes used outside those templates). And uses otherwise are basically otherwise misuses of this {{strip nomobile}}.
IOW, remove navbox/vertical-navbox where it appears outside the relevant templates, remove uses of templates that are being misused (as in the cited example above), and remove nomobile everywhere that isn't navbox related (with potential replacement with WP:TemplateStyles. This template is simply technical debt and should be deleted for that reason if no others.
It is currently used on only some 50 templates and modules. We can most assuredly get that down to many fewer.
I will add "remove nomobile" to MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do regardless. There are a few templates/modules where it is appropriate and necessary and this workaround simply shouldn't exist for those cases anyway (navboxes/sidebars). Izno (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is in most cases incorrect. That isn't in conflict with a keep !vote, because if there is even one correct use-case, that case can be encouraged over incorrect ones. --Habst (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Furry-con-list

[edit]

Single use templates only ever used for the associated lists at Furry convention. No other use for these templates. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The templates are also used on My Little Pony fan convention#Active events, created by GregariousMadness (talk · contribs) as of last month. Perhaps a rename to 'con[vention]-list-entry' or similar would be appropriate. The purpose of the templates was to remove duplicated and easy-to-mess-up markup required to display interleaved header rows and descriptions from Furry convention#Events, a layout which I was not able to find in existing templates at the time, and it still performs that function even if it was only used on one page. (I have however removed the width restriction intended to allow parallel display of images to the right from the start template, as it was causing overflow issues on Wikipedia's mobile skin, and most such images have now been moved - the default desktop skin also restricts width now.) GreenReaper (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to a rename to allow for inclusion across multiple convention lists and articles with lists (not just furry conventions). With the inclusion in the new article by Gregarious, the original purpose of the template now has room for expansion beyond this limited scope. Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Template:English legislation

[edit]

Template:England laws was sent to TfD here as they were pretty much the same scope. While looking at the pages linked from those templates, I noticed that the above 3 are all pretty much included in Template:UK legislation. We don't need 5 navigation templates for the same scope if Template:UK legislation already has all of the links. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these have different scopes. Template:UK acts of Parliament lists is purely acts of Parliament from the UK, whereas Template:UK legislation covers all legislation from the UK and its predecessor states, and hence is a much heftier template. The same applies to the templates for English and British legislation - it is unhelpful to claim that one 'mega' template is better than more focussed ones. Mauls (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)][reply]
The 'meta' template exists and is in use (and I did not create it). Since it exists, it isn't useful for our readers that we have navigation templates that don't follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. And it's a complete burden for our editors to have to maintain 4+ copies of the same list. Ah, I just noticed it was you that created 3 of these templates. Can you point me to a prior discussion which lead to the split? Any TfD? Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: what exactly is the proposal here: deletion or merge...? Vestrian24Bio 11:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few points: I didn't create three of these, I created two of them; they do all follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the meta template and 'English legislation' as collapsed horizonal at the bottom of each of their listed articles, the two other vertical templates at the top, uncollapsed in each of their listed articles - per WP:SIDEBAR). There is no need to maintain four of the same list, as it's three lists (England/Great Britain/UK), and one template combining three. See the bit in WP:NAVBOX about sidebars with a smaller, more tightly defined set of articles, and less-tightly defined lists being in a footer template - as is the case here. How is the change you are proposing in line with WP:NAVBOX? How will it benefit the reader? (I also have to confess that I'm a bit unclear what you feel the 'burden' is in maintaining a list of laws passed in years before 1707 and before 1801 respectively? As far as I was aware, there aren't any more years being added to past centuries?) Mauls (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very misleading to name pages and categories here after the United Kingdom when they are defined as stretching back centuries before it existed - it treats the community as simple-minded, which it isn't at all. No harm in re-naming, if a better name can be found which avoids that trap. Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Rugby union squad navigation templates

[edit]

Rarely used and updated templates for teams that all feature in competitions previously deemed non-notable or get little coverage, or no don't compete in the top tier of their domestic competition. I don't see how they bring any help to a reader in terms of navigation anymore. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the templates for clubs competing in the Pro D2 and Japan Rugby League One competitions (Divisions 1 and 2). I have no opinion about the others. It's fundamentally untrue that the Pro D2 and Japan Rugby League One (JRLO) are non-notable competitions. There's more than enough coverage of them if you look at more languages than just English. This type of template is only used in player biographies. If the templates of – for example – JRLO clubs are not used frequently, it's because many Japanese players don't have biographies in the English version of Wikipedia, but that is IMO no reason to delete the templates. They'll still be used in the biographies of (non-Japanese) players with a biography. There seem to be editors keeping squad lists of (some of) the clubs up-to-date. Why not ask those editors to also keep the templates up-to-date as well? They may not even be aware of the templates' existence and will possibly be happy to do it. I'm happy to keep a few of them up-to-date (I have done so in the past), but won't commit to doing all of them. Ruggalicious (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in having a navbox if it's filled with non-existent pages. Vestrian24Bio 12:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My only issue with Pro D2 and JRLO Div 2 teams is that only some of them include enough links to players with articles to make them worthwile to keep. If it was all of the teams then I wouldn't have included them. Part of the problem though is they haven't been updated in a number of seasons and so most of the links are no longer accurate and irrelevant. If there is consensus to keep these ones I'll remove. As a note there are no JRLO Division 1 templates here, only Division 2 and 3 (I guess there is no issue with Div 3 as there are barely more than 1 to 5 links max in these ones, again usually out of date) Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any views on whether a closure is likely on this. Personally I don't see objection to deletion of the majority of templates here (only one vote against 20 of the templates here, other 30 have no keep votes at all) but if it is likely going to be no consensus, I'm happy to relist in smaller groups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There isn't enough to keep any template. But even the one keep vote does not still address the major issue with these templates. 2 votes to delete all. This should be enough to close as delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objection to Pro D2 or JRLO Div 2 templates being recreated if they can be shown to include more than 6+ links to articles on English Wikipedia, and are then regularly updated and transcluded to articles properly. At the moment though too many red links and out dated squad lists being included and I don't see an appetite to update these templates (especially compared to Top14 or JRLO Div 1 templates where there are more links and active editors patrolling/updating them). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 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"