Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 0 43 43
TfD 0 0 2 5 7
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 9 10
RfD 0 0 0 40 40
AfD 0 0 0 20 20
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_22#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 22

[edit]

June 21

[edit]

Template:Senegal squad 2012 African Women's Championship

[edit]

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

Template:NRHP date for lists

[edit]

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

Template:IrishNavyFleet

[edit]

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

Template:Strip italics

[edit]

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

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

Template:Vcite

[edit]

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

Template:Life in Kurdistan

[edit]

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

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

Template:Syrian civil war infobox

[edit]

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

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

Template:Country data Cabinda

[edit]

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


June 20

[edit]

Template:SD abuse

[edit]

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

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

Template:Dontsign

[edit]

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

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

Template:BlockUsername

[edit]

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

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

Template:Vidbir

[edit]

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

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

Template:Michael Jackson series

[edit]

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

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


June 19

[edit]

Template:User renaming

[edit]

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

Template:New account

[edit]

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

Template:CHUuser

[edit]

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

Template:No email

[edit]

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

Template:No message

[edit]

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

Template:Talk Page Proposal outcome

[edit]

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

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

Template:Controversial

[edit]

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

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

Template:Hum Awards

[edit]

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

Template:Usurp

[edit]

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

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

Template:DYK conditions

[edit]

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


June 18

[edit]

Template:Uw-lang-jbo

[edit]

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

Template:Tooth & Nail Records

[edit]

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

Template:Rounder Records

[edit]

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

Template:Wikifaunaspeciesbox

[edit]

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

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

Template:Chungju Hummel squad

[edit]

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

Template:Please be gentle

[edit]

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

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

Template:PWHL drafts

[edit]

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

Template:Samsunspor presidents

[edit]

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

Template:PWHL Awards

[edit]

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

Template:Rollback granted 2

[edit]

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


June 17

[edit]

Template:Suwa Faith

[edit]

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

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


June 16

[edit]

Template:A Separate Peace

[edit]

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

Template:WikiProject Electronic Literature

[edit]

Blank page Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridges in India

[edit]

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

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

Template:John Swartzwelder

[edit]

Books redirect to the author, so other than a film he co-wrote, there is nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 07:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Peruvian invasion of Bolivia

[edit]

Useless template, no navigational function, one transclusion. Been around for months so not a work in progress. The sockmaster that created this is indeff'd and so will not be addressing these issues. Highly unlikely anyone else will either. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree should be deleted LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 15

[edit]

Template:Rugby Club Vannes squad

[edit]

Template hasn't been updated in content and transclusions in 2 years, side now no longer competes in the top tier also. Unlikely to be more than a handful of links now, but no objection to recreation in the future if promoted again or more links and updated regularly. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Roman Empire

[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template/Archive_7#"Flags"_of_the_Roman_Empire/Republic and Talk:Roman_Empire/Archive_13#Removal_of_Vexillum?. Flag is anachronistic - an editor tried to blank this template in 2022 but was reverted. Flag has been removed from the main Roman Empire page too. If someone really needs a shorthand, my suggestion would be to use "R". Koopinator (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AuditSubcommitteeChart

[edit]

Only one real transclusion. Subst and delete; WP:AUSC has been obsolete since 2016, so there will not be future updates. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of most-followed Bluesky accounts

[edit]

This template is transcluded on to List of most-followed Bluesky accounts and I can't see that there would be any other use for it. It's a list that can just be contained on the main space list article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only made it because List of most-followed Twitter accounts has one. Spectritus (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

June 14

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

[edit]

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

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

Template:Episcopal Church sidebar

[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cit news

[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Manbalar

[edit]

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

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

Template:Suspended ROC provinces

[edit]

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

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

May 27

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]
  • Keep. For all the reasons that Ohconfucius gives above. Above all it's a simple, efficient tool to identify the messy varieties of English. Tony (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I have said many times, and as alluded to above, this template is vital for those articles written in something which might be loosely termed "British English", but which don't have ties to any specific country that uses that variant. Also, since templates like {{Use Tanzanian English}} have recently been deleted, what is an article pertaining to Tanzania supposed to be tagged with? "Use British English" doesn't cut it, that's like a colonial throw-back, implying that a country independent for more than 50 years is somehow simply speaking the language of its former colonial master. So we're left with EngvarB. My first choice, and something which Ohconfucius had been spearheading from around 10 years ago, would be to deprecate all of the {{Use British English}}, {{Use Australian English}} etc. templates and simply use {{EngvarB}} (perhaps renamed so it's more obvious what it means) in all of those pages. Recent changes have completely undone Ohconfucius's good work in this regard though, without a clear rationale as to why.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What good work? Questions go unanswered, bugs go unfixed, and Ohconfucius edited hundreds of articles in the last two days to remove a valid Use Sri Lankan English template and replace it with EngvarB, contrary to MOS:RETAIN and the templates' documentation. Very disruptive. I have asked Ohconfucius to disable the script until it can behave in a way that conforms to the documentation. It is extremely frustrating. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jonesey95. This script is making disruptive edits (1, 2, 3), contrary to MOS:RETAIN. Scripts are not "official", users must take personal responsibility for their edits. cagliost (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cosign the "rename if kept" bandwagon; WP:TG is clear that Template function should be clear from the template name. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name is certainly causing confusion. cagliost (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit ad hom. Better to discuss that issue with the editor directly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Two users have argued above for replacing all Use British, Australian, etc English templates with {{EngvarB}}. That is strictly irrelevant to this discussion, and would need a much more publicised discussion. cagliost (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may attempt to summarize the discussion so far:

We have seven responses in favour of deprecation or deletion (including my nomination), one to redirect, and four to keep.

There appears to be consensus that Template:EngvarB should be at least renamed.

At present, Template:EngvarB should not be added to articles which already have specific language tags. Specific language tags should not be removed. Ohconfucius appears to have updated the EngvarB script so it is no longer removing specific language tags, however it is still adding Template:EngvarB to articles which already have specific language tags. Ohconfucius has declared their refusal to stop this behavior.

{{Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted by consensus, but perhaps there is a need to revisit this. People have asked how to tag articles that have MOS:TIES to two commonwealth countries. These articles should presumably use British-style spelling, whatever we call it. Some editors want a generic tag which is equivalent to {{Use British English}} but which doesn't mention Britain. For example, {{Use Hiberno-English}} exists for articles with ties to the Republic of Ireland, because people don't want to tag these articles with {{Use British English}} -- even though there are no practical differences between British and Irish spelling for the purposes of Wikipedia, since we don't want to use jargon or unusual vocabulary as per MOS:COMMONALITY. "Use Commonwealth English" doesn't quite work because Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth.

At present, EngvarB is de-facto the way of tagging articles with non-specific but not North American spelling.

Perhaps there is a case for deleting all tags such as {{Use Ugandan English}}, {{Use Pakistani English}}, since any jargon or vocab specific to Uganda or Pakistan could not be used in Wikipedia. If there can be no differences in practice, the question arises: what is the point of having many templates which all mean the same thing? Perhaps there is even a case for rewriting MOS:TIES. However, a previous proposal to delete {Use Ugandan English} failed, whereas the proposal to delete {{Use Commonwealth English}} succeeded. We haven't been very consistent on this: Use Ugandan English was kept, but Use Bangladeshi English was deleted, even though much the same arguments apply.

The major question at this point, as I see it, is whether a better name for {{EngvarB}} can be found.

For the time being, it would be helpful if @Ohconfucius: would update their script so it does not add Template:EngvarB to articles which already have a valid language tag. cagliost (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Australia–New Zealand relations should simply use {{Use Oxford spelling}}. cagliost (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Oxford's a possible solution – the variant's extremely common in mainspace articles. Ditto John Upton, 1st Viscount Templetown  Ohc revolution of our times 14:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One solution is simply not to tag some articles at all. At present, Bangladesh has no language tag. Neither does Physics. cagliost (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thoughts on this issue. I agree that there seems to be a realisation that MOS:COMMONALITY would tend to trump use of the local vernacular or creoles, and that would clearly plant the flagpole for British, American, Canadian and Oxford as the only variants that editors need to be mindful of when editing. This recognition potentially puts all of the others into a subset, putting into question the raison d'être of the 20-odd other {{Use X English}} templates.
I let the genie out of the lamp unwittingly years ago, causing a subsequent proliferation of templates that has taken on a life of their own. You have indeed demonstrated that {{Use Commonwealth English}} is not the silver bullet.
The solution to problem has to be holistic; piecemeal deletion of one template over another merely creates divisions.  Ohc revolution of our times 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simplification is not as easy as it sounds. For one there are spelling variants that have to be respected even when the varieties are otherwise similar. For example New Zealand English prefers fiord, British English prefers fjord. Even when spelling variation is not an issue for a specific article and Oxford can be used as a generic compromise, there is the issue of vocabulary, in Australian English truck, in British English lorry. In addition to the varying preference for either North American or British vocabulary depending on the item that is found in many local varieties of English, you have to deal with regionally specific terms. This cannot simply be dismissed with COMMONALITY because the predominant international terms are not always common or even much used in some places. In South Asia lakh/crore far predominates in reliable sources published there and so should be used first with standard numbering parenthesized. However I agree the current system is imperfect and creates some issues, including exceedingly pointless disputes over whether things in Northern Ireland should use Irish or British English (no difference whatsoever in formal encyclopedic writing) or things in Kashmir should use Indian or Pakistani English (likewise). 2601:84:8681:6430:2DB3:A45:A224:17CF (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Template:Wikicite

[edit]

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

Wikicite can:

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

SfnRef inline can:

  1. Be placed after the full citation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize in hopes of getting more input:

Editors agree there should be one template.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

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