Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 12 160 0 172
TfD 0 0 73 0 73
MfD 0 0 9 0 9
FfD 0 0 48 0 48
RfD 0 0 25 0 25
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

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

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

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026_February_3#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without square brackets|result of previous TfD}} in the |text= field immediately before your rationale (or alternatively at the very end, after the last }}).

Use an edit summary such as Adding deletion/merger nomination of [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |). Use the same meaningful title that you chose in Step 1.
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
    • If there is a template you want the other templates to be merged into, you can optionally specify it using |with=.
Related categories
If this template deletion proposal involves a category populated solely by templates, paste this code in the |text= field of the {{Tfd2}} template, before your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
Step 3

Notify users

Notify the creator of the template, the main contributors, and (if you're proposing a merger) the creator of the other template. (To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd notice|template name}} ~~~~
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
  • Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination. In these cases, write a personal message.

If you see any WikiProjects banners (they look like this) at the top of the template's talk page, you can let them know about the discussion. Most WikiProjects are subscribed to Article alerts, which means they are automatically notified. If you think they have not been notified, you can paste the same message in the projects' talk pages, or use Deletion sorting lists. Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects.

Consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination notice is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

  • Notifying related WikiProjects: WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this. Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they are subscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
  • Notifying main contributors: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template and its talk page that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, no further action is necessary on your part. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone other than you will either close the discussion or, if needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. If the nomination is successful, it will be moved to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

February 3

[edit]

Template:Airports in the Middle East

[edit]

The infobox is unnecessary. No one really cares for a box that specifically leads to the "busiest airports in the middle east". The pages that it does lead to are very specific lists for Turkey and Iran, a single airport for Northern Cyprus, and the general list of airports in Israel. All the other countries are redlinked. Also, the formatting is terrible. Also, Palestine & Gaza don't have airports, to say nothing about having 'busiest airports'. Overall, its a useless template that links to two places.TimeEngineer (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A gold bar for you!

[edit]

Unused, recently created and unlikely to be useful due to the hardcoded signature in the template. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cathead victorian era merchant ships of the

[edit]

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Feralpisalò squad

[edit]

Unused as the club is no more. Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lanzhou–Qinghai railway RDT

[edit]

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that the Chinese article that this relates to is so poorly sourced, otherwise the English version of the article could be restored and improved. It is obviously a significant line. Somebody listed some sources, but made no effort to improve the article.--Grahame (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Renren

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Procreate (software)

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Edge

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Firefox Sync

[edit]

Unused software release template as Firefox Sync was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Opera

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Inkscape

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Gwyddion

[edit]

Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Metrorail (Miami-Dade County)

[edit]

Not used at Metrorail (Miami-Dade County). Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verizon 200 at the Brickyard

[edit]

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Brickyard 400. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Football League (2022–2023) head coaches

[edit]

Unused as the league is no more. Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


February 2

[edit]

Template:Foreign relations of the Luhansk People's Republic

[edit]

Template containing only a single article about the "foreign relations" between Russia and an area they invaded and colonised. Useless for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreign relations of South Vietnam

[edit]

Template containing only a single stand-alone article about a bilateral relationship. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not single. There is also link to section for Republic of China. Eurohunter (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical cases chart/Month toggle button

[edit]

Sub templates that were marked as deprecated and their code replaced. If they do nothing they should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hexcolor2red

[edit]

These templates extract a color component in decimal from a hexcolor. If you wanna read about their mundane 2010 creation see this discussion. The only usage is in the creation discussion and some sandboxes so no substantial usage. If we actually need this functionality in the future we should centralize this into Module:Color where we don't have to use these hacky solutions. Trialpears (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPTV article count

[edit]

Unused after the relevant WikiProject page was converted to use a standard template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Begin

[edit]

Unused template. Has no likeiness of ever being used. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Annual BFJA Awards

[edit]

This template has lost its navigational utility after recent community consensus. Except the 71st Annual BFJA Awards, all the other annual award entries listed in this template were redirected to the parent article, Bengal Film Journalists' Association Awards, following AFD discussions the last month. Per WP:NAVBOX, a template should facilitate navigation between several related articles. With only one standalone article remaining, this template no longer meets that threshold for a navigational tool. Navigating from a template that only points back to a single page (or its own parent) is redundant and creates unnecessary clutter. BhikhariInformer (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian heavy cruisers

[edit]

Completely redundant as Template:WWII Italian ships lists the exact same information. There are no other ships that the Heavy Cruiser template could incorporate. GGOTCC 03:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've added the heavy cruisers of Italy link. The List of cruisers of Italy is a see also link so not part of the actual navigation template and is not used on that article (correctly). Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that Italy doesn't have any heavy cruiser post-WW2, or at least we don't have an article for them, so we don't need two templates doing the same thing. If that changes, then this template can be recreated. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PKP colour

[edit]

Newly created template that duplicates the existing function of a comprehensive template, {{rcr}}. This template can be replaced with {{rcr|PKP Intercity}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This template you have showed is for modern day services that currently operate. I created Template:PKP colour for former, closed railways that were once operated by Polish State Railways (please see Ruszów Szklarnia railway station#Former services). Now, if there is such a colour for PKP that I can use for such a template (Template:Rail line), then you may delete it. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Adjacent stations/Polish State Railways redirects to Module:Adjacent stations/PKP Intercity. You can add more lines to that module page. Copy and paste the existing format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95, these services were not PKP Intercity though, prior to voivodeship operators, it was all just simply Polish State Railways.
P.S. please tag me when replying so I get the notification as I didn't to this message. Fortek67 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although all I need is just a HEX code I can use for the Rail line template. So if it's really necessary you are free to delete the template. I will instead manually type up the HEX code. Fortek67 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fortek67: The template name does not matter. You can use {{rail color|Polish State Railways}} or {{rail color|PKP}} and it should work fine. If you need a different color, let me know and I can adjust the module page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taoyuan Metro line icon and similar

[edit]

Recreation of functionality that has been painstakingly consolidated into {{rint}}. An unneeded fork, unless there is new functionality here that can't be added to {{rint}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on @翰翔’s work for making rail transit icon templates. (See also zh:Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求/存檔/2025年7月#c-翰翔-20250616082700-Df910105-20250615025200) Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 00:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Do these templates do anything that the existing {{rint}} template is unable to do, either now or with additional work? I looked at the link you provided, but Google Translate does not do a good job of auto-translating the conversation to English. It appears to be about whether Template:rint will work or new templates are needed, but I can't get a sense of what people are saying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For "Rint", the template couldn't apply additional text. For example, {{rint|Taipei|BL}} → (that icon could provide the link to Bannan line); {{Taipei Metro line icon|BL|N}} → Bannan line (For that series, without any additional parameter (B, N, F) is similar to "Rint"; parameter "N" and "F" provide no link at icon, but additional text provides.) According to the discussion at Chinese Wikipedia, I originally made the deletion requests for indiscriminate use of templates (like {{板南線}}) because the railway lines in Japan only provide "Rint". However, some editors opposed the deletion because of their appearence at any other articles. Thus, 翰翔 made Taiwan's railway icon series like {{臺北捷運路線標誌}} (Template:Taipei Metro line icon) for compromises. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 02:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We use {{Line link}} for links to railway lines, like this: Bannan line. That way, the only page you have to maintain is Module:Adjacent stations/Taipei Metro. We consolidated many individual templates into subpages of Module:Adjacent stations a few years ago. We should not recreate parts of the deprecated system that require individual templates. See also Module:Adjacent stations/Taiwan Railways and Module:Adjacent stations/Taiwan High Speed Rail, which should allow you to do everything you need. The main documentation page is at Template:Adjacent stations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Template:XXX line icon" provides both "Rint" and "Line link", I think these templates could be suitable for new editors for editing rail transit series. By the way, your suggestion could replace mine if these templates (Template:XXX line icon) aren't suitable for editors who are familiar with rail transit. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 05:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the line has an Adjacent stations module, then the icon should be set there. Once it is set there, there are multiple templates that allow showing of the icon such as {{ric}}. See list at Template:Sidebar Adjacent stations. Side note, {{rint}} is also a horrible template that shouldn't be used. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I could have said that {{rail icon}}, instead of the {{rint}} template that was previously used in the navboxes where the nominated templates were inserted, is another option. So: Bannan line – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys, I've replaced rail line links by {{ric}}. These templates could be speedy deleted. (by WP:G7) Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 10:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


February 1

[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of rationalists

[edit]

Target of associated page is an article that does not include a list of people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Help talk:Convert messages

[edit]

Editnotice for a help page that was redirected to template space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest Planning areas

[edit]

duplicates {{largest cities}} Logoshimpo (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the reason cited above that it is a duplicate, then Template:Largest Urban areas should be flagged for deletion as well. The template was created as the previous Largest city template used for Singapore's context was categorized as being not in line with general use of the template. Thus, I created this template to separate out the usage of it for Singapore's context as a city state with no cities, but towns/planning areas. --Deoma12(Talk) 08:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top 50 report

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Top 50 report with Template:Top 25 report.
These two templates convey related information to one another and have a virtually similar formatting. The two could be combined to assist with banner blindness, with parameters created to show rankings on the Top 25 and/or placement on the Top 50 report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe it can be nominated separately for deletion. Newbzy (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lightbulb is removed

[edit]

Silly template, not used and unlikely to ever be used. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 1#Template:Lightbulb is burned out Sugar Tax (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand Lojban

[edit]

Unused cleanup template with no accompanying cleanup category. Creator was blocked indefinitely in 2018. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I will quote the first citation on the Lojban article: The number of Lojbanists who can sustain a conversation in the language certainly ranges beyond what can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems extremely unlikely that there will be any article written for the Lojban Wikipedia that will be more extensive than its corresponding English-language article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help

[edit]

The redirect from Template:Help to Template:Help me was removed in Special:Diff/1237440924. The redirect should be restored because of all of the incoming links (transclusions are often converted into {{tl|help}} or similar links after help was provided, see also Special:Diff/1020072859) and because of continued usage (a couple examples).

I have nothing against the shared documentation the template itself provides. However: 1) it shouldn't occupy this template name and 2) its current widespread usage with userboxes is broken, because it links to Template_talk:{{ROOTPAGENAME}} regardless of the namespace (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Userbox/doc links to the unrelated Template talk:WikiProject Highways instead of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Userbox). —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic sidebar

[edit]

Unnecessary duplicate of {{My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I would prefer it if the other template was nominated rather than the sidebar. The sidebar is more regularly updated. –GM 13:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebars take too much valuable screen real estate, for something that is basically a see also section. Its place should be at the bottom of the screen. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my !vote above was for Keep. –GM 22:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not appropriate to delete a sidebar that fulfill our guidelines well and is actively maintained just because it happens to be on the same topic as a navbox. This logic could be used on the vast majority of sidebars if you decided to make a navbox for it. WP:CLN already has higher standards for sidebars than navboxes and if you desire to further tighten the rules on when it's appropriate to use sidebars that talk page is the venue. Trialpears (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebars are routinely deleted in favor of navboxes all the time. Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I might not have been too vigilent in following TfDs lately, especially nav templates since I find them to be quite dull but I hope these deletions usually have something more than same topic as a justification. Give me a reason that can't be made for every sidebar after some improvements to/creation of a navbox and then I'll probably be back to not caring. Trialpears (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebars are routinely deleted in favor of navboxes all the time. That may be the case, but it shouldn't be. If your problem is with all sidebars, not with any particular issue specific to any particular template, you should try to get a sidewide consensus to do away with all sidebars. They are a basic feature found in countless articles that legitimately help readers use Wikipedia. Navbars are not a suitable alternative, just compare this one to Template:My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic which is a colossal wall of blue links. Unless and until there is a broad consensus to stop having sidebars on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be trying to get rid of them by nominating them for deletion one at a time. I am reminded of when there were discussions about doing away with the Portal namespace which ended in a consensus to continue having portals. One admin at the time was upset by this, and they took it upon themself to try to soft-abolish them by trying to get as many deleted as possible, often mentioning how portals have no firm criteria so they can be deleted for any reason or no reason at all; deleting a portal simply for being a portal was good enough in their eyes. Long story short, they lost their mop.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Leadsidebar is largely the reason for these nominations. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All WP:LEADSIDEBAR says is that the manual of style recommends placing sidebars after the infobox and in the body, rather than at the top of the page. Using that as a template deletion rationale makes no sense, unless the reasoning is "there should never be any templates in the body because that's valuable space that could be used by images instead, so delete them all" which again is the type of argument that should be made in a proposal to do away with all sidebars, not at individual template deletion nominations where the only rationale is "delete this sidebar for being a sidebar," because clearly there's nothing wrong with sidebars being in the body when the Manual of Style recommends putting them there as you've pointed out.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't say that. "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged; it may be included on a case-by-case basis, placed preferably after the lead-section image and infobox. Outside the lead, sidebars are often placed at the top of an article section." It doesn't call for it to be placed in the body. It just states that they are often placed in the body at top of articles sections. Sidebars are redundant when they already have a navbox for it. Regardless of how large a navbox may be. No matter the size of the navbox like for this one, there is no reason for a sidebar to be created for the same subject. It's redudant to have two templates for the same thing and for the same purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regardless of how large a navbox may be. No matter the size of the navbox like for this one, there is no reason for a sidebar to be created for the same subject." That is not true. There is a reason, and it is accessibility and ease of use for the reader. The navbox in this case is borderline unusable. Sidebars are just a superior way of conveying the same information. One of the most basic web design considerations is that readers digest information in the shape of an F, meaning they start by scanning horizontal rows, then read vertically. If there is too much vertical content, they only read the left side of the vertical columns and do not actually read all of the information presented. Sidebars avoid this issue by neatly arranging everything into collapsible horizontal boxes. Navbars only work at smaller scales. The navbar equivalent of this template is on its own the size of a start-class article and consists of innumerable blue links scattered in all directions. We need to present material in a way that's actually readable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of a navbox. If that navbox needs to be improved upon and better maintained, that is not a legitimate argument for why a sidebar which clutters the page should be kept. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08 do you agree that your argument could be used for any sidebar? If not, why not? Trialpears (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do agree, but that doesn't mean it is an invalid argument... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This sidebar, like most of them, mostly serves as a decoration rather than a legitimate navigational aid. This topic is well covered by the navbox which this sidebar duplicates, and removing the sidebar will allow more educational content such as images to take its place. MediaKyle (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 31

[edit]

Template:Rangpur

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Rangpur with Template:Rangpur District.
Merge these two? DB1729talk 11:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both seem small enough that this won't cause an issue. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prod-speedy

[edit]

On top of potentially coming off as condescending to new users, it also comes off as rather dubious. I don't know if it's correct about speedy deletion being preferable to PRODing, but its advice regarding tagging pages for speedy deletion rather than PRODing them is plain terrible - if someone decides to PROD an article instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, there's usually a good reason they're doing so, to say nothing of the criteria for speedy deletion being super strict to the point that very few articles would qualify for even one of said criteria. JHD0919 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 30

[edit]

Template:Team Coop–Repsol riders

[edit]

Unnecessary template, most of linked profiles are red links. Svartner (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a fan of any sports team navigation template, as a lot become outdated and forgotten, but as Frietjes said, this doesn't seem any worse than the others. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B-Dreieck

[edit]

Outdated template system and no transclusions DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astra Midseason Movie Award for Most Anticipated Film

[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX. No article on the subject. --woodensuperman 12:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astra Midseason Movie Award for Best Picture

[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX. No article on the subject. --woodensuperman 12:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Route 17 (MBTA)

[edit]

Unused KML template. Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion. It was a necessary step in creating commons:Data:Route 17 (MBTA).map but is no longer needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Meadowlands Drive

[edit]

Unused as Meadowlands Drive was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 SAFF Women's Club Championship results summary

[edit]

Unused sports table template. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:13th Army Corps (France) – Order of Battle (May 1940)

[edit]

Unused navigation template without any blue link. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022–23 Frontier Conference men's basketball standings

[edit]

Unused Frontier Conference men's basketball standings templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 29

[edit]

Template:Infobox non-profit organization

[edit]

Infobox purely created for a single draft page. Just a transclusion of {{Infobox non-profit}}. kewl sock(anti-pro-air)(no talk) 18:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirection, just to make it clear. The content is not a redirect candidate and since it wasn't needed until now, there isn't any reason to create new redirects. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 28

[edit]

College football coordinator navboxes

[edit]

Textbook fail of WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template., WP:TCREEP as well, no categories that mention the subject. I nominated a similar template yesterday for the Big Ten Offensive Coordinators. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sort and display

[edit]

Used by just nine articles. Not popular enough, and "sad" is... well, sad to watch. (Did ask the creator about this template, but then was told to list this template first before doing anything else to it.) George Ho (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, should be substituted and then deleted. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprod

[edit]

Users who've PRODed an article will immediately know it's been dePRODed once the PROD template's been removed, especially if the article's on their watchlist. And even if they initially can't tell, they can just check the edit history and see that the user who dePRODed it gave a reason for doing so - and that's assuming they even left a reason in their edit summary, which at this point is basically an unofficial requirement for dePRODing. JHD0919 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not everyone checks their watchlist daily, but a talk page message will generate an email. Also, not everyone is as well-versed in wikipedia policies as you are. There's no harm in an explanation of next steps, and we definitely shouldn't be putting those in every edit summary. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     15:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using this template properly aligns with the policy of maintaining good faith in communications on Wikipedia by telling a user why you have made a decision to remove a proposed deletion tag, if the original proposer doesn't know why the tag has been removed they may be confused or angry. This template should certainly be advertised better on pages like WP:PROD, also when you publish an edit deleting a proposed deletion tag. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no need for a talk page message here. If they don't even notice their deprodding being removed then that means they don't care enough to need to know. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not for anything, editor * Pppery *, but such an arg can be made for just about any talk page notification. This is just a gentle reminder template to be used in case the prodding editor is busy busy busy. Just like any other talk page reminder would deserve to stay, this should be kept. Sooo... P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prod-summary

[edit]

Said edit summary is required now. Thus, this template is no longer needed. JHD0919 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prod hint

[edit]

Providing reasoning for PRODs is required now. Thus, this template is no longer needed. JHD0919 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Melangkah Di Atas Awan

[edit]

Only one valid link. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Due South

[edit]

Only three articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually four articles? Jahaza (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NENAN suggests a "rule of five", not counting the primary article. --woodensuperman 07:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CTVNationalNews

[edit]

Television hosts fail WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 12:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andromeda (TV series)

[edit]

Only two links. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video on Trial

[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 12:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drin River dams

[edit]

This topic is already covered by the template Template:Energy in Albania, I do not think that there is any point in redirecting it there; WP:NENAT. EasternShah (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025–26 Vijay Hazare Trophy Group A Fixtures

[edit]

Not a template content, can be LST-ed if needed, but unused for now. Vestrian24Bio 02:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems this was done already. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Hits 2012

[edit]

Used on a single page for a cover band. None of the linked articles mention said band, as the articles are for the original songs and not the covers. Additionally, every single one of these songs is already mentioned (twice!) in the very short article. This template provides no navigational value and is unlikely to be used in any future pages, and so should be deleted without substitution. Zygmeyer (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


January 27

[edit]

Template:Big Ten Conference offensive coordinators

[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This group also does not have a category for the subject. So if it's non-notable for an article or category, then it really does not need a template. Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NFL first season roster navboxes

[edit]

Historically, we have contended that the only roster navboxes for teams are current ones or championship winning ones, which is why I didn't include the 1960 Houston Oilers or 1946 Cleveland Browns. WP:NENAN applies. For clarification, these templates are rosters of players that played for the first season of the franchise, these teams did not win championships. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Sports team navboxes should be limited per UCO2009bluejay. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NFL inaugural season team roster navigational boxes should be deleted also if this passes. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As should these one-off CFL navboxes: {{1946 Montreal Als}} and {{1954 BC Lions}}. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Marshall Mathers LP 2 track listing

[edit]

Track listing template is redundant per {{Extra track listing}}, which states, "Track listings should not be added to infoboxes if there is a navigation template or navbox at the bottom of the article which already lists the songs." RedShellMomentum 17:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jeff Satur

[edit]

Only two links. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kamikaze track listing

[edit]

These types of templates for track lists have repeatedly been deleted in the past, and this adds nothing of value that the main {{Eminem songs}} navbox doesn't already contain. It at best is redundant and should be deleted per the precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Track list templates and other similar threads. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

January 26

Template:Kerala topics

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Kerala topics with Template:Kerala.
Two navboxes for the same thing. Only one is needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:States of India on 26 January 1950

[edit]

Unnecessary template. If anything the title is more of a line used in an article. We don't need templates to specify which subdivision of a country became or was a state or province on a certain date. All links are covered by numerous other templates. And the template for a specific date is pretty random. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all links are covered by other templates (see Madras State). If this is really not wanted, this can be merged into Template:States and union territories of India in a "Former" section. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Subdivisions of Russia. Two navboxes for the same thing. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try clicking on the links? Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably another candidate to withdraw Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you? Both are practically the same. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, one points out to the articles on subdivisions like Kaluga Oblast, another one to the articles on their administrative divisions such as Administrative divisions of Kaluga Oblast. I understand that the templates look visually the same because of piped links, but the links are different. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps merge the templates. Make this template a subgroup of the subvisions navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I do not see any reason to merge them. They are just about different things. Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney+ movie

[edit]

User:Trivialist has marked these templates as deprecated and that they should be replaced with Template:Disney+ browse (which is an awful name). Bringing this to TfD to make this more official and not a hidden notice. Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The name comes from the Wikidata property, which is named after the new URL format Disney+ has been using. {{Disney+ movie}} and {{Disney+ series}} both still work, and redirect to the new format. I should have been clearer that the URL formats are deprecated, not necessarily the templates. Trivialist (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Template:Disney+ browse also needed? Either the previous two work and we don't need a new template, or they don't work and we do. Can you please clear this up? Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is the plan: add {{Disney+ browse|ID}} to all articles with either the {{Disney+ movie}} template or {{Disney+ series}} template, replacing ID with the ID number, which is always "entity" along with a string of numbers and letters. The Media Expert (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Template:Birštonas-geo-stub

[edit]

Unused template. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Mainland China medical cases map (dots)

[edit]

Single-use map. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Used once, complex, better to have its code in a template. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A single-use template like this is not good use of template space. The code formatting can easily be added within article space and preserved that way. You don't need a template for it just to do one simple thing. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this is single-use and article content that shouldn't be in a template, but the amount of code this would add to the page seems not worth substing it. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Toronto

[edit]

This sidebar duplicates the history section of Template:Toronto, and is serving mostly as a decoration rather than a navigational aid. As with Template:History of Ottawa, there is no need to convert this into a separate navbox, it can be safely deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list of links seems arbitrary (why wasn't 1918 Toronto anti-Greek riot included?). Sidebars by design are limited in the amount of data they can show as they already take previous space from the actual content of the page for what is basically a "see also" list of links. Navboxes do this much better. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Afghanistan medical cases chart

[edit]

Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been receiving a lot of these notifications in my talk page as of late, but once again, my stance is also delete per nom. I think making them up to date into 2025 is impossible. A cleanup is a necessity. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any graph based template such as Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bangladesh-daily-positivity-rates if it can't be converted. I strongly oppose moving graph base templates to any namespace, user or otherwise. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move the rest to Commons' Data namespace per Yug. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, of time-truncated copies. I maintain that Covid is an event of historic and not merely historical significance, so data is warranted to be kept.
Perfect shan't be the enemy of good. It is perfectly reasonable to keep a chart copy of the first year or few years or so, up until a cutoff point (e.g. for China, shortly after the announcement of the end of zero-covid).
Sure, perhaps nobody cares how many cases China or South Korea or Italy has on this present day. But to say virtually nobody cares about how many cases China or South Korea or Italy had by the day in February 2020 is a severe understatement that I'm willing to bet significant fortune against. Rethliopuks (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale, page usage is not a reason to keep! That’s not what templates are for FaviFake (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category more

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Category more with Template:Further.

Maiō T. proposed redirecting {{Category more}} to {{Further}} at VPPR, but the discussion was closed as it wasn't the appropriate venue. This was their rationale:

Essentially, both templates have the same output. Moreover, {{Category more}} has nothing to do with categories; it's actually just a weird copy of {{Further}}. [...] For a category's main topic we have the {{Category main article}} template. [...]

FaviFake (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: Chaotic Enby, EurekaLott, Maiō T., Phil Bridger, The Transhumanist as participants in the VPPR discussion. FaviFake (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FaviFake. I was a bit confused yesterday. Of course, this discussion belongs here.
And now to the point. We could also consider another option: Modifying the output of the {{Category more}} template to include some words about categories, or so. Because now it really looks like two almost identical templates. Maiō T. (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What text would you add? Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we want this template to match {{category main article}} and {{category explanation}}, it could begin with something like: For more information about this category, see... - Eureka Lott 15:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Eureka Lott, this is a good suggestion. The word "category" simply needs to be put in that template output to distinguish it from the {{Further}} template. Maiō T. (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But is it actually more information about the category? Category:Soundgarden links to Soundgarden, so probably needs to use {{Category main article}} (as do a lot of pages). Category:Bridges in Sydney links to Sydney, but what "more information about this category [Bridges in Sydney]" would this give? Or more specifically, what does that language offer that "Further information" does not? Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are categories that have main topics but aren't good candidates for using {{category main article}}. The example I used in the village pump discussion was Category:Hip-hop albums. Using {{category main article}} wouldn't be appropriate there, since Hip-hop is the main article of Category:Hip-hop. - Eureka Lott 17:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I got an idea! That output could look something like this: For more information, see article Template:Category more and category Template:Category more. ;-) Maiō T. (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that would accomplish. What category would you add to the template for a page like Category:Presidents of Surrey County Cricket Club? - Eureka Lott 18:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Eureka Lott: This particular category you write about is a great example of what I would like to do. It already contains the following code:
{{catmore|Surrey County Cricket Club}}
So it would link to this article: Surrey County Cricket Club and to this category: Surrey County Cricket Club.
Maiō T. (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the advantage compared to having Surrey County Cricket Club as a parent category, which it presumably already is? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential Request: Can the "considered for merging" part be adjusted so that it doesn't interfere with the article layout? See helpfully annotated screenshot for example: https://ibb.co/tw6xcWt9 -- taken from the article for Homelessness Komonzia (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although having this widely advertised would help participation overall.... I believe the intrusive nature of this sometimes appearing multiple times within one article may result in "exopedians" just voting "No's as a result of coming here upset about article disruption and not actually reading the proposal. This can be suppressed from article view - if others think this is best... but do we have a setting so the notice appears only once in an article? Moxy🍁 20:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this idea. I was reading To the Person Sitting in Darkness when I found out that the formatting got mangled. Somebody, I don't care who, please fix this issue. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to please fix the formatting //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a CSS rule for myself to temporarily fix the problem -- here. That might be a clue for someone who has access to fix the template {{Tfm/dated}} which is being used for this. Komonzia (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is : further is actually the more formal version, so it is strange to replace further with "more" on an encyclopedia.
I came to this discussion from Pump organ#Indian harmonium - in general, "further" is likely favored by Indian and British English
merge per discussion Drew Stanley (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're talking about doing the opposite, deleting "category more" in favor of "further". Qualiesin (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that is exactly the proposal. @Drew Stanley Could you double-check the nomination again? FaviFake (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Drew Stanley has now changed their comment. FaviFake (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see what any possible purpose that keeping these different wordings would serve. BappleBusiness[talk] 21:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but "more" should be merged into "further," not the other way around. I thought that was what was being discussed, but there seems to be some confusion here.Pietrus1 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is the direction unclear?

proposed redirecting {{Category more}} to {{Further}}

I don't understand why some people are confused by the direction? FaviFake (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and add functions to the combined template that detect when it's used in Category namespace. I've been meaning to add tracking categories for errors to this template. I'd also support changing the wording of the hatnote to better match other hatnotes. Mclay1 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and script if there is a need to track something about categories or if different wording is needed - per what Mclay1 said. --Komonzia (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Use one, probably {{Further}}. Nothing to merge. Both link to a related article (not a category) about a topic, with the category one not using Module:Labelled list hatnote but does the same styling so it should. Since there isn't any difference between them, and the namespace doesn't affect anything here, then there isn't any reason not to use a single template. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently no difference, but as I said, I was planning to make there be a difference in terms of tracking. I also think there should be a difference in wording as discussed above. However, we can do that with namespace tracking in the one template. Mclay1 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to {{Further}} per discussion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It says 12,6000 pages use this. But I know a lot of categories that for pro wrestling championships do. Many pro wrestling championships have separate articles for the history of a championship and for a list of title reigns ala the WWE Championship. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge functionalities.Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Truncated figure1 small table

[edit]

Unused table. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Anguilla medical cases chart

[edit]

Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any graph based template like Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Guadeloupe daily chart. The others can be moved to Commons' Data namespace or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Approval and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines in Canada

[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Template namespace. Subst on the two articles it is used on and delete. "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as navigation aids, formatting, or warnings that content is sub-standard." WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It is not what Template used for. Cfls (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada/Ontario medical cases chart

[edit]

Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. They aren't adding much value at this point. Their original purpose was to be able to follow the evolution of the virus, but this isn't something we keep track of anymore, so their use has run its course; they are outdated and will likely never be updated. Nsophiay (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the nominations listed above as well and listed on January 24. It may interest you as well to add your input there. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

[edit]

Per WP:Leadsidebar. All links are found in the main navbox Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. We just do not have a need for every subject to have its own sidebar. Plus, only three links. Small amount for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario

[edit]

Per WP:Leadsidebar. All links are found in the main navbox Template:COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. We just do not have a need for every subject to have its own sidebar. Plus, only three links. Small amount for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TopicTOC-Covid19UK

[edit]

Per WP:Leadsidebar, we don't need a sidebar for every topic and we have redundancy when we have Template:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, a navbox doing the same thing. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is this per WP:Leadsidebar? That's about sidebar placement, not whether they should exist, no?
I personally think the sidebar is useful given how many related articles there are on this topic you might want to quickly navigate between without scrolling to the bottom of content, but then I have bias. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged." It is being used in that way as such. But its placement still makes it redundant. When the navbox is already covering ground for article linking, it does not mean a sidebar is required or needed at all. Scrolling to the bottom is hardly an issue. I do not see any evidence that going to the bottom of the page is such an issue for readers or editors that makes sidebars almost a necessity. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Template:Spd

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Spd with Template:Spaced en dash.
I cannot see any reason why we need two templates that provide essentially equivalent visual results other than for grammatical pedants (no offense). – and – appear the same so I'm not sure why we need both of these. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and we already have {{snd}} as an alias. Redirect. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tiw

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Tiw with Template:Template link interwiki.
Two templates that provide an interwiki link to a template, which is probably one more than necessary. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, {{tl2}} produces a result similar to {{tl}} with monospace code formatting (and is used for that purpose with local links, for example in Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard's header), while {{tiw}} produces a link on a separate line, with additional help links. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just replace those two usages with {{tlx}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some stats: tiw is used on 360 pages, tl2 (Template link interwiki) is used on 9200 pages, tlx (template link expanded) is used on 2.6 million pages. Mostly on template doc pages, none seem to be used in mainspace.
Comparison
tl2 tlx tiw
{{Example}} {{Example}} Template:Example (backlinks edit)
The superfluous template is tl2 - it should be replaced with tlx (identical output in simple usage). tiw is an obscure utility template - it could be converted to tlx perhaps but this would have to be evaluated manually. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps

[edit]

All interactive maps are no longer active due to old graphs no longer being supported and all are unused. No need to keep anymore. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and modify {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}} for historical reference. The templates were implemented at COVID-19 pandemic on March 22, 2020 as part of the infobox, 11 days after the declaration of the pandemic. At least 5000 revisions, ~20% of the page's history, have some version of the template on the page. It was one of the only uses of the graph extension's interactive functions, and likely the most viewed one as they were also used on the Turkish Wikipedia. Later that year, improving the graph extension ranked 6th in the community wishlist survey after not being nominated in 2019 and finishing 28th two years prior. These templates were removed from the main pandemic article on October 27, 2022. Two months later in January 2023, a community wishlist proposal was created to upgrade the back-end from Vega 2 to Vega 5. On April 17, 2023 a cross-site scripting vulnerability was found in the graph extension. On April 19, 2023 the community wishlist team started working on upgrading to Vega 5. That would eventually be abandoned in favor of the current mw:Extension:Chart's back-end.
    Meh on {{Interactive COVID-19 maps/common}}. It might be worth copying as plain text for future reference. Not a high priority since rebuilding these would require extension changes that aren't on the team's roadmap, and a sysop or WMF staff can always look at deleted text. But if a non-admin wanted to study how these worked to help improve the extension, it would be easier if the code was available. For example, at mw:Extension talk:Graph, MediaWikians have just been removing the script tags so that the questions still have context and are searchable.
    Delete The rest. They're just regular template wrappers for the core Vega JSON. — Wug·a·po·des 06:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Limited usage (2 years) and have been broken for longer than that. If they can't be converted to the Chart extension then there isn't anything useful to keep here. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Gonnym. Anyone looking at historical revisions will see some flavor of "some content used to be here but we can't render it anymore"; both MediaWiki:Graph-disabled and a redlinked template convey that. And if this is redone using {{Calculator}} or the Chart extension (the former seems more likely actually), the now-unrenderable Vega specs aren't useful unless someone sets up their own MediaWiki instance with the now-archived Graph extension or uses the Wayback Machine. And the set of people who can do the former, aren't admins, and can't figure out how to use old DB dumps to find the content anyway is basically nil (because the first part of the intersection clause is itself almost empty).. So I don't buy Wugapodes' concerns about non-admin wikiarchaeologists. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Albania medical cases chart

[edit]

See same types of templates of Covid data below. Same rationale for this batch as ones below. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases + Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship as these mostly remain verifiable; Keep Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases chart, as statistically, along with all the other charts, at least for the purposes of understanding intrinsic and administrative clustering, the C19CCTF medical cases chart data appear to be the better curated version of the national daily SARS-CoV-2 infection counts as reported by official agencies.[1]
    There was consensus in 2020-2021 to (implicitly) override WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS. Most of the sources here by me and (I think) one other major editor for /Poland medical cases and /Poland medical cases by voivodeship mostly have archives of the sources, mostly at archive.today. This is a hand-curated set of archival, historical data of encyclopedic values that remains (to a fair degree) verifiable thanks to the archives. It is also a historical record of the Ministry's official policy of posting daily information only on centralised US-based social media instead of on the Ministry's website in Poland in a plain-text accessible data file. The chart only has generic URLs written as sources, but AFAIR, at least in the Poland case, the values were in reality those of the medical cases tables, but stored in a more convenient form for automatic retrieval. A hypothetical alternative to keep for these templates would be to transfer the data to Wikidata, but a debate would be needed over at Wikidata if the data are notable enough, and a volunteer to do the transfer would be needed. I'm not volunteering for either. Wikipedia is not just about current knowledge - encyclopedic coverage of past events is part of the mission. Keeping these three templates will help preserve encyclopedic verifiable knowledge.
    Moreover, as quoted above, the evidence is that the Wikipedia curated data is better curated than the corresponding WHO data set.[1] It would be a pity to destroy a high-quality human-curated dataset because it's no longer a popular topic. I would keep these templates for all countries, because they are evidence that human-curated, crowdsourced data has been, in at least one notable event, of higher quality than official data. The repeated infobox wars for quantitative NPOVing of data to include unreliable government data (justified by NPOV based on the difficulty of distinguish which govt data are reliable vs unreliable) are circumstantial evidence that the essay WP:ROGD remains an unsolved long-term problem for Wikipedia that is not going to disappear.
    If we want to block future Wikipedia crowd-sourced curation of data, then better block it next time it starts (and maybe propose that it be done directly in Wikidata, based on consensus over at Wikidata), rather than after it's collected. Boud (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats. What What Wikipedia is not is a policy that we can't ignore. None of these templates are up to date. They have been abandoned for years now. A templates having a citation does not mean it is worth keeping and certainly not what the nomination is about. There have been two discussions already resulted in other country templates like these to be deleted in October 2024 and December of last year. These are supposed to have up to date information. Some have been dormant since 2021. It's clear they have no use to be kept around. And all data is able to be found and added as part of the article instead of having to be transcluded from template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a de facto consensus by the people doing the editing work to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats at the time those pages were being heavily edited. I don't remember a whole bunch of TFDs in early 2020 for these pages. This is not just the case of "a" citation; this is part of the history of effective crowd-sourcing of information, where the crowd-sourced version is (modestly) better than the officially curated version. I agree that it would be good to make sure that nobody incorrectly thinks that they're updated, and some decision is needed what to do next time an analogous situation comes up. As the climate emergency progresses, there'll be all sorts of world events where a mass of people may decide to push tables of open government data into Wikipedia. Two alternatives to deletion would be (1) to archive these pages, to make it clear that they're not updated, or (2) change them into redirects to their corresponding main pages in mainspace, so that the editing histories are preserved. Boud (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but vast majority of editors no longer update these. So the de facto consensus is no longer relevant all these years later. I do not mind redirecting the templates to the main pages, but it is not an appropriate redirect because ideally templates that are redirected should be redirected to other templates. Preservation is still a waste of template space if it were still kept in template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete graph-based pages without userfying anywhere. These are broken pages. They clog up Category:Pages using the Graph extension which should eventually be at 0, not near 0 with pointless user pages. The rest can either be deleted or userfied. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Roukema, Boudewijn F. (2021-08-27). "Anti-clustering in the national SARS-CoV-2 daily infection counts". PeerJ. 9 e11856. arXiv:2007.11779. doi:10.7717/peerj.11856. ISSN 2167-8359. PMC 8404575. PMID 34532156. Zenodo: 5262698. Archived from the original on 2021-08-27.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom below. Specifically for Poland though they can be preserved elsewhere. Wikidata would be a good start, as someone who also edits there, but I won't be volunteering. And to be honest I really don't support userfying especially if they use the Graph extension. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Medical cases charts don't use the Graph extension afaik. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia cases by state/territory

[edit]

Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There's practically no way to keep them all up to the present day, with most of the data sources are likely dead or full of rotten links. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, oppose userfying Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nigeria medical cases and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Zimbabwe medical cases as those use the broken graph extension and should either be converted or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that as they don't use {{Medical cases chart}}. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Rankings

[edit]

Just a wikitable; can be replaced with WP:LST instead; but a WP:HISTMERGE should be performed given the substantial page history. Vestrian24Bio 03:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these tables should be in an article, not a template. Can copy list of editors for attribution if hist merge not possible. Spike 'em (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me there is clear consensus to merge content into the parent articles, which I'm happy to do. Would replacing the templates with an LST back to the content allow the templates to be kept for attribution purposes, or alternatively, how do I construct a list of the contributors to paste into edit summary / talk page of destination? Spike 'em (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Spike 'em, I created a tool that generates lists of contributors that can be put in the edit summary when pasting the contents into the parent article. unfortunately, when there are a lot of contributors, like these, you have to use multiple edit summaries to get the entire list. I suppose, you could put the list of contributors in an html comment with the first merge, then remove that comment in a second edit? the general guidance for how to do it is outlined in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, I boldly merged with attribution, so these can be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn templates

[edit]

Outdated template system and unused template after manual substitution DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replace with the newer road system. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For newer template system, it already enough for most of road junction lists, unlike the BAB and AB templates, the templates name already have problem as per WP:USEENGLISH, that make non-Deutsch native are difficult to use. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even in Malaysian highway articles doesn't have too many template just for the junction lists. Although the Malaysian highway articles also have its own problems. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GeorgiaSenDst21–30

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is part of a series of other GA state senate districts see Template:GeorgiaSenDst1–10. I clicked on a few categories for other states and none of them exist that I could find. I don't see a compelling reason for this to exist, let alone be replicated along the other 98 state legislatures across the country. If expanded to it's possible fullness you might have legislators that served decades apart from district 20 and district 29 in the same navbox that have had no reasonable connection to each other. The linkages by number spans are completely arbitrary too.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-spamblacklistblock

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Uw-spamblacklistblock with Template:Uw-sblock.
{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}} uses the following phrasing:

You have been blocked [...] to prevent you from using your IP address to add external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist.

However, add[ing] external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist is not a blockable offense. WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it; it only mentions spamming.

Not every attempt to add blacklisted links is bad-faith. (For example: I once tried mentioning some webpages in an AfD, only to learn that they are blacklisted. I hit the blacklist several times, because my comment linked multiple blocked domains.)

I strongly believe that edits should be judged on their own merits when blocking users. Using the blacklist to stop insertion of problematic URLs is acceptable. But it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist. I think this is common-sense and already the best practice. The text of this template of this template just doesn't reflect that.

I also don't see why to distinguish blocks for unsuccessful spamming attempts from blocks for successful attempts. A separate block template for spamming already exists at {{uw-sblock}}, and I believe it could be reworded to be inclusive of unsuccessful attempts to spam.

-- Janhrach (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. Essentially per nom, these are redundant. If they truly are spam links, we can block whether they're blacklisted or not, just like we block for "repeatedly triggering the edit filter" even if few or none of the edits actually go through. Toadspike [Talk] 19:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Janhrach no, this is a block for persistently hammering the spam blacklist logs, making the log useless due to excessive amounts of similar or the same links (see e.g. this set, you will have difficulty to find a good faith entry in these 1000 related hits performed well within an hour; also see de.wiki). Nowadays less seen, but in the past we had spambots adding hundreds of links per IP, with IPs operating simultaneously. We even had an adminbot detecting IPs that performed these actions and block them. It is a blockable offense as it is disruptive, and because they are unauthorized bots. I would keep them separate (keep / no merge), though I can maybe be convinced that it is now obsolete. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike ah, I forgot that analogy, indeed we do this for repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I fail to see how this doesn't fall under {{Uw-spambotblock}}. (That template was created in 2020.) Also, Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates explicitly lists this block template as intended for temporary blocks, not indefs. Janhrach (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Janhrach this template is for temp blocks, and it says so. I know there is overlap, but this template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log, which lacks on all others, spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses. Same as edit filter, you have blocks for vandalism, en blocks for insisting to trigger he edit filter on a filter that blocks vandalism, both are disruptive, but it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually go through the logs I linked and considered your But it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist in that respect? Do you understand that those logs are useless and that we need(ed) to stop those IPs from even attempting to hit the blacklist? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log – I didn't know that; it is hidden from non-admins. This means that the blocked user also won't see this note.
which lacks on all others – Then, it should be added to the other templates. I don't see any downside to adding it to {{uw-sblock}} and {{uw-spambotblock}}.
spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses. – From the point of view of the blocked user, it is not important whether the spammy domain is blacklisted, or whether they have been successful in spamming. The reason for the block is important.
it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform – I think it is informative. It is certainly more informative than saying that they were blocked for hitting the blacklist. Hitting the blacklist isn't (inherently) a blockable offense. However:
  • Spamming is a blockable offense (and for spamming, there is {{uw-sblock}}).
  • Deliberately hitting the blacklist is also a blockable offense. However, the spam edits you linked above didn't hit the blacklist deliberately. The edits' purpose was to add links, not to hit the filter. Spammers don't hit the filter just for the sake of it. Vandals might do that – in that case, the block message should specifically emphasize the deliberate intent of the hitting the blacklist.
  • Using an unapproved bot is a blockable offense. Any unapproved bot can cause massive damage; this is not limited to abuse logs. (For this case, there is {{uw-spambotblock}}.) When it comes to spamming, edits like this are an exception, not a rule; for the vast majority of editors (both good-faith and bad-faith), I still think that it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist.
Did you actually go through the logs I linked and and considered your [...] – I did. You linked the logs after I had written that sentence. I understand that the logs are useless.
If there is an editor who happens to trigger the blacklist a lot, but they clearly aren't a bot, I would warn them, but certainly not block them without prior warnings. If this is particularly frequent, the logs should be fixed by fixing the software (by adding an option to exclude entries generated by specific users/IPs/ranges), not by broadening the block criteria.
—Janhrach (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference in hitting the blacklist (which I agree is not a blockable offense), and (intentionally) hammering the blacklist. Hammering the blacklist is blockable not only because the user is intending to spam (which is a blockable offense), but also blockable because of the disruption they cause. And sometimes it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors better instead of sweeping them all under the same rug.
I would not warn an editor who is hitting the blacklist. Ever. The hit is either in good faith or in bad faith. If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block. And an SPI (with block) was just performed on an editor who hit the blacklist after their spamlink got blacklisted. Note that warnings against spamming are inherently acknowledged the moment a 'Publish changes' button is pressed. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think a merge with {{uw-spambotblock}} could do, but I think there is still value in keeping them separated as the reason for the block (then mostly performed by an adminbot) is then easier to administrate/categorise. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if we understand each other correctly. To clarify:
  • By "hitting the blacklist" I mean (unsuccessfully) inserting blacklisted URLs, without regard to the editor's intent or the count of attempted edits.
  • By "deliberately hitting the blacklist" I mean willfully/knowingly hitting the blacklist, just for the sake of it (for example to annoy other editors). Is this the same what you mean by hammering the blacklist? When someone intentionally hits the blacklist, they do it because they want to hit the blacklist. For spammers, it's the opposite; spammers want their edits to go live, not to get caught by the blacklist. That means I don't consider spamming to fall under intentionally hitting the blacklist.
If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block. – Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was refering to situations where the edits are not clearly bad-faith. I used the word "warn" broadly, akin to when you warn an editor for inserting nonfree text, or for other (possibly good-faith) actions.
it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors – I don't understand how you delineate the meanings of these three templates. I think we both aggree that {{uw-spambotblock}} is for unambiguous spambots. But are you arguing that:
  1. {{uw-sblock}} should be used for successful spammers and {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} for spammers caught by the blacklist?
  2. Or are you arguing that {{uw-sblock}} is for spammers, while {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} is for editors who are not unambiguously spammers or spambots or act in bad faith, but they are disruptive because they hit the blacklist too much?
Which one of these two is the case?
—Janhrach (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist, possibly in a hope to overwhelm it. Though there the word may also be wrong, since it is clear that it were botscripts. It may be close to attempts towards Denial of Service. It strikes me otherwise senseless to write a botscript which is only intending to attempt to add links that you know are blacklisted, I mean, there are no successful attempts, it is only blacklisted stuff (they could have claimed new domains and be successful ..).
For the good faith/bad faith situation, if a regular hits the blacklist, that is in good faith. If a 'newbie' hits the blacklist, the situation is dark grey, nearly black .. it is very unlikely that the previously spammed and now blacklisted 'yourobscurecompany.com' is now being added by a good faith editor (not impossible .. but). Those editors have already the failed the AGF-way-out before it got blacklisted, and as I said, I just saw a report about a new editor that tried to add a now blacklisted link, and that new editor was immediately checkusered. And I draw a distinction between warning (formal) and just talking, maybe on the 'don't template the regulars' side of definition.
I see three situations:
  1. spammers = humans who add links, successful edits -> uw-sblock
  2. spambots = bots/human assisted scripts that in short succession add links to multiple pages. Successful edits. Non-approved. -> uw-spambotblock. Generally applied to IPs.
  3. the hammering bots = clearly bots that only add already blacklisted links -> uw-spamblacklistblock.
The reason for distinction is that the first ones are 'human', and just get indeffed generally (they generally don't respond to warnings, and sometimes complain for 20 years that they cannot make money by having their links on Wikipedia). That is where you gauge your unblock requests on. Spambots are generally on IPs, and the IPs get reassigned, there may be reason to unblock after some time. The last ones, the hammering bots, get (or got, I don't know if the adminbot still monitors) mainly blocked by an adminbot, with a larger chance of error. Moreover, these blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits. They do not have contributions (or only good contributions in another life), no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter), and no regular logs (see this, nothing there, it is the first one in this one from above!). An uninformed admin may easily oversee this, and unblock the editor 'because they did not do anything'.
So for that reason, I think we need the three different ones. The reason that we may not need it anymore may be that WMF has adapted the MediaWiki software (captcha or so?) so that we don't see (so many) of these botscripts hammering anymore. But well, the template in existence or in the deletion logs takes the same space, with on the other side that undeletion is also cheap. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter) – I didn't know that; thanks for clarifying. Do admins see the content of edits that hit the blacklist?
First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist – I thought that that was a futile attempt to spam, but that makes more sense.
With that in mind, I agree with you that having a separate template for hammering bots is beneficial. But I think that {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} needs some changes to fulfill this purpose. I would change its wording so that it refers to "deliberate disruption" or something similar.
Moreover, these [uw-spamblacklistblock] blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits. – I disagree with this practice (using the same template for hammering bots and editors with no immediately visible spammy edits). As I have originally proposed, I think that these users should be blocked under {{uw-sblock}}, and that the wording of {{uw-sblock}} should be changed to be more clear about blacklisted edits.
But I would also accept a compromise solution – creating a separate template for users whose all spammy edits have hit the blacklist.
—Janhrach (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
?
  • Question Now that they've hidden the IP addresses, is this relevant anymore? Would we block an account that's hammering the blacklist in this manner? I've never seen this template before, and I've never heard of a human raising "repeatedly hitting the blacklist" as a reason for blocking; I've only ever seen it in the bot-reported section of WP:AIV, and all the incidents I've seen are either false positives or people who also succeed in disrupting other things. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The template is worded as if it is intended for IP blocks. When one tries to edit from a blocked IP, are they shown this template, or just the logged block message? If the latter is the case, this template is likely to be of little use.
    Also, from searching old talk pages, it seems that when registered users were blocked under this template, they were blocked for ordinary spam (which got caught by the blacklist), not for hammering. Janhrach (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon Property Group

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Simon Property Group with Template:Simon Property Group West, Template:Simon Property Group Midwest, Template:Simon Property Group Northeast, Template:Simon Property Group South, Template:Premium Outlets Eastern United States, Template:Premium Outlets Western United States, Template:Premium Outlets Canada.
Too many separate unnecessary categories, should be merged Update6 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal. Split and delete Template:Simon Property Group. We don't need giant templates that look like this. This is completely unhelpful. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BAB-Baustein-Hinweis

[edit]

Doesn't really seem to be a need for a list of templates in a template. Substitute the category and delete. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice

[edit]

Propose merging Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice with Template:Pronoun editnotice.
Redundant, and the latter has its own tracking category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding the extra content from Template:BLP nonbinary editnotice into a collapsible section for when the {{{1}}} is (or contains) they/them. But yes, I agree they should be merged — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's bad practice to quote policies in templates since the policies can change. It is preferred to link to the policies like {{Pronoun editnotice}} already does. Plus having a lot of text in the template induces the "wall of text" effect, where no one actually reads the template. Less is more when it comes to warning and notice templates. Nosferattus (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice

[edit]

Now used only on Template:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree, subst and delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boroughs of Mexico City

[edit]

Redundant to {{Mexico City}}. We just got rid of {{Mexico City neighborhoods}} at this TFD. No need for this one to stick around either. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to use subgroups to distinguish boroughs and neighborhoods in Template:Mexico City. Cfls (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China provinces big imagemap

[edit]

Unused. Not needed. Plenty of maps of China exists already. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZetaC 22:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Cfls (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cfls (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt

[edit]

Single-use map. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZetaC 22:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interactive map (which supports clicking on the provinces; not just an image), and it is used in the China article for the illustration of Chinese provinces. The deletion will negatively affect a highly visited article. Cfls (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can still do that with a map without needing it to be on template space for it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then we need to ensure that the same-functionality interactive map is configured before any potential deletion of the template. Deleting this template should not negatively impact an article‘s readability, especially since China is a highly visited page on Wikipedia.
Before the same-functionality interactive map is configured, the deletion of this template should be avoided. Cfls (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I think Administrative divisions of China also needs this map. Cfls (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what subst means. We can just copy and transclude the map easily onto the article space. It's a waste of template space to be used for single purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sure, I would support this proposal. Cfls (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PRC provinces imagemap

[edit]

Single-use map. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZetaC 22:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Cfls (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support (under the condition that "Subst" is implemented). Cfls (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defunct PRC provinces

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Defunct Chinese provinces. A more comprehensive navbox for its subject matter. As far as I've seen, both navboxes are used on the same articles. So it makes the tranclusions overkill. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

test ~2026-44127-4 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZetaC 17:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Petro Gazz Angels roster

[edit]

Unused roster. Team dissolved this month. No longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whilst the article sources show it's unclear whether the team is dissolved or taking a break, either way they don't have a current roster, as they're not competing this season. If they do return, then and only then it makes sense to potentially undelete this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentina national cricket team series history

[edit]

None of these templates contain direct links to the subject of the national cricket teams. WP:Bidirectional is not met due to no direct relevance to the template subject matter. This is basically a list of tournaments and competitions the teams played in which is something we can find on an article easily. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Most of the series listed in these templates do not even have their independent articles for not meeting notability guidelines.
Cric editor (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2028 T20 World Cup sidebar

[edit]

Per WP:Leadsidebar and WP:Too soon. Mostly filled with redirects and plain text. Even the main article for 2028 T20 World Cup is a redirect to the Men's T20 World Cup article. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, a number of articles and templates were created related to the same tournament and have been deleted before too.
Cric editor (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Really does not add anything. All redirects are to the same page. Sputink (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Rashidun Caliphate

[edit]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Educational assignment

[edit]

Can this template be deleted or placed as a talk page post similar to Template:Course assignment? I found one on the talk page of Cognition that was 13 years old that said that it was part of a current assignment. It was mentioned in this template for discussion but seemingly the only one that wasn't taken care off. Rolluik (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes it is used on the article page (in contradiction with the documentation that says that it should only be on the talk page) but it isn't visible then. If parameters are not filled in, its output says that it is a current assignment. Rolluik (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it matters, but I sometimes work with students on Wikipedia outside of a specific course. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, or improve: The template is intended to be used on talk pages only and says so in its documentation. Perhaps it should be amended so that the default, when no date is given, is to pick up the current date and state "As of 23 January 2026 it was the subject of an educational assignment", to avoid the problems of stale templates as discovered by the OP. PamD 14:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods with Template:Greater Richmond Region.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. In this particular case, just keep only the links. Don't add plain text or any red links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jq talk 💬 contributions 15:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The first template is for the city; the second is for the greater region, which includes some surrounding counties and should also include (but doesn't) some nearby cities, like Colonial Heights. Why not merge the county navboxes for all sixteen counties into this one, while we're at it? I can understand the argument for merging the neighbourhoods template with a city-specific template (something comparable to the San Jose proposal above), but not with a greatly expanded regional template. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I just found out about Template:Richmond, Virginia. We can do this. Merge the neighborhoods into this navbox. And delete the regional navbox. Most of the entries in Greater Richmond Region are for the city as a whole. And Greater Richmond Region subject is not really a suitable topic for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little uncomfortable with the general idea of these mergers, but not to the point that I've opposed any up above (as I say, I can understand the argument), and I likewise wouldn't oppose a proposal to merge this template with {{Richmond, Virginia}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, the regional template has eighteen "Attractions" links; eleven are in the city of Richmond, six in surrounding cities and counties, and the American Civil War Museum is a mix of sites in Richmond and a site in Appomattox, far outside the entire region. I didn't click the links in the first part of the regional template, but I'll guess that they too are city-related. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiCleanerMan, why don't you just close this as withdrawn and start over by proposing the merger of the neighbourhoods template with the city template? I seriously doubt that User:Jq would find that an objectionable situation. And I won't offer input on the new proposal, per my comments above. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo with Template:Sarajevo.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. And there is already a section on the main Sarajevo navbox for this. Redundant to have two navboxes. Just keep the blue links into the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support like the others. Jq talk 💬 contributions 15:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for now (although, I'm inclined to support); the Neighborhoods of Sarajevo (NS) is huge, and even now has more than 30 blue links, and potentially 3 times as more if all red links get their articles. It could swell to enormous proportians, as evident with current size of the NS. We can leave only blue but it will grow, and when that happens what then? (I suppose this is the case with all the templates considered in this thread.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Tripoli

[edit]

No longer used after replacing with main navbox. Some links were not neighborhoods that were removed and only three links are present. Fails navigational purposes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging. — The Anome (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To what? There is nothing to merge to. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai with Template:Dubai.
Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own collapsible section without worrying about navbox size. Do not add red links over to the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic groups in Rwanda

[edit]

for consistency with this TfD, this navbox can be merged with Template:Rwanda topics Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases

[edit]

Same as two batches below. Out of date and no longer updated or needed. Almost six years since the start of the pandemic and a couple of years later into 2026, these templates have not been updated as much. No need to keep. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sort out which of these are what and what to do with them. Some of these seem to be graphs. Others seem to be tables.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 UK timeline sidebar

[edit]

Per WP:Leadsidebar. All links are found in the main navbox Template:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. We just do not have a need for every subject to have its own sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2021 2nd half. Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country

[edit]

All are used either on one page or two. We can subst and delete or we can outright delete per the case of Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS. The templates are not going to be updated since this is now historical information and is up to a certain point. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Template:Philippine presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Philippine presidential elections with Template:Philippine elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to repeat this for each and every template like you did, but I will say that - since these mergers are proposed and the Iraq (and Finland) templates show that it is possible to include direct and indirect elections together in the template - this looks more like the start of a new precedent (that elections for president and houses of parliament would always be included regardless of their directness) than an abberation of an existing one. Glide08 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notify users from the Iraqi template discussion. TheBritinator, Zackmann08, Graham11. See this discussion and the similar nominations below for the other templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. There were five editors involved in the Iraqi template discussion who have not been involved in this one; three voted to merge and two voted to keep. Only the three that voted to merge have been invited to comment. Any subsequent comments from the canvassed editors should be disregarded and WikiCleanerMan should receive a thorough trouting for this. Number 57 01:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I was going to comment, should I even bother now? Well either way, I agree that Iraq was just a one-off case nor really a precedent. I was primarily motivated by how small it was. There's a lot more Philippines presidential elections to warrant a separate template, and most appear to be direct. TheBritinator (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamese presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Vietnamese presidential elections with Template:Vietnamese elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Heads of state of Vietnam as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Polish presidential elections with Template:Polish elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Heads of state of Poland as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portuguese presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Portuguese presidential elections with Template:Portuguese elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Portugal as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuelian presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Venezuelian presidential elections with Template:Venezuelan elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Venezuela as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singaporean presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Singaporean presidential elections with Template:Singaporean elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Singapore as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Number 57. Aleain (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nepalese presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Nepalese presidential elections with Template:Nepalese elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Nepal as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The discussion should also include Template:Nepalese National Assembly elections. PenGear (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maltese presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Maltese presidential elections with Template:Maltese elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Malta as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuban presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Cuban presidential elections with Template:Cuban elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Cuba as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombian presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Colombian presidential elections with Template:Colombian elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Colombia as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominican presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Dominican presidential elections with Template:Dominican elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Presidents of Dominica as been done for several other countries. Number 57 23:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: I suggest to change the merge operated for Iraq per Salvador and Dominican Republic's examples. Panam2014 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panam2014: I don't understand what you are saying here or below. Are you saying you support the merge into the presidential template (and why mention Colombia when this is about a Dominican one)? Number 57 00:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link where the consensus was set? Plus, if a template says Presidents, it should only link to the actual presidents of the countries. Presidential elections are not the primary subject of said Presidents of [country] templates. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Difficult to find as it was likely over 15 years ago soon after these templates were first created, but some evidence of its existence from over the years in the following diffs from various editors.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Cheers, Number 57 02:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But those are edits. While long-standing since 2009, it was not set as a policy, rule, or guideline of the Elections project or some formal site wide policy. It would be one thing it was that. But we are talking about redundancy here. All these templates are and can be used for one overall purpose. But if you say presidents of countries should have these article linked, then same could apply for the templates for US presidents and Presidents of France. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is no policy or guidance on this particular point – we'd have thousands of pages of them if we insisted that every consensus or agreement needed to be be formalised into one. "All these templates are and can be used for one overall purpose" – it can be, yes, but does it make sense to do so? I don't think so – IMO it's misleading to put parliamentary votes alongside public elections in results templates (particularly in cases like Dominica where the public have never voted for the presidency). This was why this set of templates was created in the first place. The problem here seems to be more about a desire to 'tidy up' templates without proper regard to the subject matter. Number 57 14:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is no policy, we have no reason to keep separating indirect elections from a main navbox that covers national elections. Indirect elections are still relevant to the scope of elections in said country templates. They are still a national topic. If we are just following a longstanding status quo of edits going back to 2009 and not a formal rule, then there is no need to continue this. These merger suggestions are in the proper standing of WP:Bidirectional, WP:Navboxes, WP:NENAN, and WP:Navbox to name a few. And none of these presidential elections are irrelevant in terms of scope. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there is no formal rule, but surely you've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that we do not have written rules covering minor matters like this. I'm also extremely disappointed that, prior to proposing large-scale deletions of a set of long-existing templates, you didn't bother engaging with the relevant WikiProject to discuss whether this was a good idea or ask why these templates exist. Can I suggest that you do that in future, regardless of the topic area. Number 57 19:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most indirect presidential elections are not "ordinary" parliamentary votes (like a vote on a motion), but are rather specially-scheduled events that function more like a "public" election mechanically (i.e. the MPs go to a booth, tick a box next to the candidate's name in a ballot paper, put it in an envelope, and put the envelope in the ballot box.) Glide08 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iraq.. But it should be merged into President of Colombia's template.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Greek presidential elections with Template:Greek elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Heads of state of Greece as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian presidential elections

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Romanian presidential elections with Template:Romanian elections.
Per precedent of Template:Iraqi presidential elections. Both templates can include all links. We really do not need two separate templates for elections. If there are indirect elections, then a note or section can be added to distinguish them as such. We don't have templates just for general elections and we should apply this to presidential election template as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Iraq.
Panam2014 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The national election template series has always been for direct elections only and the outcome of the Iraq discussion was an abberation. The presidential elections template would be better merged to Template:Heads of state of Romania as been done for several other countries. Number 57 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. We've got many exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect election of their president, most recently Togo. They didn't cease being elections of the Head of state just because they were indirect ones. And yet currently Wikipedia has them completely purged from election templates, invisibilising them, making the information difficult to find, and the situation confusing for the readers.
    I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on election templates when elected, whatever the electoral system, since the sources do think they are. So far, the opposition I've seen to this seem to stem solely on the risk of too many indirect election being added, for example with Prime minister changes in parliamentary system. Let's just agree then to limit it to Heads of state and houses of Parliament, rather than keep a confusing, ineffective status quo. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025-26 Worcester Warriors squad

[edit]

Unused roster template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

Template:Sweden Hockey Games

[edit]

This template is redundant to a better-designed template - {{Euro Hockey Tour}}. Maiō T. (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Video Game Platform Legends"

[edit]

The following templates and their related subpages have been replaced with a new Module, and are completely unused. There is no expectation that these templates will ever be used again. 13akoors (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox diplomatic crisis

[edit]

This is a copy of Template: Infobox civil conflict. While the name of the template might better describe one application of Infobox civil conflict, this application can be described in the documentation and/or by using a redirect with the alternative name. It does not require the creation of a new template. The template is redundant. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a fine line between a diplomatic crisis and a civil conflict, and this is reflected in both templates. In fact, this template was made to solve an IB dispute regarding Greenland crisis. One describes a political standoff and a point of tension, the other describes real, tangible, and oftentimes violent conflict. I don't actually care what happens to this template even though I'm its creator. --- ptpcpfpppffof (he/him) 02:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep it, they seem distinct enough to me. Joe (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the templates don't differ too much in content rn which is why I could see a delete/redirect possible, but I feel the events they describe are different enough where keeping the two separate would be beneficial in the long run. Cheers! Johnson524 03:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, They're different enough. If we really want to remove it, than merge it. Still, I think keeping it is the best idea. Billious Bobulous the III (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how the parameters for the diplomatic crisis box have been determined, but the examples of intended use in the civil conflict documentation are all domestic. A diplomatic crisis is presumably by definition not domestic, so it seems unlikely the two situations would easily fit into the same rigid parameters. CMD (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: "In fact, this template was made to solve an IB dispute regarding Greenland crisis". I think that, with the ongoing political situation in Greenland, which is currently the subject of many conversations, and is also within the American Politics WP:Contentious topic, that the best option is to save conversation of the future of this template until some of those other conversations die down a little. Mitchsavl (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait seconding the above. The template was created for an ongoing situation drawing a lot of attention, and I think it's reasonable to expect that the templates will diverge as coverage on WP develops. If template doesn't diverge over time, then this can be revisited. Fishsicles (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very poor template, not fit for purpose. The "Escalations" parameter is particularly poor and invites original research.—Alalch E. 16:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PAPER. There's no compelling reason to avoid having a separate template specifically for a diplomatic crisis. Yeah, maybe it could be implemented as a variation of the civil conflict template... but who cares? It's working, so WP:DONTFIXIT.
JasonMacker (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Infobox civil conflict. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Template:Trotter family tree

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2023. A family tree template for a fictional TV series. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-URAA-Not-PD-Uruguay

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COSAFA Women's Championship Golden Boot

[edit]

Navbox that is no longer used after the creation of the more comprehensive {{COSAFA Women's Championship awards}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portuguese language sidebar

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Template:Portuguese dialects is already used. Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women in music

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created a little over a month ago. This navbox is probably too broad to be coherent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HSLtoHex

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see another way to do it. Keep if no other template with the same purpose, delete if there is another template with the same purpose. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this isn't done by Module:Color but I believe that's the place to put this functionality if necessary. You can just look at how this tree of templates implements stuff to see why a module would be nice. Actually, I might just do a bigger TfD soon to deal with that. Trialpears (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Str pad

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created it to pad strings like this. I guess people just haven't discovered it amongst literally every other template. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:DEL doesn't really talk about unused templates, however it does talk about unused files. It does talk about # Redundant or otherwise useless templates, but not about unused ones. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TFD#REASONS, item 3. With no transclusions and no discussions, there is no indication that this template is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I just created it because there aren't really any templates like this. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can move it to User:SeaDragon1/sandbox/Drafts/Templates/Str pad if you would like. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete or usefry Module:Pad. And we already have the builtin "padleft" function. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is it supposed to be spelled userfy? SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a consensus? I'm ready to move the pages when ready. Just tell me. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 16:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should we close this as no consensus? SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 03:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't get any more votes by February, we should close this as no consensus. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, per Pppery's and SeaDragon1's suggestion. --DB1729talk 15:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Now ready for deletion if seen fit-- I've userfied it. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 18:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gallery of Userboxes for Physics Subdisciplines

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a need to delete, but rather to further develop. This template functions as a central gallery for the physics userboxes (specifically for the main branches of physics) that I created. It’s new, so the absence of transclusions or categories is expected, and both can be added easily. The userboxes are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Science/Physical#Physics, but this serves as a more focused side gallery for editors specifically looking for domain‑related physics userboxes. Xyqorophibian (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is kept, it should be moved to Wikipedia space. It's not a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose any move. Completely pointless page that no one will ever look for and no one other than the creator will ever update, which they too, will abandoned pretty fast. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-top-image

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems it is used for the testcases (which for some reason are in the /doc) of the /alt and /caption pages which are in use so subst there. The subpages shouldn't be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1335890171"