Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 70 101 171
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 3 20 3 6 32
AfD 0 0 0 70 70

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this pageEdit

What not to propose for discussion hereEdit

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 should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" 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}}. If it is a hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a templateEdit

  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 (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
  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 templateEdit

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: for discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:template_name.css */

Protected pages: If you are unable to tag a page due to protection, please either leave a note on the page's talk page under a {{edit protected}} header, or leave a note at the Administrators' noticeboard, requesting tagging of the page.

II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

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

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

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit

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

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

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 {{Tfdnotice}} for this.

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

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


Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.


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

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

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

Closing discussionEdit

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 discussionsEdit

July 16Edit


The guideline has changed - there is no longer any basis for this template (also see its talk; merely asking for an update did not trigger any discussion; hopefully this will). CapnZapp (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Verylongtalk and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Archiveme. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me quote myself for your convenience - this is the relevant section of the talk page discussion: The bigger problem is that the template currently copies the article talk page length guideline. As you can see in the guidelines, the user talk page guidelines were semi-recently spun off into its own section. It's therefore possible to question having this template at all. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Commission on HIV/AIDS and Governance in AfricaEdit

Unsure about this template. Last edited in 2014, this lists members of a particular commission at the time. I don't think this commission is a defining characteristic of the members, so I think this template should be deleted and the links within the individual articles should suffice. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Birth weightEdit

Used once, and last edited in 2015. Could this be placed in the parent article? Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


Unclear what this template does; it's only used on one article and a stub template for the same thing exists. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Veterinary specialtiesEdit

Propose merging Template:Veterinary specialties with Template:Veterinary medicine.
Better placed in a single template. Easier to read and the template will not be too big. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Orthopaedic surgical approachesEdit

Links are either redlinks or redirect to Hip replacement Tom (LT) (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Myeloid innate immune systemEdit

Propose merging Template:Myeloid innate immune system with Template:Myeloid blood cells and plasma.
These templates seem to have the same scope. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


I am proposing that MOST of the content from this template is deleted (sorry, again there is no option for this on Twinkle but this venue is called 'templates for discussion').

I do not think it is helpful for anyone to list in template for every '-itis' in the body, much as we do not list every cause of death on death or every form of infection on infection. What I propose is:

  1. The content about inflammation in specific locations is moved to a list called Inflammatory conditions by location Tom (LT) (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Arthropod infestationsEdit

Propose merging Template:Arthropod infestations with Template:Acari-borne diseases.
This set is a mess, with five templates all with mutual cross-over. As a start, to establish some clear scope and reduce duplication and navbox spread, I propose that this template:

Template:Congenital lymphatic organ disordersEdit

Propose merging Template:Congenital lymphatic organ disorders with Template:Lymphatic organ disease.
Very similar scope; some cross-over, and I think it may be easier for readers and editors if the contents are contained within the same template Tom (LT) (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Gonadal tumors, paraganglioma, and glomusEdit

This template is duplicated by {{Female genital neoplasia}}, and {{Male genital neoplasia}}, so it is unnecessary. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Allergic conditionsEdit

Propose merging Template:Allergic conditions with Template:Hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases.
I want to discuss this because these two templates have the same scope. On the other hand actually, I DON'T think they should be merged, but I DO want to discuss it so that there is consensus for my planned changes.

These templates seem to do a good job of providing information. I propose that they remain separate and, to clarify the scope and formatting:

Template:Lymphatic vessel diseaseEdit

Propose merging Template:Lymphatic vessel disease with Template:Lymphatic organ disease.
I propose a merge to {{Lymphatic organ and vessel disease}}, as the templates are quite small and it would probably benefit readers to have the content covered in the same place. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signsEdit

Propose merging Template:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signs with Template:Disorders of consciousness.
I propose move the consciousness-related information to {{Disorders of consciousness}}, and then rename this template {{Symptoms and signs related to perception, emotion and behaviour}} for consistency with other templates in this set (see alternate proposal at this date) Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Complications of surgical and medical careEdit

Propose merging Template:Complications of surgical and medical care with Template:Transfusion medicine.
I propose a merge to {{Transfusion medicine}}, as that is what almost all content relates to. The sundry content (eczema, herxheimer, GVHD) can be removed and moved to other templates. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I wonder if this wouldn't be better to merge with {{Medical harm}}. The transfusion-related stuff should definitely be merged with {{Transfusion medicine}} too, though. Spicy (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The items "Serum sickness Malignant hyperthermia Herxheimer reaction Graft-versus-host disease" are kind of randomly there and to me don't really have any clear association with one another - we have in order a transfusion, anaesthetic, antibiotic to spirochete and stem cell transfusion related event... I think these are better placed within appropriate templates as readers are unlikely to use the navbox to go between them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Hematological symptoms and signsEdit

Propose merging Template:Hematological symptoms and signs with Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood.
Templates appear to have the same scope, and have significant cross-over. Haematological 'signs' are actually laboratory findings. It's easier for readers and editors to have these in the same template. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I've been thinking about merging these for a while. {{Hematological symptoms and signs}} was originally titled "Eponymous medical signs for hematology", and is still organized that way, but that doesn't seem to be a logical grouping; these things are notable for their diagnostic implications, not the fact that they are named after someone. So they should be merged with all the other diagnostic signs for blood. Spicy (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks Spicy, and well said! (these things are notable for their diagnostic implications, not the fact that they are named after someone).--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ear symptoms and signsEdit

Propose merging Template:Ear symptoms and signs with Template:Ear tests.
Suggest a merge and move to {{Hearing and balance}}. For these reasons: it is easier to have all these things together (signs, symptoms and tests), and the new title is better reflective of the contents Tom (LT) (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Symptoms concerning nutrition, metabolism and developmentEdit

I propose a WP:SPLIT (this is not included in the Twinkle options) to {{Thyroid symptoms and signs}} and {{Nutrition, metabolism and development symptoms and signs}}

It is confusing to have thyroid symptoms and signs lumped together with these other elements, and I think it would be easier for readers (and editors, because the scope will be clearer) to have these separated. The new titles are for consistency with other symptoms/signs templates (see Category:Medical symptoms and signs templates) Tom (LT) (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Eponymous medical signs for muscles and soft tissueEdit

Does not serve a useful navigational purpose at all; particularly when linking arbitrarily defined eponymous titles. This should be deleted and anything related to muscle integrated into {{Myopathy}}.

Past discussions relating to eponymous signs / symptoms template:

July 15Edit

Unused SG party color templatesEdit

Unused color templates -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Adam9007 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Obvious test with the edit summary being litteraly test. Tagged for G2. --Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Stardust with Template:Housemarque.
Similar to the video game navbox {{Project Gotham Racing}}, which has been redirected to developer {{Bizarre Creations}}, I think this template can be merged / redirected to developer {{Housemarque}}. Everything is already listed there and there isn't a Stardust (series) article. I've made a Stardust subgroup in the Housemarque navbox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. IceWelder [] 14:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. No reason to have both, especially when there's no primary article for Stardust. Anarchyte (talkwork) 07:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Grand Ducal Family of TuscanyEdit

This bulky navigational sidebar has dozens of living private citizens (WP:BLPNAME), likely including many minors, but only a total of five blue links. It also attributes defunct styles and titles to them that, depending on where they live, are illegal to claim. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


This template tells people not to edit the page since it is currently being archived. I have no idea when this would be useful. First of all most pages aren't even archived manually, especially high traffic pages where edit conflicts would be more common where bots are used to make it simpler for everyone. Even when archiving manually on a quite high use page archiving is such a quick process I can't see it being a major process. I also think putting a banner like this one is a bit weird since it explicitley says please don't try to communicate with me right now which is bound to stifle communication when used. --Trialpears (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as creator. As described in Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures, there are processes which some editors may use on their user talk pages which are less speedy than "standard" archiving. I am aware of no policy which specifically and unambiguously forbids the use of those procedures on your own user talk page (although they may be disfavored elsewhere). I have used this template myself in the past, and I intend to use it in the future. The fact that a template is inapplicable to "most pages" is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. --NYKevin 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    NYKevin, thank you for pointing these out; we should always consider all plausible uses! I'm not convinced it is useful here either though. Permanent link archives should be a one edit thing where there isn't even an edit in which it makes any sense to add the archiving template which makes that use case quite implausible. The last method being the move method which I saw you were using with the {{archiving}} template. This is definitely the most useful place to use the template, but it seems like the entire process takes just 2 minutes. Even the most active user talk pages such as User talk:Jimbo Wales have only 0.01 edits a minute making the risk for edit conflicts minuscule even on the most active pages with Jimbo expecting 5 edit conflicts in almost two decades of constantly having one of the absolutely most trafficked talk pages. If you think it is useful anyway I don't have a problem with it being kept but I really don't see a use case where this would be worth the time it takes to put it on the page and then take it away. --Trialpears (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Re move archiving: My usual process is to tag the page with {{archiving}}, move it, blank the newly-created redirect (or stick whatever headers I want there), and then finally replace {{archiving}} with {{talk archive}} or similar. The goal is that nobody is ever confused about "Why does the talk page redirect to an archive? What's going on?" if they happen to open it at the wrong moment (or if they're reading a mirror, database dump, or some other cached content that only includes part of the archival process). It also means that, if I somehow get distracted and forget to finish the archival (which has never happened before, to my recollection), the page is at least in a state where others can make sense of what's going on, and (if necessary) either finish the archival process themselves, or use Special:EmailUser to reach me (as the header on my talk page already requests anyway). --NYKevin 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hadn't considered how confusing it could be with move archiving for people who haven't seen it before. Thank you for explaining it makes a lot more sense in light of this. I would withdraw the nomination now if it wasn't for the redirect vote. --Trialpears (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:In use * Pppery * it has begun... 23:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has a plausible use, and the "major edit" language of Template:In use makes much less sense in comparison when used on a talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as per reasons above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge with parameter |archive=yes which will change actively undergoing a major edit for a short while to currently being archived. No need for two templates here. --Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Archive with Template:Talk archive.
These templates are very similar. {{Talk archive}} has vastly more uses and include all functionality in {{Archive}} as well as options to customize the image and add a time period to the message. Redirecting {{Archive}} to {{Talk archive}} would make it a simpler process to set up an archive by eliminating unnecessary choices, give users more customization options and make it possible to optimize the wording of the message which I believe is slightly better for {{Talk archive}}. --Trialpears (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Some archives are not talk archives. (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I once considered proposing this very same merge request, until it was clear the differences. Basically, it's what the anon above me said: {{Archive}} is intended for archives in non-"Talk:"-type namespaces and/or archives not related to discussions, whereas {{Talk archive}} is intended for "Talk:"-type namespaces. I mean, I can't even support merging these two templates together by creating a namespace check to change the wording of the template when it is in a "Talk:-type versus a non-"Talk:"-type namespace. I think the resolution here would be to remove the sentence "Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." from {{Archive}}, and replace any transclusions of {{Archive}} in any "Talk:"-type namespaces with {{Talk archive}} (provided that the transclusion of {{Archive}} is not on the same page which a reader would arrive if they used the {{FULLROOTPAGENAME}} magic word.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Steel1943 Thank you for explaining the subtly different purposes! I didn't manage to catch that when looking through the documentation and I don't think I'm the only one considering that 73% of pages using {{Archive}} are talk pages and over a thousand non-talk pages are using {{Talk archive}}. This would suggest that many editors don't have any problem with using the "wrong" template and message which is hardly surprising since the text is basically identical between the templates with both of them stating that the page is an archive, that you shouldn't edit the page and that new comments should go to the current talk page. Even if there should be more differences between the messages such as replacing the "current talk page" clause in {{Archive}} like you suggested I think it would more productive to do it with namespace detection since so many pages use the "wrong" template. It is also possible to do a large scale replacement like you suggested but I don't really see a reason to when some quick template changes using {{Talkspace detect}} would be sufficient and ensure the problem never arise again. The merged name should of course be the more general {{Archive}} when considering non-talk archives. Again I would love to hear if you have any better suggestions or any problems with my updated proposal but I think we can both agree that there should be some change here. --Trialpears (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Trialpears: I've been looking these over, and ... umm, looking at the current state of Template:Archive, there is another issue ... first, the text "This page is an archive.", look where the link goes, and I cannot find an alternative which is for non-talk archives. What a mess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yep it is quite messy. The best solution seems to be renaming Help:Archiving a talk page to Help:Archiving pages or something which would accommodate for non-talk pages. --Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think so. Help:Archiving a talk page is written from the perspective of addressing what to do when a talk page becomes too long. That is not necessarily the situation for pages archived outside of the talk namespace, as some of those pages are archived as a matter of process, such as when a discussion is closed. --Bsherr (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not necessary that we would need to mark these two templates. As said above some archives are not talk archives. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per reasons above. "Archive" is for (Main/Article) namespace, while "Talk archive" is for Talk namespace, in which they are not the exact same. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    CruzRamiss2002 Archive isn't actually for article space in which it has exactly zero transclusions but for noticeboards such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. The question here isn't whether they are different since they definitely are but if it is a useful distinction. The text in the templates are very similar and I don't see anything specific to either talk pages or non-talk pages in either and if there should be a distinction it would be simpler to use some template magic and automatically detect the namespace making sure the message is always the most appropriate one which wouldn't be the case with the current system since plenty of templates in talk spaces use {{Archive}} instead of {{Talk archive}} and vice versa. --Trialpears (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Trialpears Okay, so when I looked to the "View history" of each template, they created by the same user last 2005 which the date was nearly 2 days apart. This is by far for me the most confused on why the user made the two template that are almost the same. I might going to withdraw or change my decision and probably dug deeper with this one. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - While I appreciate there is a subtle difference intended in the templates, its clear from usage that editors either don't understand it or don't care for it. This is based on the numbers Trialpears has provided above. There is also nothing to gain here from two templates, where one can easily do it with a simple if/else check if the page is in a talk namespace or not. No reason to continuing making this harder for editors to use. See {{Archive/sandbox}} for how simple this is. --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Having just spent the last few minutes walking around Category:Archival templates, I'm convinced that standard practice is to make your own fork of an existing one rather than improving it (see {{tan}}, {{aan}}, {{UserTalkArchive}}, for just one example of the problem). This is unfortunate, and further cleanup may be necessary. --NYKevin 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some archives are not talk archives. I think this templates are can't merging. — Gomdoli4696 (토론) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems you have not even bothered reading the discussion. Both templates are used on both types of pages and I've shown that the template can be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
      Only {{보존}}(en: Template:Archive) is used in kowiki. I think it would be fine if we just say "This is an archive" instead of "This is an archive of past discussions." on this template. — Gomdoli4696 (토론) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. Clearly, redirecting is not the solution, but a thoughtful merge would have usability benefits. Mbox style and banner text should be properly differentiated by namespace. I think Gonnym's sandbox proposal is a credible start. --Bsherr (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 14Edit

Template:Infobox intermodal freight transportEdit

Propose merging Template:Infobox intermodal freight transport with Template:Infobox port.
{{Infobox intermodal freight transport}} is used on 14 articles, 6 of which are ports. Looking at Port of Los Angeles and Port of Singapore, I have no idea why one uses the port infobox, while the other uses the intermodal one, or why Haldia Multi-Modal Terminal uses the port one (it's located in Category:Intermodal transport). Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose ... I think. I think there is room for both templates. An intermodal facility is not necessarily at a port. It could be inland, at what is sometimes termed a dry port. A port is a place where cargo is transferred to and from ships, and might contain multtiple intermodal facilities. Ships are not a requirement for an intermodal facility. There may well be an issue with current usage. Not sure if the intermodal template can be used as a child or parent template. I'm pretty sure that the port template can be used as both a child and can use suitable child templates. I'd be inclined to look at each usage and see if it can be improved. But I think they describe different things and for that reason would oppose the merge. Fob.schools (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Cikarang Dry Port also uses {{Infobox port}}. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously wrongly allocated. Fob.schools (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Db docEdit

Used to be used for all {{db-xx}} templates but was changed to use normal doc pages in 2012 to make documentation updates easier. The template is now hopelessly out of date misinforming anyone who tries to use it for documentation. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disclaimer: It was I who removed the use of this template from {{db-x2}}. --Trialpears (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need to keep these things around years after they've stopped being useful. --Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as templates that blatantly misrepresent policy (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)

Templates associated by recently repealed speedy deletion criteria T2 (discussion). I'm impartial whether these should be tagged as historical like {{db-x1}} or if they should be deleted like {{db-t1}} and {{db-u4}}, but I'm sure that there are others who have strong opinions on the matter hence I'm taking it here. --Trialpears (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If the template is retained as historical the categorisation should also be removed and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as templates that blatantly misrepresent policy should be deleted per G8/templatecat. --Trialpears (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As usual, I'm in the "red link lets you know there's a problem" camp. I am adding the tracking category, upon which I have placed the banner. --Bsherr (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as the user who originally nominated {{db-x1}} for deletion * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed anymore. Not needed anymore and there is no real reason to keep these around (templates get deleted all the time, these are not special). --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep but mark as historical. I can surround the entire template in "noinclude" and have every template call say "T2 is deprecated. Use TfD instead". But I see little point in deleting a template for a criteria that was used for several years. Aasim 17:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as a template that blatantly misrepresents policy (obviously, it didn't when it was created, but it does now). --NYKevin 22:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I love the irony here. This sort of deletion is exactly the sort of thing that would previously have been handled by CSD T2, but now it's been repealed, we have to go via TfD. (Of course, the main reason to repeal CSD T2 in the first place was simply that such deletions don't happen often enough to be worth a speedy criterion, and the extra load on TfD is minimal.) --ais523 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Swedish entrepreneursEdit

Fails WP:NAVBOX. Störm (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. The topic isn't small or well defined. The articles are unlikely to refer to each other. Etc. --Bsherr (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Western Canadian ChampionshipEdit

This template is only used on one page, and all the links redirect to the same page. The template doesn't add anything to Wikipedia, and is misleading in that it suggests that there is more information available than is actually there. Honestly, most of the pages related to the Canadian GAA are of such low quality that they should be merged down into a single page or simply deleted, but this template is really terrible. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete These former articles in the navigation box were all redirected to the main page, so the template is now not needed. --Bsherr (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Bsherr. Somewhat pointless navbox. In that all its members/links all target the same article. Guliolopez (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 13Edit

Template:2020–21 Primeira Liga tableEdit

No longer needed after template moved to article Boothy m (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


Redundant – the only two blue links apart from the discography redirect to the band's article, so there are no entries for individual albums at all, and therefore nothing to navigate. Speedy deletion was declined. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The guidelines say that even if it were to violate some part of the namespace guidelines, and I have to read those guidelines pretty liberally to find any applicability to the content of this navbox, the second condition that it can't be altered to be in compliance is surely untrue, with seven albums, four compilations, ten members, and a discography. One of the links was improperly blanked and converted to a redirect to the main subject as non-notable, despite being non-stub and properly referenced to multiple reliable sources. There's definitely a lot of room for growth in terms of linking more content here, even if it is a bit on the lower end in terms of current navigation. VanIsaacWScont 19:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I completely disagree – we shouldn't be keeping a navbox just because somebody, someday might possibly write articles for the entries in it. In fact somebody did try writing articles for some of the albums, and all but one was redirected because of a lack of reliable sources, so it's clearly not going to be easy to create articles for this navbox. The articles should exist first, then the template should be recreated. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Turns out there was a second improper blank and redirect of an article in here as well. The template now has five independent blue links, with one of them pretty spurious. Add in a few appropriate redirects to section, and this should be a pretty fully fleshed-out navigation template. The TFD guidelines are written to judge templates on the basis of their ability to meet criteria, not simply on the current state, and this is a pointed example of why. VanIsaacWScont 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There was nothing improper about the redirect at all – apart from the RS Indonesia source, what you call "reliable sources" are blogs. It has four blue links, not five, (apologies, I now realize you were including the band's name at the top of the template) one of which is to a record company, which is a completely useless link for the band itself. So we now have the link to the band's article, to their discography article, to one album which passes notability, and another which doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: the template has now been cut to just the records which actually have links, and the restored article for the disputed album has now been sent to AfD, which if deleted would leave this template with just one album and a discography article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Where was the consensus in this discussion to drastically alter the template in the middle of a TFD?? VanIsaacWScont 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vanisaac: I wasn't responsible – I just thought it would be fair to notify this TfD that it had occurred. Richard3120 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, can be recreated if more notable content is written. Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Four bluelinks is pretty close to the completely arbitrary threshold of five set in WP:NENAN. But NENAN is not a policy or guideline, so I see nothing special about the number five in particular. Four seems good enough to me. --NYKevin 23:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • (Also, if people wish to argue that two of those blue links ought to be deleted, well, AfD is over there. Come back when the template is actually depopulated.) --NYKevin 23:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@NYKevin: at least one of the blue links wasn't there when the TfD nomination was made. Richard3120 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see what that's got to do with anything. If it's viable, then it's viable. This isn't a discussion of whether nominating for TfD was a Good Idea; it's a discussion of whether the template should continue to exist. In its current form, I think the the answer is "maybe, leaning yes." If AfD decides to delete or merge the two bluelinks which are currently under discussion over there, then the answer changes. But that hasn't actually happened (yet). --NYKevin 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The entire point is that it wasn't viable before, in my opinion, because the links weren't there. Richard3120 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I still don't understand what "before" has to do with this discussion. We're talking about "now." --NYKevin 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That if the template hadn't been altered more than once since I nominated it, then it would indeed have made more sense to wait until AfDs had been carried out. As it is, I'm inclined to agree with you as of the present moment in time, perhaps the AfDs should run their course first, and then renominate this template if it is closed as keep before those AfD results – I'm still convinced 100% that it's entirely redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete - If the articles are deleted at AfD then delete this template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Module:ISO 639Edit

Propose merging Module:ISO 639 with Module:ISO 639 name.
Both modules do the same thing (as far as I can tell). If nothing is needed to be merged, then just replace usages. As a side note, would appreciate if anyone can help me with tagging the templates in Category:ISO 639 name from code templates for the next nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Summon Trappist the monk, who I suspect will have opinions. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    Possibly. These two modules aren't identical though they largely do the same things. Module:ISO 639 supports ISO 639-5 hierarchy and has support to strip diacritics from uppercase letters. Neither of these are supported by Module:ISO 639 name. The only other obvious difference is iso_639_name_exists() in Module:ISO 639 name which serves as a replacement for the #ifexist parser function.
    Were it up to me, I don't think that I would merge these two modules. Rather, I would replace instances of the module with fewer transclusions with the other. If there are cases where such replacements don't work 'out-of-the-box', module tweaks can be employed as a remedy.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject The Clash WelcomeEdit

Substed template that was used once in 2010 and not since for an inactive WikiProject. Izno (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Figure skating competition 6.0Edit

Used less than 5 times or so. I find this misses the point of "summary style" as well, so I am pretty sure I am not in favor of keeping the template at all. Izno (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Figure skating competition CoPEdit

Unused. Izno (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Xfd topEdit

This is unused as far as I can see. There is no documentation to indicate it can/should be substed. I removed its only use using a generic {{atop}} (in fact since that use was misused). It's not used by MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser-core.js. There is one user script for a user who hasn't contributed since 2012. Izno (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete In practice, this template is basically unusable, since the various XfD venues don't all use one consistent format. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:1977 tornado outbreaksEdit

navbox with single entry. Used in two articles, one of which is the one entry. Serves no useful purpose. noq (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Deletion notice with multiple issuesEdit

Unused template that was part of someone's proposal to bundle deletion notices with article issues for use on mobile. Nothing uses it or links to it in nearly two years of existence, and presumably adoption would require uptake by Twinkle. Raymie (tc) 01:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


Effectively superseded by {{Gs/alert}} (I just removed the only active reference to this template in project space, and that one is much smarter and easier to use). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to {{Gs/alert}} in case it still has active use. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Callanecc – Good work on updating Gs/alert to be compatible with all GS, by the way. RGloucester 01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment just noting for the record that I'm good with redirect as well - I wasn't sure if redirects worked with templates, otherwise I'd have mentioned that in the nom. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:Gs/alert * Pppery * it has begun... 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 12Edit

SydBus route templatesEdit

Unused. --TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 15:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:AFB game box endEdit

These templates all perform the same function, to add |} at the end of a table to close it. Nothing else. {{End}} already does that. There is no need to create a separate closing template for each and every type of table. Nothing to merge, just a simple replacement. I've placed the notification in a noinclude so it won't mess up the tables. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to remove the noinclude. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect or keep, otherwise we won't be able to find unmatched pairs (i.e., potentially unterminated tables) with Petscan's "what links here". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That's a good point about helping wiki-gnomes. Are there advantages/disadvantages for that purpose of redirect vs transclusion? DMacks (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • DMacks, so there are basically four options: (1) replace and delete, (2) redirect, (3) replace content of the template code with {{end}} and (4) do nothing (leave it alone). I am advocating for Option 2, but would be happy with or Option 3 or Option 4. The only advantage of Option 3 or 4 over Option 2 is that some people see redirects as bad and replace them, which could increase the amount of work for gnomes. As far as Petscan is concerned, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all equivalent. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • By the way, in case people aren't familiar with how Petscan works here, try this scan which is currently identifying Biggleswade Rugby Club as potentially having an unterminated table. This may be fixed shortly :) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for so clearly laying out the options! DMacks (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Plastikspork: Wouldn't petscan work exactly the same if you add {{End}} to "Has none of these templates"? --Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Gonnym, not if it has multiple tables of different types using {{end}} on the same page. Of course, if there are multiple tables of the same type, both are equally bad. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I see some variation in whether the |} is wrapped in <includeonly>...</includeonly>. I can't think of a reason something so simple needs to be wrapped like that, especially since it will now be used in many contexts not as well self-documented by the unified template-name. Lots of docs will have to be updated. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Transclude or keep (Plastikspork's options 3/4 not 1/2). Helping editors and gnomes is important (I oppose option 1 based on others' comments, and I further note that if we have nested tables (ugh) the more specific name clarifies which is being closed) and I see no harm. I think having a redirect (option 2) means each does not have its own {{documentation}}. For 1/2, we have to have a single /doc that says generically "it is used as the end-marker for the following templates (see each for further information)...[bullet-list]". That means there is a long list unrelated to any given editor's reason for looking there and no specific content that may be useful for a given context. For 3/4, each's own /doc (or pointer to the associated table-start template's doc) makes a more self-documenting set that can have an on-topic and detailed set of docs linked from itself. IMO there should be a single /doc for the whole [start, entry, end] set of templates on a topic. An item on my MOS/feature wishlist is standardizing explanatory footnotes for tables, so if one type of table decides to use a certain ref group-name, the table-end could include its reflist. DMacks (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Please redirect (or leave alone) for the sanity of gnomes who look at wikicode and template transclusions to try to figure out why tables aren't working quite right. Also, something intelligent will have to be done with documentation of these templates if this merge happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • something intelligent will have to be done with documentation of these templates if this merge happens you mean like saying "use {{end}} to close the table."? I'm struggling to understand why updating the /doc is even an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect (as the creator of {{Species table/end}} - they all do the same thing so they don't need to be separate templates, but "end" is ambiguous and having a domain-specific name makes it much easier to the casual editor what each part of the tri-part templates do. --PresN 15:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's with all these /doc fearmongering comments? Have you never seen a shared template? {{End}} is used on over 40,000 pages, with a lot of "start/body/end" style templates already using this without any problems, including {{Canadian election result}} which has over 8.6k transclusions. A different template, {{Archive bottom}} is used by many other templates, yet does not list each one in the /doc. Editors aren't stupid. --Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect all, including Template:End, to Template:!). There is zero reason for so many templates that all do literally the same thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect all per above discussion. Really there's no need for so many templates to do the same thing. The preferable target would be {{End}} because it's plain English, as compared with the punctuated "!)" which is likely to be confusing to most editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • redirect to {{end}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • redirect to {{end}}. This is seriously pedantic, but whatever. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to {{end}}. –Fredddie 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ABS-CBN navboxesEdit

We don't need to use navboxes to list every single show that has ever been produced by a network. Connection between the series are generally tangential. We have ABS-CBN (original programming) for the original programming, and whilst that is also probably unnecessary, that should suffice. We don't have entire navboxes devoted to CBS drama series or ABC comedy shows, etc. This can all be dealt with by categories and lists. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@CruzRamiss2002: You're not supposed to expect a consensus with just one vote before you. HiwilmsTalk 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:EngvarC spellingEdit

Replace single use with {{Canadian English}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom. EngvarC is a confusing name whereas Canadian English is quite straightforward in its purpose. No need to have templates doing the same thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom and Tom (LT). –Fredddie 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Agree wholeheartedly. —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete The added sentence on Canadian English about ('aboot') terms being different or absent from other varieties of English is helpful, and the name is more meaningful. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:User page roundedEdit

Propose merging Template:User page rounded, Template:Userpage blue border, and Template:Userpage blue border rounded with Template:User page.
{{User page}} has parameters for rounding the border and all of the other variations that {{User page rounded}}, {{Userpage blue border}}, and {{Userpage blue border rounded}} employ. They should all be turned in wrappers, which will not affect their display, but will simplify their code a lot and keep them all synced. There are already some minor examples of them drifting out of sync (for instance, the "original page" link displays for most of them as an external link, but that was fixed at {{User page}}). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Replace at the very least the rounded ones with {{User page}} - there is no need for a wrapper. {{User page}} has a |rounded=yes parameter exactly for this usage. Either replace or create a wrapper for the Blue border one. --Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Whatever you nice people decide, please don't take too long so the popular and highly visible Template:User page can be displayed normally again without that little distracting notice on top. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 23:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. I appreciate that editors can customise their pages using templates of their choice. However it is much easier to keep these up to date by having a single customisable template than four separate ones. Additinally I highly support making it easy for editors to edit by merging similar templates; hence I support this proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace, redirect or merge per nom. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge It is way simpler if all of them are merged. And add a "blue" option to the parameter. GeraldWL 07:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all and move on. –Fredddie 18:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merga all into {{Userpage}}. Why do we even have those templates? Most of them are parameters on {{Userpage}} anyways... ItsPugle (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all into {{User page}}, creating new parameters where necessary, per nominator. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge all it makes the most sense to have all the parameters in one template, assuming the can be combined into one Multilocus (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Strong Greek/Hebrew/numberEdit

Propose merging Template:Strong Hebrew with Template:Strong-number.
Both templates link to the same version of Strong's concordance, but {{Strong-number}} is much more versatile and used on a lot more pages. --Trialpears (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 11Edit


This template creates an external link to various religious sources. All of these sources are available on wikisource, which I believe should be the preferred link. Epachamo (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The closest translation appears to be American Standard. Compare John 3 LDS and John 3 Wikisource (American Standard). If we deleted the template it should be replaced with links to this translation. However, the LDS page is better formatted and has annotations (links) and side-notes (cool feature). So there would be a loss not 1:1 replacement. The template has around 200 transclusions. -- GreenC 03:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the proposed action here something akin to a merge with {{Bible verse}}? In that case I would be all for it. --Trialpears (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd be ok with a merger with a template merger. Mostly I think we should use wikisource sources vice an external POV source.Epachamo (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with above. It's preferable to use WikiSource as compared with an external source; from our point of view it's likely to be more impartial, and additionally we are less likely to face a problem of a future dead link. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019 Southeast Asian Games Table tennis ScheduleEdit

Unused template. Previously used only once and has now been substituted. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Salvi Sports EnterprisesEdit

Navbox for an entity without an article. The Navbox only has a few links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Navbox from a deleted article; not needed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Wisconsin medical cases chartsEdit

No links. Content moved to the article COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin - trends, which I am updating daily. This template is getting out of date. Jeff the quiet (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Josh TrankEdit

Fails WP:NENAN, not enough links. Template provides nothing that the director's article does not already. -- /Alex/21 10:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Agree.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Three links are too few for this navbox. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 10Edit

Template:Puya LailikEdit

Unused; contains only red links. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Football yearsEdit

Unused. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 16:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: It is frequently, and intended to be, substituted. Sorry for not clarifying in advanced. Eumat114 (Message) 02:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eumat114. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • rename, it's really just a zero padded year span, with nothing specific to football. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • rename per Frietjes, as other sports would likely benefit from such a template, and it won't cause any problems anyways as they are all subst'ed. Eumat114 (Message) 02:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


All the pages have been merged to the main article. Unused template. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

2015 Southeast Asian Games schedule templatesEdit

Unused templates. Previously used only once but they have been substituted into their respective pages with attribution. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 9Edit

Template:Infobox musical artist2Edit

Unused. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Was created in March by a user with no other contributions. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. demographicsEdit

Unused. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Japonic peoplesEdit

Currently unused, contains only 2 blue links. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Unused. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Jethou EnglishEdit

Unused, I don't see anywhere that this language/variant really exists. TheImaCow (talkcontribs) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

MonasticHouses NonChristian templatesEdit

Unused. TheImaCow (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:NBL World All StarsEdit

Unused. TheImaCow (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Northern Irish MLA table templatesEdit

Unused. TheImaCow (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Oregon collapsing section topEdit

There is no need for a specific WikiProject version of {{Collapse top}}. All 5 uses should be replaced with Collapse top. Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • As creator, no objection if it's in fact replaced in those places. I see no need for a full discussion if that's the case, go ahead and delete once that's taken care of (or ask me to). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Archive table row yyyy mmEdit

Created in 2009 and currently unused. Seeing as how there are quite a few archive templates and none use this, it's probably safe to say that this isn't needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Archive table row month yyyyEdit

Created in 2009 and currently unused. Seeing as how there are quite a few archive templates and none use this, it's probably safe to say that this isn't needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Afc bEdit

Propose merging Template:Afc b with Template:Archive bottom.
These are both near identical templates with a very minor different phrasing. See two recent TfDs (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Archive bottom and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 16#Template:Archive bottom) which resulted in 6 other similar templates being merged here. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Might want to noinclude the TfD notice on Template:Archive bottom, it might be a bit messy on the substitutions. Previous merge requests also used noinclude (see Special:Diff/941017622). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging Enterprisey who runs the AFCH script and who might have insight or thoughts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping - will check if we use it in any of the scripts. I suspect this template could be swapped out with minimal effort, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If we are going to combine all bottoms we should go all out. Of course make sure it works with AFCH though. --Trialpears (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Old discussionsEdit

July 8

Template:Language politics


Single-use template that doesn't look like it should be substed. Wants to be a sidebar but isn't. (Would be a very broad sidebar.) Izno (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Single use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should this be converted to a navbox or something instead? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    {{politics}} already exists. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace single use with {{politics}} if relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as Gonnym proposes. --Bsherr (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)



We currently have four templates for notifying users that their talk page is getting very long. This is to me the worst of them with it being placed as a banner on the top of the page not in a section giving the templated user a natural place to reply and is more agressive than the other templates with it becoming bright red if the page is over a certain size. If we have to template the regulars we should use better templates such as {{Uw-archive}} or {{Utverylong}} and not slap a banner on the top of their talk page arguably going against Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages. --Trialpears (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the simultaneous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Template:Verylongtalk CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me note that the nom is solely talking about its use in user talk space. However, AFAIK, this template is not confined to that space. I'm not sure any of the current arguments for deletion apply once this is held in mind? CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As nom pointed out, in the userspace we have better templates that should be used. In an non-user talk page however, I think this should never be used. If someone thinks it's too long and needs archiving and is already placing a template, then the template that should be placed is the archive one. What's the point of this extra step? --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    What "archive one", Gonnym? And what do you think of the way the nom's arguments aren't applicable outside of a single namespace? CapnZapp (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Help:Archiving a talk page#Choosing a bot. Table comparing the 2 main bots. To your second question, I answered that. In the user namespace, he pointed out what to use and in other namespaces, this should never be used. If a user thinks a page needs arching, then WP:JUSTDOIT. --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hm. Let me try to unpack this. First off, you're linking to a help table that I don't see as an answer to my question - surely you're not suggesting we put that table onto talk pages instead of Archiveme or its three cousins? To the second question, I'm not sure you registered my observation - this TfD is based on arguments that aren't valid outside of a narrow scope: shouldn't we ask the nom to provide arguments for the comprehensive situation before making a decision? As for your final observation: you seem to argue we should not have any templates like this at all. If so, don't bury this argument. Myself, I don't agree - the policy on archiving clearly tells us to first achieve consensus, and not simply to go ahead without warning. And I think we agree JUSTDOIT is entirely inappropriate on user talk pages. As you can see, I mostly want you to clearly separate your arguments, so each one can be discussed separately. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    The same argument, "just do it", could be made for any maintenance banner, and would be equally weak. --Bsherr (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that the template currently is only used on User talk: pages. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    To me, the template, and specifically its escalating color scheme, is clearly meant to be used more broadly than that. Perhaps you should offer an opinion of Delete based on this argument - that the template simply didn't see any of its intended usage? Anyway, I'm maintaining that both the nom and the sole proponent of Delete is currently based on arguments that don't quite hold up to scrutiny. The nom because all arguments relate to user talk space only. Gonnym because "In an non-user talk page however, I think this should never be used." which AFAIK goes directly counter to the template writer's intentions. CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold off. Based on discussion (above) it's clear to me the first step should be an open-ended discussion of how to deal with a) long article talk pages and b) long user talk pages. In other words, I believe this TfD to be premature (or at the very least based on incomplete arguments). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for a number of reasons. There is no need for a template, it is to express an opinion that could just as well be written in plain text. There is certainly no need for four such templates. It is WP:POINTY. Additionally if the page does need an archive, WP:SOFIXIT. I disagree with CapnZapp, such open ended discussions are likely to be long-winded, and for this multifactorial and complex issue, fruitless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    If there's no need for a template, why not delete all four of them? Please specify a rationale for deleting this template. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of the 4, only two are banner style, and there is a need for a banner for long talk pages in any namespace to propose archiving. The contention that a banner is not needed when a talk page discussion will suffice is misplaced. We have lots of maintenance banners on Wikipedia, and it could be argued that a talk page discussion would substitute for any of them. However, banners call attention to important issues, are simple and timesaving to use, communicate the issue consistently, and make it easy to find the issue across pages. The simultaneous deletion discussion of the other banner template is unfortunate, because one discussion would have been best, but I think this template is preferable in design to the other, and so I will suggest merging the other into this one. --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:Uw-archive before making any final decisions. Again, let me suggest we end these TfDs as inconclusive. Again, the ground has shifted, and just deleting these two templates might not be what you want. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Disasters in Bangladesh in 2019


Template coming out of the blue, with no other templates in this supposed series. Template is pointing on just four events, one of them without an article. WP:NENAN. And please take a look at the mother template too: Template:Disasters in Bangladesh The Banner talk 19:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete the one and delete the parent too. But as the parent was not tagged, you will probably need to submit a separate TFD for that. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)



FWIW, this template is only used in 44 articles, even though it was created in 2011. To my eyes, it makes Roman numerals look badly formatted. Most article text is in a sans serif font, so to have them in a serif font is a bit jarring, even more so because the font size is increased and so looks slightly too big to fit on the line of prose - for example, XXII instead of XXII. MOS:MARKUP says to "keep markup simple", so I always write Roman numerals with regular English letters, no template, and that's what's done on most articles. That's also how they are written for MOS:ORDINAL. {{Roman}} is used in over 2000 articles to convert from the Hindu-Arabic to the Roman number system, but it does not apply font type or size changes. -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually every example on MOS:ORDINAL is in a serif font, due to use of the red/green templates, which *do* set serif on purpose. So this is not unheard of!Spitzak (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If the suggestion here is that the template is redundant I disagree - Roman numerals in sans-serif "look" very anomalous, (seriffed fonts are called "Roman" for a good reason) and the (very slight) size difference is of course quite deliberate, and intended to make them stand out (or "jar" if you prefer) making, on the whole, for improved legibility. Whether the template needs to be uniformly applied throughout the whole encyclopedia is another question entirely - perhaps strict consistency is not really necessary between articles like Roman numerals and other articles where the template would only be applicable once or twice, and would hardly be missed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If readers can't read the characters in the XXII in this sentence, then I would expect they are going to have serious trouble reading the other words in the sentence, and they just need to increase the font size in their browser. I don't think legibility is a good argument for increase the font size, and standing out is not desirable. Changing the font type, I could see some possibility of an argument for, even though I would lean toward "meh" on that point. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep until consensus at Talk:Roman numerals says the article should not use {{rn}} or that the template output should be altered. If the concern is that a local consensus might override normal procedure, hold an RfC and discuss it at a MOS page. {{Roman}} appears to be used only once or twice per article and it is obvious from context that roman numerals are intended. For example, Pope Stephen II uses the template only in the hat note "In sources prior to the 1960s...". By contrast, Roman numerals has many examples of I and II and other numbers where a sans-serif font is confusing. I edited the article to show how it would appear without the template, see permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The altered version of the article looks much better than the current version, other than some template parameters that ended up becoming visible. Interestingly, three of the images in that article show Roman numerals in serif fonts. In two, they are actually side-by-side with Arabic numerals. Instead of making the Roman numerals seriffed, they actually show a serif on the "1" and none on the "XI" etc. which is exactly how Wikipedia's sans-serif default article text font behaves. One image does it the other way around. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Beland: I take it you are saying my permalink (using plain text I and X etc.) looks much better than when using styled text such as I and X. That may be so in a designer's sense of wanting to achieve an attractive grey blancmange with lovely images. However, for anyone actually reading the article, plain-text numerals are hard to parse. Perhaps the styling used is a bit too aggressive, but it could be made less so if desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep MOS:ORDINAL does seem to go out of its way to avoid using a sans-serif typeface its examples. I also find myself agreeing with the additional comments by Soundofmusicals, and so must vote keep. Louis Waweru  Talk  03:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like that's because it uses {{xt}} to make the example green. The font that {{xt}} uses is a serif one, perhaps for contrast with running text, but that serif is applied to all examples, whether or not they have Roman numerals. And it is also applied to the "Elizabeth" in Elizabeth II, which is not what {{rn}} does. -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and in due course convert {{Roman}} to format them properly. Roman numerals are not text, any more that Arabic numerals are. Most fonts distinguish 0/O and 1/I for a very good reason. Likewise we need to distinguish I/I, V/V, X/X &c. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: Could you give an example where such a distinction is important for clarity? Given "I" means the same thing as "1", and the other characters can't be confused with any other glyphs, I'm assuming it would have to be some circumstance where the Roman numeral "I" is confused with the pronoun "I", and I can't think of a situation where that would happen? -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is to keep this style, then {{Rn}} should be merged into {{Roman}}. Wikipedia should use one consistent style in writing Roman numerals. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Writing is complex. When discussing Roman numerals, characters like I and X pop up frequently and they are confusing without specific styling ({{rn}} is used 387 times at Roman numerals). However, at Pope Stephen II (and many similar articles), it's pretty obvious that II is an id, and most of those fluent in English would know it's Roman numerals. Special styling in that case is not needed and may be distracting. Rather than litigate the issue in a deletion discussion, the matter should be investigated at a MOS page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as it adds style and legibility. the traditional font looks better, and it clearly identifies Roman Numerals to avoid confusion. it may not be widely used, but it's useful within its limited sphere, and could be expanded at a later date. Xcalibur (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep noticed that I haven't actually "voted" on this one - not that it is necessary from my remarks (near the top of this thread) nor from the weight of comments. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)



We currently have four templates for notifying users that their talk page is getting very long. This is the least used one with it not being used since 2010 base on this insource search. I think the entire practice of having templates for this purpose is dubious since it is always templating the regulars since newcomers won't have overly long talk pages and if you have to do it you should probably use one of the better options such as {{Uw-archive}} or {{Utverylong}}. --Trialpears (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the simultaneous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Archiveme CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Also possibly relevant: WT:Template index/User talk namespace#update Uw-archive CapnZapp (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As nom pointed out, in the userspace we have better templates that should be used. --Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    But do we really? Have better templates that should be used? (I don't think it's appropriate to delete anything until we agree what the answer is, lest we end up with divisive options only) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've given you two templates I believe are better ({{Uw-archive}} and {{Utverylong}}). If you disagree could you please explain why? --Trialpears (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    In the case of {{Uw-archive}}, I've provided a link detailing potential issues with that template. Can I ask you to familiarize yourself with these issues before suggesting we rely on it? Thank you kindly CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    In the case of {{Utverylong}} I would be happy to detail any reasons of mine. After you detail yours. That is, so far you have only said you think it is better, but no why or how. That's not a very compelling reason to delete someone's work, don't you agree? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm in favor of {{Uw-archive}} with {{Utverylong}} being deleted (but both are better than {{Verylongtalk}}). {{Uw-archive}} uses the a much more similar style we use to our other user notifications. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    You too, Gonnym - please follow my link and let's (there) discuss the wisdom of relying on {{Uw-archive}} before deleting its alternatives, shall we? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see any real issue on the talk page. You mention that the link should be changed from one section to the section right after. Ok. Is that the whole reason you're attempting to stall these TfDs? Just open an edit request and get the link changed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    First off, please assume good faith and quit accusing people of stalling. Thank you. Secondly, I don't see this TfD ending in a quick delete (not with two deletes, one hold off and one merge) so what's the rush? Thirdly, please discuss the update template I added to Uw-archive at the appropriate place, i.e. not here. Fourthly, I'm assuming you read my argument in detail, and thus you have realized the reason I'm bringing it up here as a possible issue is the potential that Uw-archive might be deleted. In other words, that any argument made here "delete this or that" needs to be examined for the possible assumption Uw-archive will be there to take over. Since this is not a given, such an argument might lose its weight. Note the hypothetical. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold off. Based on discussion (above) it's clear to me the first step should be an open-ended discussion of how to deal with a) long article talk pages and b) long user talk pages. In other words, I believe this TfD to be premature (or at the very least based on incomplete arguments). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete for a number of reasons. There is no need for a template, it is to express an opinion that could just as well be written in plain text. There is certainly no need for four such templates. It is WP:POINTY. Additionally if the page does need an archive, WP:SOFIXIT. I disagree with CapnZapp, such open ended discussions are likely to be long-winded, and for this multifactorial and complex issue, fruitless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Archiveme. The two banners perform the same function. --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:Uw-archive before making any final decisions. Again, let me suggest we end these TfDs as inconclusive. Again, the ground has shifted, and just deleting these two templates might not be what you want. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 7

Template:Music eras


There are four important reasons this template should be deleted:

  1. It is extremely eurocentric in being labeled as "music eras" but having almost only Western Classical music eras.
  2. The inclusion of Prehistoric and Ancient eras is pointless and out of place. Prehistoric and Ancient music are worldwide periods and not related to the European-based Western Classical music in any direct way other than also being music.
  3. It seems to oversimplify the better made and clearer History of Western art music template.
  4. The previously mentioned History of Western art music template is used on almost all the same pages as the one up for deletion, making having both redudent. - Aza24 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: One can still use the numbered list using indentations, thus ":1." and ":2." could be written ":#". Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hyacinth Ah good point, thanks! Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: A flaw within a template is a reason to fix the template, not a reason to delete. Do you think they had music in Europe before classical music? Hyacinth (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Because fixing it wouldn't make sense. Now that you've changed the name to "Western classical music eras," Prehistoric and Ancient music would have to removed as they are not "Western classical music eras." After that we would need to address the inclusion of the Galant era. If the Galant era is in the template than other equally as important minor movements would have to be included, such as Ars nova and Impressionism. If all the minor movements to the level of Galant era are included then the template would basically become the History of Western art music template. If the Galant era is removed than this template would still oversimplify musical periods and be redundant to the History of Western art music template that is used on all the same pages as it. If fixing was an option then it would certainly be my first choice, but in this case it doesn't seem to one. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24 and Jerome Kohl: I haven't voted yet, so I don't need convincing that my vote should change. I find the argument that a template should present music as if it didn't exist until Europeans invented it in 500 AD to be highly ethnocentric. Hyacinth (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Um I wasn't trying to "convince you that your vote should change" I was addressing a comment that you made towards me. ("A flaw within a template is a reason to fix the template, not a reason to delete.") I really don't understand where you're going with this. Of course they had music before 500 AD. However, Prehistoric and Ancient music are not "Western classical music eras," it's as simple as that. "Western classical music" began with the medieval era in c. 500 AD. I think you're mixing up "Western classical music" with "European Music" but even if this template was labeled "European Music" or something along this lines, it still wouldn't make sense, Prehistoric and Ancient music are terms for a global period of music, not for Western classical music or European music. Prehistoric music simply refers to the music around the world of preliterate cultures and Ancient music refers to music around the world of literate ancient cultures, they are hardly "eras" in the sense of Baroque and Classical and definitely not eras or parts of "Western classical music" and "European Music". Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: A misspelling of a a word in a template, for example, is a reason to correct the spelling, not to delete the template. It's fairly simple actually, something about babies and bathwater. Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep with retitled name (history of Western music periods). In my opinion this makes navigation much easier, and the inclusion of prehistoric music etc. is useful for context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): context of what? Prehistoric music and Ancient music doesn't directly lead to Western Classical Medieval music whatsoever. The Medieval era (Aka the beginning of Western Classical Music) began with sacred Christian music, Christianity didn't even exist for most of the Ancient era and for all of the Prehistoric era... Ancient and Prehistoric music are not "Western Classical Music Eras" so why would they be in a template of "Western Classical Music eras"? If they were removed then we would run into the problem I illustrated above with this template becoming overly simplistic and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Context of time, as it provides historical perspective and, as a reader, I find it useful. You make a good point about the title that could be improved. I think this template should be retained and some sort of good title can be found. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am failing to see why the correct improvement is not add articles from other regions of the world that might be of interest. Can you explain why that seems to have been entirely excluded in your original premise? --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: Admittedly, I'm a little confused with what you're asking. At the moment this template is for "Western Classical Music Eras", that was clearly the original intent even before the renaming, otherwise it would not have only included European eras. I truly don't understand what is so confusing here, Prehistoric and Ancient music are neither western and hardly eras, this template is only used on the same pages as the more thorough History of Western art music... that alone is reason enough for deletion. If you're asking why this template shouldn't be altered to represent the complete history of music, I don't think any templates on Wikipedia exist for the entire history of a subject, whether that be Music, Art, Science or Math – probably because they would be too massive in scope and largely unhelpful. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Original intent is irrelevant? The point of changing the name is to expand the intent. So why not do that? As for its apparent current duplication, this one points to fewer pages, so it might be used as a 'summary' navigational box to point to those as well as others. No, I am not asking for the entire history of music; I am asking about why we have not added articles like Traditional Japanese music. Please don't set up strawmen. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: I apologize about my defensiveness. In the case of adding something like Traditional Japanese music, what would the template then be renamed? And how would such a template not simply turn into the entire history of music? Aza24 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well, instead of linking every article currently in Template:History of Western art music, you could link the same links as are in the headers and then add to those. I suggested traditional Japanese music but that's not a requirement by any means. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Completed discussionsEdit

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.


There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussionsEdit

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To reviewEdit

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To mergeEdit

Templates to be merged into another template.


Parameter comparison
Infobox reality talent
competition parameter
Infobox reality competition
season parameter
Result from the merge
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
logo image Rename to image
logo_size image_size Rename to image_size
image_alt Keep (change any uses of logo_alt to image_alt)
caption caption Keep
season season_number
(Infobox television season parameter)
Delete (unnecessary)
N/A Delete
aired released
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to released
first_aired first_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
last_aired last_aired
(Infobox television season parameter)
judges Keep (change any use of "judge" to "judges")
coaches N/A New parameter, merge over
presenter Keep (change any use of "presenters" to "presenter")
host host Keep
copresenter N/A Delete, merge content to "presenter"
cohost N/A Delete, merge content to "host"
broadcaster network
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename to network
competitors num_contestants Rename to num_contestants
N/A New parameter, merge over
country country
(Infobox television season parameter)
num_tasks num_tasks Keep
runtime N/A Delete, unnecessary
num_episodes num_episodes
(Infobox television season parameter)
website website
(Infobox television season parameter)
winner-name winner Rename to winner
image N/A Delete (this one is for the winner image)
winner-origin N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-song N/A Delete, unnecessary
winner-genre N/A Delete, unnecessary
N/A Keep, rename to winner_mentor, winner_coach
runner-name runner_up Rename to runner_up
last prev_season
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
next next_season
(Infobox television season parameter)
Rename (but may not be required)
N/A Delete, unnecessary
Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Whatever had {{Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through |module1=. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  Doing... TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Geography, politics and governanceEdit


  • None currently


Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )


Param mapping
    mapping = {
        # Header / misc
        'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive'
        'Farbe1' => nil, # color
        'Farbe2' => nil, # color
        'Baureihe' => 'name',
        'Abbildung' => 'image',
        'Name' => 'caption',

        # General
        'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)"
        'Hersteller' => 'builder',
        'Baujahre' => 'builddate',
        'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate',
        'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate',
        'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction',
        'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it?
        'Achsformel' => '', # same as above
        'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19")
        'Spurweite' => 'gauge',
        'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed',

        # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?)
        'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter',
        'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives
        'Laufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter',

        # Weight, dimensions and Axles
        'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty"
        'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight',
        'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers',
        'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload',
        'Höhe' => 'height',
        'Breite' => 'width',

        # Steam traction / cylinders
        'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount',
        'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize',
        'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be <br>'d onto cyclindercount, if so, that should probably be changed in template"
        'Heizrohrlänge' => '', # Heating tube length. totalsurface/tubearea is provided, but this is an area, not a length?
        'Rostfläche' => '', # "Grate area"
        'Strahlungsheizfläche' => '', # "Radiative heating area, Firebox + combustion chamber"
        'Überhitzerfläche' => '', # Superheater area
        'Verdampfungsheizfläche' => '', # Evaporative heating area, Firebox heating area + combustion chamber + heating tubes + smoke tubes (total heating area)

        # Misc
        'Steuerungsart' => 'valvegear',
        'Tenderbauart' => '', # Tender
        'Wasser' => 'watercap',
        'Brennstoff' => 'fueltype + fuelcap', # in practice, may solely be 'fuelcap'
        'Lokbremse' => 'locobrakes',
        'Bremsen' => 'trainbrakes',

        # Undocumented
        'VorneLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'HintenLaufraddurchmesser' => '',
        'LängeÜberPuffer' => 'length/over bufferbeams', # ?
        'Kesseldruck' => 'boilerpressure',
        'AnzahlHeizrohre' => '',
        'AnzahlRauchrohre' => '',
        'IndizierteLeistung' => '',
        'HDZylinderdurchmesser' => '',
        'NDZylinderdurchmesser' => ''
  • A number aren't documented in Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, others I can't figure out the proper mapping. Those would be any empty with '' or with comments left after #. This also isn't a complete list of all params, just a handful I found were common across ~5 transclusions I checked. I imagine a mapping of these should be enough to handle the majority of templates, and rest can be done by hand. Would appreciate a hand filling in the blanks, and checking over the mappings made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Please see User:Slambo/DE infobox. Does that answer your questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    Pigsonthewing, thanks for that! Yes, it fills in most of my list. Some further params didn't match up, so I made some educated guesses. There's a number which need to be added to {{Infobox locomotive}} on that list (ignoring the train infobox for now). Perhaps it's faster to just add the most common ones, as I think a number aren't used. Some adjustments to existing params would help too (eg I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox locomotive for a change to cylindersize).
    Besides the ones that need to be added/adjusted, an immediate issue that pops up to me is that the page maps 'Brennstoff' to 'fueltype', but a number of pages use this param as if it were 'fuelcap' instead, e.g. DRG Class 05. Also, is "Wheel arrangement" necessarily always Whyte and never AAR?
    Also pinging Slambo, since you have more experience with this template (and can edit it), if you'd be willing to add/adjust those parameters to infobox locomotive? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)



To convertEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substituteEdit

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphanEdit

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletionEdit

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and IndicesEdit