User:Awesome Aasim/Wikipedia:Technical pages for discussion
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 89 | 0 | 89 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 39 | 0 | 39 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 17 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
This page is for the discussion of potentially problematic templates, Lua modules, user scripts, and MediaWiki system messages (except as noted below).
How to use this page
[edit]What not to propose for discussion here
[edit]The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
- Moving and renaming
- Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Reasons to delete a template
[edit]- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- 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.
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
[edit]To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. 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:
Note:
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 Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
| II: List the template at TfD. | Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.
Add this text to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add Use an edit summary such as 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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters 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. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the {{subst:Catfd2|category name}} |
| III: Notify users. | Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
[edit]While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
Notifying related WikiProjects
[edit]WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this.
Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
Notifying substantial contributors to the template
[edit]While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
[edit]Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
[edit]Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Closing discussion
[edit]Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions
[edit]I propose deleting this obsolete editintro template, which links to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions B, which is an old name of Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Wizard-New edit instructions B, which is part of Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1, which is superseded by Wikipedia:Article wizard, which uses Template:AfC draft editintro (see source code of Wikipedia:Article wizard/CreateDraft). As far as I can tell from searches (one, two), there aren't even outdated places where this template is used as an editintro. —andrybak (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Only 1 English entry, not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under G5. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This was oddly recently created with the first edit of a brand new user. Given the involved process of attaining CU permissions, I don't think a boilerplate template has an utility and I don't see it ever getting any use by those who grant such permissions. cyberdog958Talk 20:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Use Malaysian English was only reluctantly (re)created last year by Jonesey95, with an edit summary "I give up on trying to stem this obviously wanted tide of Use XX English templates. I welcome deletion of this template if a TFD is started." Well, I'd welcome its deletion as well. We have too many "use xxx variant of English" templates, some of which -- like this one -- are doing more harm than good.
Firstly, per Jonesey95's argument at Template talk:English variant templates#Malaysian English template is missing: Malaysian English, as described in the article, should not be used on the English Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY: "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences". So Template:Use Malaysian English should not exist. The only differences between British English and Malaysian English described in the article are ones that would create confusion among readers if used without glossing.
Secondly, because Template:Malaysian English doesn't exist (it was deleted in 2013). Talk pages of articles that use Template:Use Malaysian English cannot display the correct language variant in the header (example), and recreation of that template seems counter-productive. Also compare Dgp4004's argument in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Template:Malaysian English. Renerpho (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, in case there is any lack of clarity on the template creator's position. I created this template during the great EngvarB debate of 2024–2025. That debate has been resolved, and there is no need for this misleading template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Russo-Ukrainian war detailed relief map (oblasts) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This map is unused and is invoking a sandbox module. If this is still being worked on, it should be moved to their user's sandbox and out of main template space. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm fine with moving it to my user space. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's currently unused due to the club being in hibernation for the season. There is a chance they will be restored and play again next season. Is it worth deleting only to possibly refund/recreate next season? --SuperJew (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Leftover unused or unmaintained template cause issues. See Template:Western United FC squad which you mentioned below. That template is still in use on John Aloisi. Should it be? If the team has no squad, then this template isn't navigating between anything. If in the future it resumes playing, it can be recreated. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Would suggest including {{Western United FC squad}} in this discussion too. --SuperJew (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:United States 2025 Rugby World Cup squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Members of the House in the 113th United States Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused navigation template. If added to all articles it links to during this TfD let me know, and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Pelé series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous TfD resulted in this being turned into a bottom navigation template. That template was later moved to Template:Pelé with this being left as a redirect. It has now returned to its sidebar template once again. Since there was no deletion review or any discussion linked when restored, this seems like a recreation of previously deleted template (WP:G4). This time it should be deleted, so the page history is lost and can't be reverted again. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Citation DLR 2017 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Citation DLR 2018 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Citation LU usage 2007–2017 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused citation templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Tubeexits2018 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused software release template. Refinery CMS was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Netherlands national football team at the Summer Olympics record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused table as data is used directly at Netherlands national football team#Olympic Games. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Template was previously a table used only in the location above, obfuscated behind an unnecessary template. I merged it into there, and if needed elsewhere can do a section transclusion, as the template currently does. I only held off requesting deletion myself in case the template history is needed for for attribution purposes.
Unused Olympics sport meta sidebar template. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Boxing at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused boxing sidebar template. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Ref supports2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused citation template, other than in a few old talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused software release template. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused template but its name suggests it is used for substitution, however, this template is not linked from anywhere and previewing shows it uses unknown parameters and hasn't been updated in 12 years and has no documentation. This does not seem to be used by anyone. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused sub-template probably after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:FIVB ranking men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:FIVB ranking women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused Volleyball ranking templates. Seems it was replaced by Module:SportsRankings/data/FIVB World Rankings and Module:SportsRankings/data/FIVB Women's World Rankings. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused software release template. WinDVD was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Mohamed Muizzu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Fails basic requirements of a navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This is a bit of a longer nomination. The short version: the new Charts extension is not suited to replace this template, and therefore this template should be deleted as redundant to pageviews.wmcloud.org.
This template has been broken since the Graph extension was disabled. It was nominated for deletion, but was kept and wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude> in the hopes that the Chart extension would save the day and get it working again.
The old Graph extension used the pageviews API directly. There is no such capability in the Charts extension. To mimic this functionality, we would need a bot at Wikimedia Commons (Charts are hosted at Commons) to update the data. A bot would need to upload 53,000 charts—more as the template gets added to extra pages—and update them every so often. We would also need permission from the Commons community to run a bot there. All of that effort... or we can just link to pageviews.wmcloud.org, which allows for comparison between pages, arbitrary time frames, filtering by views on mobile/desktop, and other additional functionality which would not be easily replicated by a bot. We would also need someone to code the bot, and I suspect most bot coders will ask why pageviews.wmcloud.org is insufficient.
My proposed solution is delete the template, which will also help with banner blindness. We need fewer banners so that editors actually see the more important ones, like {{contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Frequently asked questions}}. We could include a link to pageviews.wmcloud.org in {{talk header}} if people feel that the link already provided by the MoreMenu gadget is insufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Well argued nomination. Redundant to wmcloud.org. No need to keep broken code laying around. If someone DOES want to make this work, better to just WP:BLOWITUP anyway. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Newbzy (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete more is less User:Easternsaharareview and this 02:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. TarnishedPathtalk 14:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (WP:PAGEVIEW quickly and easily provides this information if and when needed). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Alex26337 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Only six articles exist for the subject in their navbox. There is no need for a sidebar. Much of this is clutter to links to article sections and links with no direct relevance. No need and not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete another classic example of WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. UnilandofmaTalk 15:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Only links to two articles of direct relevance. Rest are to article sections or political positions. Fails navigation. Not every world leader or politician needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - most of these articles are only loosely linked to the subject. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't understand what this template is for. It is constructed to give advice on how to write somebody's surname, but as a hatnote for readers. Surely that makes more sense as an edit notice? Articles in question will show readers the correct formation of the subject's surname by its usage in the text. The recent edit to reflect "barrelled" not having any meaning in the English language in connection to surnames exposes how ill-conceived this template was from the start, and how its intended usage has never been apparent enough for effective usage. U-Mos (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
NB This template is also redundant to Template:Family name footnote, which in my view provides a more appropriate way of noting a British person's surname at first usage to readers, if such a thing is desired. U-Mos (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. As I've explained here, this is a reasonable explanatory header. People may not be aware of the existence of such double-barrelled names. It's just like how East Asian subjects like Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Jae Myung have a header saying that the surname for both are Lee: Both examples provide context for readers on the subjects' name. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree: the purpose of the hatnote in those examples is for non-English names, where an English-speaking reader can benefit from immediate clarity. That problem doesn't exist for British surnames to anywhere near the same degree.
- And in fact, those articles use Template:Family name hatnote, which is exactly how this template would need to be rewritten to address its grammatical issues (i.e. starting with "This surname" and being addressed to writers rather than readers). So now I'm aware of the family name hatnote template's existence, I believe this extra template is even more redundant, even if using hatnotes in this scenario is still considered beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would say use Template:Family name footnote for that purpose, but again, Template:Family name hatnote could also be used. This template is surplus to requirements in any event. The discussion could of course be closed as a redirect to Template:Family name hatnote, which I wouldn't object to if consensus was that some form of hatnote remained appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't mind rewording the template to make it grammatically perfect, but I don't see the need for it to be deleted. Another solution I would accept is to merge into Template:Family name hatnote but I'd like to see Double-barrelled surname linked in it for context (as is the case for the template we're currently dicussing). S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- And likewise readers (particularly non-British readers like myself) can benefit from immediate clarity for double-barrelled surnames, especially those without a hyphen in between. I can definitely see some people assuming that since (picking an article at random) James Earl Jones's surname is Jones, then Simon Peyton Jones's surname is also a single Jones. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with U-Mos. In the Asian example cited, the "family" name (Lee) actually comes first, and that is the key point. There is no reason for this double-barrelled template to exist: a hatnote is sufficient Billsmith60 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge into / delete and replace with Template:Family name hatnote (not sure which is the best option technically). There is nothing intrinsically "British" about a surname having two or more bits in it. As a case in point I've just come here because this template is used on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi which is clearly an Italian surname which became "double barrelled" in Italy (see Villa Mapelli Mozzi for the history). It's still worth hatnoting such surnames which aren't hyphenated but this template is not necessary. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep As I think was noted when it was created, it was created to distinguish the British tradition of two surnames from other traditions (at that point, specifically Spanish, because it arose from clean up of those hat notes). That is, no, filelakeshoe, as the wikilink in the hat note indicates, there *is* a specific British reason for certain surnames to have more than one bit. There are various hatnotes for this in other cultural traditions, and it is appropriate to distinguish from them. As the British reason is evidently unknown to many users, the hatnote is useful to both inform and prevent confusion. If there are inappropriate uses, remove the hatnote use, just like if a Spanish two-part surname template was inappropriately used for someone whose surname is not of that tradition. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but rename and improve. I have taken one step to improve it by changing the output from "barrelled name" to "double-barrelled name". I suggest we move this template to {{Double-barrelled name}}, improve its wording, and link it to Double-barrelled name. Including that link is more helpful to the reader, whether it's in a hatnote or a footnote. It would be useful if WP:Hatnote or MOS:BIO offered guidance on in what circumstances family name info should be included as a hatnote or as a footnote or excluded, to avoid repeated discussions as at Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. PamD 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Either delete or convert to a talk page template. Oppose merging into Template:Family name hatnote. This is an editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page. Unlike cleanup templates which are also mostly editor-facing, are temporarily and are meant to address an issue, this template is a permanent editor-facing template that addressed an hypothetical issue, so offers nothing to our readers. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Convert uses to footnotes and then delete per template:Family name explanation#Footnotes vs. hatnotes. While confusion is indeed possible, it is not nearly likely it significant enough to justify a banner of this prominence. Rather than banner bloat, we should just use a footnote. Sdkb talk 15:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per comments above (
editor-facing template that is placed on a reader-facing page
andwe should just use a footnote
). It's a minor detail to do with article content and should be noted in the article text, not in-your-face at the top along with any disambig & clean-up hatnotes. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC) - Delete Even if not the norm, double-barreled names are not that uncommon to readers. Moreover, not seeing what's so special about a double-barreled name that is British that requires a dedicated hatnote. The first subsequent mention of the person using MOS:SURNAME already makes the surname clear to readers. As noted, no hatnotes to readers for editors.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The template clearly explains its own existence, and prevents readers and editors from making mistakes in writing the last name of an article subject. It would be tempting and normal to write "Carter starred in the 2020 movie ..." when writing about Helena Bonham Carter, because our MOS says to refer to people by their last names. This template helpfully tells us that "Carter" is not this actress's last name, contrary to our usual experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Jonesey95. This template is pretty darn clear about how to use it and why it exists. The nominator admitted
I don't understand what this template is for
which is one step away from IDONTLIKEIT. Not understanding is what the template's talk page is for, not what TFD is for. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC) - Support keeping but renaming, per PamD's comments above. "Double-barrelled" is normal English usage, not "barrelled" on its own. I think we should remove the British reference – even though it's more common here, there are other nationalities with double-barrelled surnames (especially those born in Commonwealth countries). –GnocchiFan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Sub2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Non-standard special-purpose character-format. We have long had general ways to subscript a "2", or any number, or superscript any number, in chemical formulas, either as regular HTML or as {{sub}} or {{chem2}}, etc. Only use is User:Yhynerson1/ECS, and that user has been gone for 7+ years. Propose substitute and delete the template. The userspage page itself is at best an abandoned draft related to Standard electrode potential (data page). DMacks (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a Pandora's Box we do not want to open. Do we make {{sub3}}, {{sub4}}? etc.
{{sub|2}}produces the same thing and takes one extra character to write... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC) - Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
All sidebars fail navigation. First two, for Mishustin and Sobyanian have too few links and mostly links to article sections. While Mishustin has five links, it is still too small for a sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will still a small number of articles. For Yavlinsky, if you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Both sidebars fail navigation. They both link to mostly to election articles where they stood as candidates. Only two articles outside of election articles themselves including the articles on their respective electoral history. We don't need a sidebar for every political leader or politician. If you took articles from their respective category, you will have links to mostly election articles where he was a candidate. Not a good use of a sidebar. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR, this is mostly clutter and turning these into navboxes would not be a good use of them either. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Cleanup then convert to bottom navigation template or delete. Remove all redirects, section links, and links to articles that aren't articles about the person. If after that there are less than 4-5 links (I include their main article), then delete templates. If there are more, convert to a bottom navigation template. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
A navbox exists for the subject that is much better in terms of scope for navigation. And while that navbox could use an improvement, a sidebar is not necessary. Not every world leader and/or politician needs a sidebar. And there is nothing that this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't. And per WP:LEADSIDEBAR there is no need for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom. Sidebars are much less reader friendly. Add any relevant missing links to the bottom navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Members of the Imperial Russian State Dume (Kharkov Governorate) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Members of the Imperial Russian State Dume (Kiev Governorate) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Members of the Imperial Russian State Dume (Volhynian Governorate) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All have less than five links. Third template only links to one article three times. Fails navigation per NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Unhelpful and unneeded. WP:NENAN. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Two links and a link to an article section. No need. Already covered by other navboxes. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Essentially duplicates Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Unused map. Concerns of OR two years ago. Not sure if they were resolved. If maps OR concerns can be fixed and used then we can keep, but if not - delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Referenced now, and part of a chronological series. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- But it is still not used. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Created over 2 years ago and isn't transcluded anywhere. The small barely noticeable link on the image is not how we handle maps. If the map isn't used in any article it isn't needed. Those links should be deleted. Links between non-article pages on templates should only be available for navigation on the template itself (or its doc page), and should be hidden on transclusions. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - unused, unhelpful and unneeded. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Integralism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
In brief: If not deletion, this needs attention from someone with expertise in the relationship between right-wing/reactionary politics and political Catholicism. As it is, the various categories within the "series" are essentially a grab-bag of any traditionalist Catholic who has written on politics and any pre-modern Catholic political philosopher. Simply uncritically categorizing e.g. Augustine and Aquinas et al. as "integralists" is at the very least anachronism because integralism develops as a reaction to the emergence of liberalism and socialism and at worst is dangerously misleading as it proposes a decidedly non-NPOV/original research thesis about the history of political philosophy and religion that snowballs simply into fancruft.
In not-so-brief: It's a "series" of articles where the "principles" are a list of anything that sounds reactionary even when it has no necessary connection to Catholic integralist political philosophy. Some of the principles and sources named have also been used by liberation theologians; there are communists who are Thomists. Until going through and editing this, the "thinkers" also included a Revisionist Zionist figure—despite "anti-Zionism" being one of the "principles" above it—the "politicians" included various medieval kings who were being branded "integralist" because they were Catholic, the list of "thinkers" is semi-coherent at best and is just an ever-expanding list of conservative/traditionalist/far-right Catholic writers on politics etc.—I'm raising the question of whether it's even helpful to have a template like this since it easily gets out of control and creates an illusion of unity where it isn't necessarily present. It's probably possible to have a series like this but it would need much more pruning and scrutiny to keep the focus narrow (e.g. on the political philosophical legacy of Counter-Enlightenment Roman Catholic thinkers and clerics in western Europe and its sphere of influence between roughly 1789-1975 and their fellow-travelers such as Charles Maurras) and it not just turning into what amounts to fancruft. M.A.Spinn (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: if the issue is with what links to include, then whatever is in Category:Integralism should be valid. Navigational templates should follow the category system. If the category itself has pages it shouldn't have, then fix that issue first. Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The nom. makes a good case for why most WP:SIDEBAR templates are rife for abuse. Editors collate articles based on their views, without any reference to sourcing, and there is perhaps a larger discussion as to whether they should all just be deprecated, because they are visually intrusive and I have seen pages with four or five such sidebars jammed into them! But that is not for here. Enforcing the principle of WP:BIDIRECTIONALity should be sufficient. If the watchers on a page determine the page should not be part of a series (by removing the template or not adding it in the first place) it can be removed from the "grab bag". Is there any policy reason to delete this though? What about policy to retain? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- To add: I have removed non bi-directional entries, but the nom. has a point here about the utility of this very long series. The template has been added to many pages without being tightly integrated to the pages. Readers following the template (which may be few, since it is so big) would be taken to pages that may leave them scratching their heads as to relevance. I removed a couple of egregious examples but if this is ever to be a useful series, more work is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Adjacent place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete and replace with Template:Adjacent communities - This is essentially a duplicate of Template:Adjacent communities that has been reconfigured to work as a sidebar. If you compare this search to the transclusions list, you will see it is exclusively used on New Zealand pages. Every other settlement type page uses Template:Adjacent communities. I don't see why New Zealand shouldn't follow what is done everywhere else in the world. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: {{Adjacent communities}} is a bad template. It's a pretty dumb template as a navigation template, taking way too much space for a very trivial piece of information. I also really doubt that readers navigate between articles like that. Additionally, it is being used in a lot of situations in the middle of an article, which hides article text completely from mobile viewers. Since {{Adjacent place}} does not use a base navbox it doesn't hide the information, nor does is it unnecessarily large. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Clade emended in spelling and rank into order Pleurobranchida in Bouchet et al. 2017, see also WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Pleurobranchomorpha. Further discussed in the text of the article Pleurobranchidae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclerotized (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:OSC notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is now useless as Battle for Dream Island has an article now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as all OSC notice transclusions are removed. AlphaBeta135talk 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- They've all now been removed. ObserveOwl (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete bfdi has an article already. DiamondCat22 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Jamie MacDonald (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There's only three directly-related articles to the main topic here, and they all sufficiently link to and from one another without this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:DYK defcon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation of template parameters, or incoming links. Created in February 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in April 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Script/Znamenny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in August 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Ties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created as a proposal during an August 2025 discussion, but never documented or adopted. It can be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Unused route diagram template. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No longer unused.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep; the template is used now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed; and even if Silver Streak (bus) is deleted (as it may or may not be soon), it can be used on Foothill Transit, where I have already placed it. - SleepTrain456 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:PASE search (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused external link template. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Not centred (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Pointless template that should never be used as it makes the claims seem MoS driven. Even with that MoS text removed, this banner should be deleted as being pointless and misleading. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: This template was created as humour; I was thinking maybe users would put it on their talk page as a parody of {{censor}}. Remember that humour templates aren't often actually used (does anyone really warn people using the uw-constructive templates?), they're more there to give people who stumble across them a good laugh. Newbzy (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Not a test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I don't find this template helpful. It does not identify what a page is, but what it isn't (a test page) and claims in a "authoritative voice" that the page should not be deleted. Any page can be sent to XfD and it's the venue's role to decide the outcome, not some banner template. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Worst case scenario, you ask someone to restore your page. Simple as. jolielover♥talk 17:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- What if a page were to repeatedly get deleted? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:BCTime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused time related template. Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:BAB-BS-Bau-AS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Vignette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused autobhan template. Also not linked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Db-u5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
U5 has been repealed. This template should not be used anymore. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- For the details about the repeal, see Wikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ. —andrybak (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a warning/quasi-DAB. This isn't a straight-up repeal like {{db-a5}}, which I think is the most recent db- to be deleted. My understanding is that db- templates for replaced CSDs have historically been redirected to the template for the criterion that replaced them, e.g. {{db-c3}}. U5 is a little unusual in that U6 replaces parts of it (and also does some things it didn't), while U7 replaces other parts. So the error message I've created here functionally serves as a disambiguation page between the two possible successors (and the possibility that neither applies). I think there's some value in retaining that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per prior precedent that speedy delete templates for repealed criteria are deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Algeria national football team results and fixtures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Newly created sidebar template that is redundant to the existing {{Algerian national football team results}}. The existing template should have been edited to include more links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh yes sorry, that's mistake for me, however if you are ok, I propose to merge both. My appologies and best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Empty template, similar with RC Arbaâ situation. Svartner (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Only three players with articles. Same situation than JS Saoura/MB Rouissat squad templates Svartner (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. The director also has no article. DoubleCross (‡) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Geoff Burrowes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Links to only two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Alix Delaporte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Links to only two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 01:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Only three players with articles. Same situation than JS Saoura squad template. Svartner (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- This tamplates show the current sauad of the MB Rouissat, the same for JS Saoura and MC El Bayadh. Even if there are only three players with articles in each template but they are up to date and give information about the current squad of each team. I am against deleting them Hako33 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:JS Saoura squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only two players have own articles, the others are just red links/non-notable. Svartner (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Empty template, similar with RC Arbaâ situation. Svartner (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 21:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Aziza Jalal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Two transclusions from articles that link to and from one another without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
As WP:U5 has now been repealed with Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism, and the {{db-u5}} template now useless, this should now be deleted. The template {{db-u5}} should also probably be deleted as all other repealed CSDs have been (e.g. {{db-x2}}), but not sure how to do that with it template-protected. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete per nom (but not webhost, which could probably be dabified as a reasonable alternative to deletion) Oreocooke (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Not worthy of its own Navbox. This can be placed as a list in an article (which it was already), but this is a very subjective list that in this form does not explain who/what has determined these players to be the greatest. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, "greatest" is subjective, and there is no article on the subject. --woodensuperman 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Neither of you are adding anything new to the conversation that has not been brought up before (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:Washington Commanders 90 Greatest, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 11#Template:The 80 Greatest Redskins). My notion is the same 1) you are incorrect the team itself announces the players (the comment there is "no article on the subject" is wrong - it is released by official team website and 2) if you're going to do this then it has to be the same throughout all 32 NFL teams. So you can't just make this discussion about just the Washington franchise - it has to be every NFL team so no more Template:PatriotsAllDynasty, Template:Patriots2010s, Template:Patriots50th as so on. @Dissident93 let me know if I'm forgetting anything but to me this discussion has been done and argued with the decision being to keep. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Diddykong1130: your argument is purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NOTHING in your response argues that this list is in any way notable... You are just saying that there are other similar lists and therefore this belongs. Thanks for the links tho. I'll make sure to nominate them as well. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- The argument you brought up is it is "subjective". That would entail it was up for debate by outside opinion which in this case is not correct. My point was that this is an official list created and released by the franchise itself of personnel (players and non-players) that were deemed to have contributed the most to team's history. Even your statement of "who/what has determined these players to be the greatest" that can be applied to almost any template that recognizes sport icons like the NFL HOF. There's no written criteria of what makes one candidate more worthy of the HOF over another candidate and that's why XX got in and why ZZ was left out. Again if consensus is to delete team specific templates then I think that's fine but it shouldn't be argued on an individual template basis. It should be a collective nomination where the templates from all 32 NFL teams are discussed and it's put to bed. Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here are the articles that the team released: https://www.commanders.com/team/history/80-greatest-redskins-old
https://www.commanders.com/news/commanders-announce-inductees-to-greatest-players-list Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)- I'm leaning deletion; the nomination has good points. — Dissident93 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Here are the articles that the team released: https://www.commanders.com/team/history/80-greatest-redskins-old
- The argument you brought up is it is "subjective". That would entail it was up for debate by outside opinion which in this case is not correct. My point was that this is an official list created and released by the franchise itself of personnel (players and non-players) that were deemed to have contributed the most to team's history. Even your statement of "who/what has determined these players to be the greatest" that can be applied to almost any template that recognizes sport icons like the NFL HOF. There's no written criteria of what makes one candidate more worthy of the HOF over another candidate and that's why XX got in and why ZZ was left out. Again if consensus is to delete team specific templates then I think that's fine but it shouldn't be argued on an individual template basis. It should be a collective nomination where the templates from all 32 NFL teams are discussed and it's put to bed. Diddykong1130 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Diddykong1130: your argument is purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NOTHING in your response argues that this list is in any way notable... You are just saying that there are other similar lists and therefore this belongs. Thanks for the links tho. I'll make sure to nominate them as well. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I would actually be in favor of deleting all of these navboxes for every team.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Fails navigation. Has five links of relevance, but not every politician needs a sidebar. And all links can be found on his main page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Relatively loose connection between the articles linked in the sidebar. Linking to each policy that a politician has supported is a pandora's box that don't think we should open. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Procedural closure. While MfD is technically the wrong venue, the discussion has been open there for some time and has already attracted numerous !votes. Per WP:NOTBURO, discussion should take place there (although it seems it may be G7'd anyway). The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Nice job (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template appears to have been created for the originator to mark their own work. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:I_do_coding_so_yeah_-_consistent_creation_of_substandard_articles_&_removal_of_maintenance_tags. This template has been nominated for deletion at MFD, but that is the wrong forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Per NOTBURO, leave the blooming thing alone. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Moved to my userspace. sapphaline (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Not used. Creates non-standard lists (!?) — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- and redirects
{{nonstandardlist}},{{ns list}},{{nslist}}— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Not used
- it's only 2 weeks old. sapphaline (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)- Sure, but there is also not any clear need for it — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- Template:Universal page list with custom separators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template not used anywhere. Seems overkill — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- and redirect
{{upls}}— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Template not used anywhere. Seems overkill — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- and redirect
{{upl}}— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC) - Author's comment. Hi GhostInTheMachine. The template was created two weeks ago after this discussion, it is understandable it is not yet used anywhere. --Grufo (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Unused ship-related table template. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused infobox. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- This template was created by me. I agree with the deletion. Xjptankman (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Unused legend. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:IPAfont (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
We already have Template:IPA for rendering IPA. If the font should be changed to match the one used at Wiktionary, it should be brought up on the talk page, not creating a conflicting template. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- I originally created this template to run some font rendering tests over multiple devices—there's really no use for this template anymore. Feel free to have it removed. Sorry for the inconvenience. MiltonLibraryAssistant ❉ talk 11:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This current roster template barely gets updated. Not needed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This current roster template has not been updated since 2009. No more need be said. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The office of United States Under Secretary of State used to be the No. 2 at the U.S. State Department. In 1972, it was split into various components and moved down one rung on the State Department ladder. The current Under Secretary became the United States Deputy Secretary of State, the new No. 2 at State. This template includes only the pre-1972 Under Secretaries, which is fine, but that also makes it a good candidate to fold into Template:US deputy secretaries of state. I've already added the Under Secretaries into the latter template, and all that remains is to delete the now-redundant Under Secretary template. The alternative would be to modify the Under Secretary template to include all the post-1972 Under Secretaries, but given the material differences between the pre-1972 and post-1972 office, it seemed better to highlight continuity between pre-1972 Under Secretaries and post-1972 Deputy Secretaries. I'm pinging User:Darth Kalwejt, who created the template, with the caveat that they have not edited Wikipedia since 2014. Namelessposter (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Smart move. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Like the two batches below - these are several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for several reasons. 1) Fewer than five links outside the title subject's own article per WP:NENAN. 2) Contain only two links of direct relevance to the subject matter. 3) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 4) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 5) Most link to characters that these actors and actresses played. Those characters have very little connection to said actors and actresses. And links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Per all the nominators reasons! most of these already have related navboxes and these sidebars just clutter the article and are redundant. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all, as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --woodensuperman 11:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Only three links. Very unnecessary to have. Template has a category by the same name and all have navboxes already for plenty of navigation. More is not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Four links and subject is better served by the navbox, Template:Jan Smuts. Not everyone needs a sidebar even for political leaders. Navbox needs work, but a navbox is sufficient. And not everyone needs both. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Frank Sinatra which has nearly 200 links. No need for this. Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - this is clutter on top of articles and similar per reason for Elvis Presley sidebar and Michael Jackson sidebar nominated and the Dean Martin one below. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete, better to use the navbox for navigation in this case. also, navboxes don't crowd other floating content like sidebars do. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would keep the ones that have character pages, or at least make nav boxes. The actors who have multiple characters that are specific to their character creations as actors feels relevant to me. I can understand deleting the ones to whom the characters aren’t specific. Examples: Jessica Fletcher is exclusive to Angela Lansbury; The Tramp is exclusive to Charlie Chaplin; and so forth. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Like the nomination below. This is the second of several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for these reasons. 1) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 2) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 3) All subjects have a respective navbox and are not necessary. There is nothing that these sidebars are doing that their respective navboxes can't or are not doing. In fact, some of these navboxes have all the links of relevance for these individuals. If the navboxes are missing or are not linked, than that is an easy fix. The navboxes make these redundant and are not doing anything different or better. 4) Links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. 5) For a specific subject, Dean Martin has a giant navbox as it is. No need for him to have a sidebar when the navbox is so large that even adding links from there to a sidebar for Dean Martin would just be overkill as that template has about 100 links to articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete or delete/replace with navboxes where necessary. it is better to use the navbox for navigation in this case. also, navboxes don't crowd other floating content like sidebars do. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - most of these already have related navboxes and these sidebars just clutter the article and are redundant. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all, as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --woodensuperman 11:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
This is the first of several unnecessary sidebars for actors. This group of sidebars meet deletion requirements for several reasons. 1) Fewer than five links outside the title subject's own article per WP:NENAN. 2) Contain only two links of direct relevance to the subject matter. 3) Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - while generally discouraged and can be used on a case-by-case basis, it also states "are a cohesive collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." We don't have enough articles for navigation. 4) WP:NENAT - not every subject warrants a template for it. Be it a sidebar or navbox. These are just clutter at the top of articles. 5) Most link to characters that these actors and actresses played. Those characters have very little connection to said actors and actresses. 6) Irrelevant links. For instance, Susan Sarandon's sidebar has a link to UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. Just no direct relevance that warrants its inclusion. Many people have served as UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. And links to Commons and Wikiquote just add more unnecessary links that fluff up the sidebar to make it look like there is enough navigation. But use of external links even to sister projects are generally discouraged as on Wikipedia it is meant for articles or pages on Wikipedia, not anywhere else. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete, but I wouldn't oppose the creation of navboxes in the cases where a significant number of links could be identified. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - most of these already have related navboxes and these sidebars just clutter the article and are redundant. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all, as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --woodensuperman 11:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
After removing a massive amount of overlinking this is a sidebar that is not needed. All links can be found directly on the main Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) article. Plus, more sidebar templates are not needed. The main article is filled with four in the lead. Two more added by me which are related and relevant. Navigation is plenty from the main article and category. Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - not every article subject warrants a sidebar and I think this is more clutter than it needs to be despite best intentions. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Old discussions
[edit]Lua error in Module:XfD_old at line 17: bad argument #1 to 'gmatch' (string expected, got nil).
Completed discussions
[edit]A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.
Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed Templates for discussion Templates for discussion Category:Wikipedia discussion