Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

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 page

What not to propose for discussion here

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 "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 an unused, 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 template

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

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

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

Listing a template

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). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

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/2018_August_14#Template:template_name.css */
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 editors

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. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also 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.


Current discussions

August 14

Template:Alla Pugacheva

The singer's navigational template consists of three links: the singer's article, a discography article and a redlink to a songs article. The two articles already link to each other making this template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Yutaka Ikejima

Insufficient navigation; only one link that's is currently a stand-alone article, the rest have been deleted / redirected for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Liu Yifei

Once the actresses's filmography was removed from the\is navigational template, only four links were keft: the actress/singer's article and three album redlinks. Therefore, it does not navigate anywhere and is not needed. Aspects (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


The last article is from 2012; the Wikinews category is automatically linked anyway so this is arguably unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


I am not entirely sure of the utility of this template. I have just converted it to use TemplateStyles, but where bold should be used, more appropriate wikitext such as {{strong}} or even plain wikitext creating <b> tags may be more correct. (And where neither is correct, should the content be bold?)

I don't feel great about merging it to {{mono}} for this reason, but if that is the outcome of the discussion, it is a trivial merge. Izno (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The three articles it is used in it probably should not be used. Replacement 1 (standard wikitext + kbd); replacement 2 (WP:MOSBOLD); replacement 3 (both of the prior cases). I would suggest at a minimum this template is not necessary or desirable for mainspace. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think it can just be substed where it is used now and deleted otherwise. The edits to those articles have stood without reversion for a week now. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous border templates

All of these templates violate WP:EXISTING and link three or less existing articles. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't delete all of them. Functionally, two of these are used on each border article, one for each country (and obviously each article would use a different combination), which means that e.g. in Guatemala–Honduras border the two navboxes combined do link to five other existing articles. Jc86035 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete any with no parent article; weak keep if they have a parent article. Frietjes (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added a fourth link to {{Borders of North Korea}} – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • which still has no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


What's next? Template:D--ocracy? The seven dirty words? This may actually qualify for speedy criterion T2 (misrepresentation of policy), specifically Wikipedia is not censored. In my opinion, if someone cannot write about a topic in a neutral manner without self-censorship, they clearly have a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Previous TFD nomination (2011). Primefac (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete {{G-y}} unless there's a real religion which genuinely treats "gay" as a sacrosanct (or execrable) word which is not to be uttered or written. Weak keep {{G-d}} per the previous TfD. Jc86035 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both one could hypothesize any number of religious objections to words, images, or concepts, why cater to two specifically - even assuming that someone's religious sensitivities need catering to at all, and that those sensitivities allow someone to input "G-d" knowing that "God" will appear, this can all be achieved by entering GXXXXXd and doing the search and replace function for "XXXXX" to "o" and one will be alright with one's maker, without these sorts of templates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete both, easily replaced by javascript. ask me if you are interested. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both, Primefac made a good faith attempt to assess the usage of the template {{G-d}} which the author NTK removed as "defeat[ing] the purpose of this template". How it defeats the purpose of avoiding typing "God" beats me. The necessity is not even documented in Word taboo. I've never heard of any such taboo regarding "gay". Anyone finding these circumlocutions necessary would be unlikely to be able to edit any relevant page with a neutral viewpoint. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}} per discussion at previous TfD. Delete {{G-y}} unless evidence is given that this is actually a religious concern instead of a POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}} and delete {{G-y}}, per Sarek. While I don't hold by this myself, it seems like a pretty inoffensive (and simple) way for someone to contribute in accordance with religious beliefs. Note: I wouldn't like to see this as an unsubstituted template requiring parsing all over the wiki. As a substitution template, it's fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}}, delete {{G-y}}. There is nothing wrong with a template to cater to religious sensibilities which do not harm the project. I am very much not happy with the undertone of intolerance in Nowak Kowalski's nomination, and this editor should be tr-ted for this nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I am being intolerant — intolerant of specific actions and content, not people, that is. You are now (apart from accusing me of bad faith) making a bold claim that someone with sensibilities which prevent the usage of the word "God":
    • would consider using search & replace a violation of the sensibility, and
    • would consider the use of this template "technically not a violation", and
    • would be able to write impartially about topics which require the use of word "God"?
    Because if either of this conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use, and is only giving a bad example. (As i can see, my point was not raised at the previous TfD.) That, and the possessiveness of the template's creator pointed out by Cabayi, which prevents us from even verifying your claim. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    I wish Debresser hadn't made it ad hominem. I do. That said, I don't agree that if either of the above conditions is not satisfied, this template sees no legitimate use. In fact, if use of this template is simply easier for an editor than other approaches, then its use is perfectly legitimate. In particular, templates for substitution (as opposed to templates for transclusion) are extremely handy as shortcuts, and don't add anything material to the overhead burden of the project. So how, exactly, is this one a problem? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both, per Frietjes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to Frietjes' argument. Not all editor are comfortable with JavaScript. Personally, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it, while with templates I am intimately familiar. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Then use the text editor functionality - it's the little magnifying glass icon on the upper right of the box where text is written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Debresser, you seem to be very agitated by this discussion. I hope you realize this nomination is not an attack on your or anyone else's religion, rather it's simply a discussion on Wikipedia's policies for templates that appear to be relatively unknown in the community anyway. With all due respect, please CHILLOUT. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not at all agitated. I am familiar with Frietjes for a long time, and he is well versed in technical edits, but I prefer a more accessible Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
your use of pronouns indicates you don't know me that well. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – The keep reasons in previous TfD are unconvincing, as they are here too. No evidence that editors wishing to edit Wikipedia will be unable to do so if this work around for a self-imposed limitation that that is a fringe practice at best. Tetragrammaton#Written prohibitions had as its only source a blog post by one guy referring to his personal practice. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep {{G-d}}, delete {{G-y}}, per SarekOfVulcan. Ltwin (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to delete {{G-y}}, but at the moment no clear consensus to delete {{G-d}}. This relist is only for the latter template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13

Template:Deleted template

Nominating because:

  1. it's currently 1 April on this hemisphere
  2. this template has only 3 transclusions, and none use its intended advanced functionality. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. It's a shame that people fell out of their tree about this in the past, but that doesn't obviate its usefulness. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Template:Ogan Aydın

This singer's navigational template consists of two links: the artist's article and the artist's discography, which is a section of their article. Therefore, it does not navigate anywhere and is not needed. Aspects (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 12

Template:Harvard citation/core

unused; work once done by this template now performed by module:footnotes. Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

harvard-style footnotes templates

unused; the functionality of these templates exists in {{harvp}} and {{sfn}}. Trappist the monk (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • delete both. Well meant but never saw any use outside their own creators, so offer no benefits over the above mentioned and are unnecessary forks of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:2016 Australian Swimming Championships Schedule

Used in only one article without any good reason at this time. Should be substed and deleted. Izno (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment There's actually dozens of schedule templates that are used in only 1 article. See Category:Sports schedule templates. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I plan to work on the rest of the swimming ones this weekend. I'll make the rest a continuing project. :) --Izno (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • substitute and delete as suggested. we don't need to keep these in separate templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 11

Template:Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. squad

A famous football team cast into the amateur lower divisions with the consequence that all their 'notable' players recently legged it to other teams. The new squad announced today comprises young bucks does making their way in the game and not quite yet ready for their own articles. Nominating with no prejudice to bringing it back if/when they get back up. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. The players currently linked in the template have now left the club; if updated it would be entirely redlinks, as is the squad list on the club article. Jellyman (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sub Flag fur

not needed as a separate template Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Template that seems to confuse imperialism and colonialism with a straneg mix of modern and ancient empires. The Banner talk 11:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've improved the template slightly but it's still rather vague. For example, as the Ethiopian Empire comprised Ethiopia, accusations of imperialism seem a little unfair. Certes (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Williamsport Crosscutters

Only two links. The rest go to team article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 10

Template:Fb mls rbr t pos

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I joined a few more to the discussion which are no longer needed after conversion to Module:Sports rbr table. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 9


Propose merging Template:Coi-stern with Template:Uw-coi.
The message in {{Coi-stern}} is weaker and less comprehensive than {{Uw-coi}}, even though the former template is supposed to be "stern". Adding a background and border to {{Uw-coi}} would strengthen the impact of the template and eliminate the need for {{Coi-stern}} entirely. Alternatively, just delete or redirect {{Coi-stern}}. — Newslinger talk 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I think that {{Coi-stern}} could simply become a redirect to the more comphrehensive {{Uw-coi}}. —PaleoNeonate – 20:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no merge: I see no need for background and border. They reduce contrast, especially for the blue links, and makes me personally less likely to read the message. Redirecting Coi-stern to uw-coi sounds good; let's do so without modifying the very good uw-coi template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • redirect or just delete I didn't even know this "stern" one existed. The main one is better. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • redirect the stern one seems fine (in the event anyone is using it). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:People and slavery

Unclear inclusion criteria. Unlikely to perform a useful navigational function if expanded. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: Both vague and overbroad; this wouldn't do even as a category, since any connection to slavery at all (whether as an abolitionist, a slaveholder, or a slave) would be encompassed. Currently holds 3 "X and slavery" articles split from a U.S. president's bio, plus a 4th (Hamilton) that was the template author's WP:POVFORK that didn't survive AfD and now redirects to a section. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep — The inclusion criterion could not be more clear: if an article exists titled "[person's name] and slavery," it gets included.  In contrast to the claim that it is 'overbroad,' it is actually extremely specific.  Nor is there anything vague about this.  If you were to create an Aristotle and slavery article or a Thomas Carlyle and slavery article, they would merit inclusion; conversely, if you were to create a History of slavery in Russia article, it would not merit inclusion.  (That said, since the Alexander Hamilton and slavery article no longer exists, if you wish to remove it from the present template, I would certainly not object.  My only objection would be to the (probably-unintentional) insinuation that its deletion bears any relevance to whether this template merits existing.)  This template is of value to those Wikipedia readers looking for articles that deal directly with individual historical figures' relationships with slavery, and that is what matters here.  (In fact, I sincerely hope that more "[person's name] and slavery" articles get written and, subsequently, added to this template, so that such individuals can find what they're looking for.)  allixpeeke (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: allixpeeke (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this TfD.
  • Delete overbroad and unclear; fails WP:NAVBOX. SportingFlyer talk 09:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete too vague of an inclusion criteria. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question — Saying that the template is "vague" or "unclear" and simply leaving it at that is, ironically enough, itself both vague and unclear.  I hope this does not sound snarky, as I am asking this in all sincerity:  Can someone please explain to me in what sense the template is vague or unclear?  I honestly do not understand and, perhaps if I did understand, I could improve it so that it would cease being vague, cease being unclear.  For example, if I should change the header from People and slavery to Individual historical figures and their relationships to the slave question, would that suffice in rendering the template's inclusion criterion clear and specific?  Or, would that still be too vague in the eyes of my fellow Wikipedians?  Would more be required in order to make this template salvageable?

    Actually, having thought about it, I am going to go ahead and make that change to the header now.  Hopefully, that action will be sufficient to render the template's inclusion criterion clear- and specific-enough to merit retaining.  But, in the event that you, my fellow Wikipedians, do not believe that that action suffices, I humbly request that you tell me what else about this template renders it vague, overbroad, or unclear; that you tell me what other changes would need to be made in order for you to regard this template as salvageable.  (In addition to changing the heading, I am also removing Alexander Hamilton and slavery from the template, as that article no longer exists, and am adding John Quincy Adams and abolitionism to the template, since that one does.)

    allixpeeke (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment not to be snarky, but you've reviewed WP:NAVBOX, yes? This navbox by my estimation currently fails 1, 3, 4, and 5. SportingFlyer talk 06:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Response to question — Thank you for asking, SportingFlyer.  Yes, you are correct: I have reviewed that text.

    First, technically those items that are listed are not requirements for every template, but rather broad guidelines for what generally constitutes a good template.  Of course, that's probably beside the point, because…

    Second, the only one I concede to you is number four.  It is true that there is not a single article titled either People and slavery or Individual historical figures and their relationships to the slave question.  I do not think the lack of such an article, however, is sufficient to render the template unworthy of existing.

    Third, with regard to number five, clearly editors would be inclined to link to different articles currently contained in the template.  Thus, if you go to (A) Abraham Lincoln and slavery#See also, (B) George Washington and slavery#See also, or (C) John Quincy Adams and abolitionism#See also, you will find that editors were already inclined to link between these various articles before I created the template.  (Thomas Jefferson and slavery used to also link to the other articles in question, but User:Brad101 decided that the entire 'See also' section was "useless.")

    Finally, and I ask this earnestly, how is the relationship of individual historical figures to the question of slavery not a single, coherent topic?  It's certainly coherent in meaning, so I can only guess that you feel that it's not a single topic.  Yet, the only thing that differs between the four articles currently contained in the template is the individual historical figure under analysis.  (If one claims that that is enough to render the the subject something other than "a single, coherent subject," then one would have to say the same thing about my Religion and slavery template; after all, the difference between Christian, Islamic, and Jewish views on slavery (e.g.) is the individual religion under analysis.  Yet, for all of its merits or defects, I honestly do not believe that anyone is going to go so far as to make the claim that that template does not cover "a single, coherent subject"; so, why, then, would one make such a claim about this one?)  Or, perhaps more practically, what changes can possibly be made to this template in order to make it even more singular or coherent in focus than it already is?

    Respectfully yours,
    allixpeeke (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • There is no relationship between the parties other than they are random "historical figures" where the criteria for inclusion is arbitrary and as noted, overbroad - any historical figure with any notable relationship to slavery would be able to be included. SportingFlyer talk 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Response — With the exception of the words "arbitrary" and "overbroad," you are absolutely correct.  Provided that the historical figure has a notable-enough relationship to the question of slavery that it merits the existence of a Wikipedia article about said relationship, said article would be included.  That is neither overbroad, nor underbroad, but rather exactly the right amount of broadness.  Anything more specific than that would be too specific.  (Now, maybe, someday, there will come a time when we have hundreds and hundreds are articles on various historical figures' relationships to slavery, and at that time, we may need to revisit the question of specificity, but even if that point does someday come, it's not coming for a very, very long time.)  allixpeeke (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails the WP:NAVBOX criteria, and the WP:BOLD new title doesn't make sense. What is "the slave question", and why does it just link to slavery? Natureium (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    Response — Which criterion do you believe it fails, and why?

    As for the new title, it makes perfect sense.  You will frequently find, especially in nineteenth-century literature, reference to such things as "the slave question" and "the woman question."  More or less, the slave question refers to the question of (A) whether slavery is a justifiable or unjustifiable institution, (B) why (or under what conditions) it is either justifiable or unjustifiable, (C) to the extent that it is justifiable, whether slaves possess any rights whatsoever upon which not even masters may infringe (and, if so, what rights those are, and why), and (D) to the extent that it is unjustifiable, (i) what practical solutions may be employed to eradicate it and (ii) whether we should aim for gradual repeal of the institution on the one hand or immediate abolition on the other.  In a nutshell, that is what is referred to as "the slave question."  The term appeared not only in small abolitionist papers with small circulations (although you will certainly find it there, as well), but even in papers as renowned as The New York Times.  And, although the term is not as common in 21st-century literature as it was back when it was a burning question, its meaning is still clear enough to your average reader that even CliffsNotes has no problem casually employing it.

    Finally, why does it simply link to "slavery"?  Because, unlike the woman question, no one has, as of yet, written a Wikipedia article about the term the slave question (although someone certainly ought to).

    Yours truly,
    allixpeeke (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, although the scope has been improved, we now only have entries which appear to be covered by Template:Slavery. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Major English-language current affairs magazines

Subjective inclusion. Who decides what is "major"? Fails WP:NAVBOX --woodensuperman 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems clear and inclusive. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, better covered by categories and/or list articles. and, a few of the entries that I checked aren't really current affairs magazines, which is problematic. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Unused, unfinished, potentially problematic name.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as template "author." While it is unused, it's a finished template because I copied all the code and set up for this from WP:MILHIST. I'm going to need an explanation for the problematic name part, though. –Vami_IV✠ 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I copied and integrated this template for WP:G in case someone needed to reach the WikiProject Germany Coordinators - at this time, currently me - for a question or what have you. –Vami_IV✠ 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think a prospect of a rename is far better, than an outright deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WBGconverse 09:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename to something like {{@WPGERMANY}}. —IB [ Poke ] 12:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, unclear name. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

TV series ratings graphs

Excessive per precedent at prior discussions here and here. --woodensuperman 15:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. We've already had two major discussions about {{Television ratings graph}} in July 2017 and just recently July 2018, where no consensus to delete could be reached. Why don't you instead join the discussion here to try to form guidelines for its use. - Brojam (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The last two discussions I note above in June and July this year both resulted in deletion of the templates. That is consensus. I wasn't aware of the other discussion, so thanks for pointing that out. --woodensuperman 08:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You clearly were aware since you voted on the one that closed July 15, 2018. - Brojam (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion. The other discussion was for getting rid of the base template, not the individual templates. The recent discussions for getting rid of the individual templates have all resulted in deletion. --woodensuperman 15:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet, the two discussion to delete the base template have resulted in no consensus. What's the point of deleting the individual ones if you are not going to delete the base? - Brojam (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The base template is available in case there is a need for it. My personal view is that there is no need for any of them, and these should not be in template space, but, as someone has suggested below, if they are all substituted then we get them out of template space, and each can be judged at the relevant articles. --woodensuperman 09:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I side with Brojam on this one. My perspective is that they add a visual summary to a show's ratings performance and illustrate a rise or decline. They're easy to digest and provide valid sources. - MyNameIsASDF (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: How many times are we going to have the same discussion? Is this what "reaching consensus" means for some people? - Radiphus 16:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As demonstrated in my nom, these templates nearly always get deleted by consensus, so I'm assuming that you're talking about the discussion regarding {{Television ratings graph}}, which is a different matter. See my responses to Brojam above. --woodensuperman 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think that {{Television ratings graph}} is visually and aesthetically useful in television series' articles for a better understanding on their ratings performance. I agree with MyNameIsASDF and Radiphus. --Mrs. Hastings 18:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely unnecessary duplication. "It looks pretty" isn't a reason, and we've already got viewership information in multiple locations. -- AlexTW 00:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. These templates are useful in that they visually illustrate the development of a show's rating, and they are therefore not duplicative of rating information given as text. Sandstein 06:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete single-use templates, no reason for these to be in template space; content can be merged with the article instead. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - They offer nothing that a ratings table doesn't already provide. If you understand ratings you can easily spot declines, especially on list of episodes pages with multiple ratings tables. Ratings graphs are also heavily abused by people who seem intent on placing them absolutely everywhere. I had to remove one on the Preacher list of episodes page which was placed above three ratings tables. Esuka323 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Substitute per Frietjes. Jc86035 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be a good solution to break the impasse. That way, their merit can be judged on a page by page basis, and any completely useless and unused ones, such as {{Barry ratings}} will automatically disappear. --woodensuperman 09:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We should first form guidelines on how {{Television ratings graph}} should be used, after the ongoing discussion has concluded and a project-wide consensus has been reached. For example, if consensus is that the graph can be used in more than one page (main article, season articles, list of episodes), then these templates should not be deleted. Furthermore, we wouldn't know which templates should be merged with the articles, as we haven't decided on the minimum number of seasons and episodes a series should have or any other criteria guiding the template's use. These things are currently being discussed at WP TV and no action should be taken prematurely, as that would disrupt both the articles and the process of editorial decision making. - Radiphus 08:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
sharing content between pages can be accomplished using LST. there is no reason to have these in separate templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused as to why people are putting graphs that source the entire shows ratings on season pages when said pages have ratings tables for the shows ratings. It seems pointless and unnecessary. Why do we need so much duplication as on those pages the viewers will be on the episodes table, ratings table and on the ratings graph. That's three lots of the same information. It's too much.
For example look at the Game of Thrones Season 7 page. The ratings graph for the entire shows numbers looks garish and out of place. There needs to be some kind of guidelines that prevent such excessive use of the graph because its clearly being abused. The entire shows numbers are irrelevant in season pages, what matters are the numbers for that season. Esuka323 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge Substitute only if all of the information is kept exactly as it is now, i.e. both graphs and tables. Also implement lengthy moratorium on TfD noms for this series of templates – this is getting beyond ridiculous, as several other commenters have already pointed out. Modernponderer (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Wanting to prohibit these sorts of discussions won't solve the issue of the graphs being abused on Wikipedia TV pages. No one seems to want to talk about guidelines about when and how they should be used and I think that's a very valid concern that needs addressing. Look at how the same graph is used NINE times accross the Game of Thrones associated pages(Main page, season articles, list of episodes) with the SAME information. That's ridiculous and something no one could possibly justify. Esuka323 (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
TfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss if a template is being used too much. And in this case, there is already a separate discussion about that. If, and only if, consensus is for these templates to be used in a single article each (article transclusion notwithstanding) then they should be merged on purely technical grounds – but such a consensus must be established first! Modernponderer (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thankyou for explaining. And apologies, I thought this was the place to get some kind of discussion going about graph usage but as its not I'll refrain from commenting further. It's just an issue that has become a huge problem in recent months due to certain editors abusing the template and not knowing when and where they belong on pages. Esuka323 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing more to say, I find it very aesthetic and easy to understand. --DownFame 18:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is going nowhere. Different person a understanding different things because the premise is not clear. I propose we archive this discussion and start a new one with the 3 following option.
    • Kept the templates as is.
    • Inline the Television ratings graph‎, that would kept the pages as is, but will remove the template specific to a page.
    • Delete the graph from the pages. -- (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Support alternative proposal (though my previous !vote remains in case this discussion is not moved). Modernponderer (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is "going nowhere" at all. We seem to be building a consensus to subst and delete. However they should only be substituted on an overview/list of episodes article, and not on each and every season article. Then the merits of each table/graph can then be discussed individually on each page. --woodensuperman 08:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, (? as to the deletion attempt), interesting and the templates work well with the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remain unconvinced by arguments that these should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


No one wish to update the template to reflect the 500 constituents of the stock market index. This navigation template is dead Matthew_hk tc 09:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 09:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:S&P Asia 50

the constituents are unsourced and they were not listed in the articles S&P Asia 50. The full list can't even found in the index official webpage ; the factsheet found in that webpage, only listed the top 10 constituents . Since these navigation template need semi-annually or even quarterly update, lack of such information make this template useless Matthew_hk tc 08:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 09:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:American think tanks

Too large to be useful as a navigational aid. Best left for categories and articles. --woodensuperman 15:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete; there are hundreds of notable think tanks in the U.S., and organizing by the geography of their office is one of the least useful ways they could be organized in a template. I raised objections with the original creator on Talk but I don't think s/he "gets it." -- choster (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Undecided; choster, I would like to know what your other objections are because I am the original creator of the template, not whomever you spoke to. While I will concede that the template is a long navigation box, could we, rather than deleting it, break the subgroups into separate navigation boxes instead of deleting it outright? I think having navigation boxes for think tanks is useful. -- Jajhill (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - As a pure template user, I'd say I'd like it to remain, but yes it would be of more use in subgroup form. However, not being someone who could effectively do the work it would be somewhat demanding of me to say "yes, that's the way it should be" Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, better to use categories and/or list articles for something this large. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep, but subdivide in a manner similar to {{Simon Property Group}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Help me-na

This template currently serves no function but to substitute {{Admin help}} for itself. It used to have a slightly different function, but it was boldly changed to the current one by Primefac, with the summary saying, "there's no point in telling a user that they need an admin and then make *them* add the admin help template", which I agree with, but also renders the template itself redundant in my opinion. Nardog (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no issues with just getting rid of it and/or turning it into a redirect to {{admin help}}. Couldn't rightly tell you why I just didn't do that in the first place; maybe I felt it was a little too BOLD. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Propose merging Module:Redirect-distinguish with Module:Sentence list hatnote and Module:Redirect hatnote.
Another example of a hatnote module that duplicates other hatnote modules. The hatnote content is the same kind of module as the modules merged below, whereas the tracking categories are duplicated with Module:Redirect hatnote and should be extracted into a separate function called by both templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Module:Cat main

Propose merging Module:Cat main, Module:Distinguish and Module:Main list.
Ok, let's try a different tactic on hatnote module merging after my previous attempt suffered from a lack of consensus. This set of three modules have very similar outward-facing functionality, and could easily be consolidated into one module taking parameters, which should be called Module:Sentence list hatnote, or something like that. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Neutral—I think that the approach might have merit, but I'm not sure about the specifics of what you're merging, especially because Module:Sentence list hatnote doesn't exist yet. Among those suggested to be merged, {{distinguish}} doesn't quite match, mostly because of the text functionality that got merged into it a while back. I think TfD is the wrong venue for these discussions: we ought to be having an open-ended discussion about the architecture of hatnote templates rather than immediately drilling down into specific, nominally-binding TfD proposals. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    The logical thing to do then would be to implicitly add a |text= parameter to all of the other such templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, and we can argue implementation later (I'm not a fan of text parameters because they tend to be abused), but my most important point—that TfD is the wrong venue for these discussions—stands. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Substantially duplicates {{tq}} for no obvious reason pertinent to Wikipedia. Izno (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak merge to tq (maybe {{tq|gt=y}} or something), since I think the added punctuation mark would help with accessibility. It's also a well-known convention from the earlier days of email. I don't feel very strongly about this, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, the punctuation is a well-known convention from email for people of a certain age (I guess there's markdown--notably reddit, which uses it also) but we're not using either of those formats here. I don't really understand why you think the > might help with accessibility. It seems to add noise to whatever is quoted. As for the green text, that's almost 0 value whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Syrian opposition topics

Very few (if any) of these articles actually relate directly to the Syrian opposition, instead just link to general Syria articles. --woodensuperman 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - of course they are dealing with the opposition. The proposal is misleading and seems to be influenced by WP:RECENTism (Syrian opposition is on the decline). The fact the southern Syrian opposition areas were conquered by Baa'thist Syria, doesn't change the fact they have existed for years, and continue to hold large territories in Northern Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The majority of the live links are nearly identical to {{Syria topics}}. How are topics such as Smoking in Syria and Scouts of Syria, etc, etc "dealing with the opposition"? It seems someone has just copied this navbox and made slight amendments. I think this may even fall foul of WP:NPOV. {{Syrian opposition topics}} is only transcluded on 3-4 articles so it is pretty useless. We could strip it down to the articles that really are specifically about Syrian opposition and not the general Syria topics, but I don't think there are enough to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
With such logic, why don't you propose to merge also template:South Korea topics and Template:North Korea topics, as well as Template:Cyprus topics and Template:Northern Cyprus topics.GreyShark (dibra) 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Whilst those have issues, they generally contain topics that are relevant to the subject and are not a wholesale duplicate of each other. We could merge the non-duplicates into the Syria topic navbox. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. --woodensuperman 08:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I only looked at the Cyprus ones, the Korean ones actually are merged already. --woodensuperman 08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
First, ISIS is not part of the opposition. Second, the opposition now controls much of northern Syria (in Idlib and Turkish-occupied territories). Such oppositional government named Syrian Interim Government is based in the Turkish-controlled enclave. Note that the Syrian Interim Government issues their own passports and have government offices for running the civil affairs with Syrian National Army functioning as the military force (under Turkish protectorate).GreyShark (dibra) 08:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Husbands of British princesses

Being married to a British princess confers no status at all. It is ridiculous to have this template in articles such as Frederick V of Denmark, Ferdinand I of Romania, Haakon VII of Norway, Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, Paul of Greece, etc, or to even group these men on this basis. We really need to set some boundaries for these royalty templates. They are multiplying like rabbits and every minor distinction is being navboxed. It always starts with British royalty and then spreads everywhere. What's next, Template:Children of British princesses? Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks for nominating this template for deletion, Surtsicna, as I was about to do the same thing. Most of the people listed in this template already belong to other royal houses, thus the info presented by this template is repetitive. The other issue is that no such position as "Husband of a British princess" exists. Unlike women, whose husbands' feminine form of titles gets bestowed on them upon marriage, men do not necessarily become a British prince upon marrying a female member of the royal house. Prince Philip is an exception. Keeping this template will also probably lead to the creation of other unnecessary templates such as Template:Husbands of Danish princesses, etc. Keivan.fTalk 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already have templates for British princes, British princesses by birth and British princesses by marriage. This template simply completes the square. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it does not, because the situations are not comparable. British princes and princesses hold the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom, belong to the British royal family, and have roles and duties in British society. Husbands of British princesses hold no special title, rank, or position as such. Even those who are British subjects have no clear or automatic role in the royal family or society, let alone foreign kings. It is ridiculous to group men like Ferdinand I of Romania and Haakon VII of Norway in a template on the basis of their marriages, which do not define them and from which they derive no notability. This is as trivial as Template:British princesses with blond hair would be. Surtsicna (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The template does not even include all men married to British princesses; the scope of the template is impossible to determine because the distinction of being married to a British princess is itself trivial. Prince Harry is now also married to a British princess, but he is not in the template. Indeed, every lawfully wedded British prince (with the possible exception of the Duke of Windsor) is or was husband of a British princess, since every woman married to a British prince is a British princess. Please note that Category:Husbands of British princesses has also been created. In nearly every case it is non-defining (thus against WP:CATDEFINING). In addition to being anglocentric, it is also quite possibly offensive to define kings of Sweden, Norway, Greece, and Romania as husbands of British princesses. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You are so not right in your comment. Prince Harry is a prince by birth while his wife is princess in right of her marriage to Harrry only. The template includes husbands of British princesses in their own right, by birth. Kowalmistrz (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The template does not say "Husbands of British princesses by birth". It's "Husbands of British princesses". Meghan is a British princess, and Harry is the husband of a British princess. The template says one thing and means another. Ultimately, it serves no purpose. It connects men across Europe, of various occupations (from a photographer and an equestrian to kings and an emperor), on the basis of a non-defining and trivial distinction of being married to women from the same family. Surtsicna (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F411:792E:DC7F:2644 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I am happy to rename it "Husbands of British Suo Jure Princesses" or similar, but I would have thought that the distinction would be fairly obvious to most readers. Surtsicna's criticism is excessively pedantic in this regard. I am also perplexed by the assertion that it is "trivial" or even "offensive" to note that these men, in addition to their own merits, were married to British royal women (without even getting into how you can offend people who, in most cases, are long dead). I know that husbands do not generally take their wives' titles or status - hence I did not call them British princes by marriage - but it is ridiculous to act as if these men did not exist at all. Being the spouse of the British prime minister (whether male or female) does not confer any style or rank, yet we still have a category page and succession box for it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Being the spouse of a British prime minister confers a role and rank in the British society. Being married to a British princess does not give a man any role in the United Kingdom. Not having Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden and Ferdinand I of Romania in a template like that does not mean that they did not exist, but that they are not ever defined as such. That makes that distinction trivial. Grouping them as "husbands of British princesses" is not offensive to them but to their nations. It is an extremely anglocentric view of the world. I hope you agree it would be just as ridiculous to have Edward VII in a Template:Husbands of Danish princesses along with Juan Carlos I of Spain, Eric X of Sweden, Frederick II of the Palatinate, Christian I of Saxony, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I see nothing wrong with "Husbands of Danish princesses" or husbands of any other country's princesses. I would not find it offensive to Britain in any way and I cannot see how any other country would be offended by a footnote of whom their royal men married. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Let us hope it will not come down to that. Wikipedia should strive to maintain some standards. And if you honestly cannot see the absurdity in grouping a 20th century British monarch with a 15th century German lord on the basis of their marital choices (or eye color, or hobbies, or whatever), this discussion is futile. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pre-1911 Chinese Military

The template is way too generic to be useful. There have been thousands of battles and wars throughout China's long history (the template currently only includes a tiny proportion of them). It makes no sense to include them all in one template. Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. It lacks the necessary specificity to actually be useful, as the the scope is too broad. --Cold Season (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. too broad to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - the creator has moved the template from Template:Chinese Military History to Template:Pre-1911 Chinese Military after my nomination and removed all the battles. It might be useful if the scope is narrowed. Could you explain your intentions here, Qiushufang? -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - I was simply trying to create a template for easy access to topics related to aspects of Chinese military history prior to 1911. I see now that I overreached by trying to include each and every individual campaign and battle, which I've realized is completely too large a scope and makes for needless clutter. Still I think it's a good ideal to at least have a hub of links to Chinese armies and some of the aspects which made up Chinese military tradition over the past 2000 years.
  • Keep and while individual battles and campaigns are too much indeed I think to include wars would be well within a reasonable scope. In general there is lots of Chinese military history with comparably few templates yet; with 1911 being a good point to split modern China from its imperial past. ...GELongstreet (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 8


Obsolete talk page warning template. MSIE5/Mac is probably unused now, but regardless it is now banned from editing any MediaWiki pages, see Nowak Kowalski (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Haha, as the guy who created this in 2005! what a blast from the past. Yeah I don't think we're going to have a lot of OS9 users these days :) Delete --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, any user who is still editing with OS9 is probably editing with Classilla or experiencing worse problems than this when editing.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fenerbahçe S.K. Board

Doesn't serve any useful navigation purpose, not needed. GiantSnowman 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, I don't see how this will be any use, the information will be in the main club article. Govvy (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:TCMDb title

Official website of TCM is down, so TCMDb title and TCMDb name are unavailable. They are archived on (for example this). May we delete both templates as it happened with IMDb character? Tajotep (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

August 7

Template:HK-MTR stations

No longer in use, except for in documentation and test pages; superseded by {{adjacent stations}}, {{rail color box}}, {{station link}}, {{line link}} and {{rail color}}. The data is now at Module:Adjacent stations/MTR. Jc86035 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, seems like a no-brainer. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Country data Economic Community of West African States

Broken, unused Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

    • I created it to use in 2 articles, but it's not being used now. It may be useful in the future, so I think that it shouldn't be deleted. Anyway, I can make copy paste and if I need it in the future I may create this template again in the future, so it's at your discretion to delete it or not. Greetings. Odemirense (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:OCN Saturday-Sunday dramas

Propose merging Template:OCN Saturday-Sunday dramas with Template:OCN original series.
Both templates are the same. However, the newer one is better cause it carries the full info and has the correct brand/series/collection name. Moreover, the newer one is linked to the Korean template. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Template:Elendil_family_tree contains all of the information that Template:Anarion_family_tree contains, plus more. Additionally, Template:Anarion_family_tree is not used on any pages. 2601:2C4:C480:946:FC71:F76:5CFA:4ECB (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete both Template:Anarion family tree and Template:Elendil family tree. There has been a request for sources on both templates since August 2015. Three years is more than enough time for a reliable source to be found. -- PBS (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Spent an hour looking it up, and the source is the LOTR appendix A. Elendil family tree is now sourced. You can copy the source to the other one if you want, but I figure it is going to be deleted anyway. 2601:2C4:C480:946:FC71:F76:5CFA:4ECB (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep now that there is a source. This is not a paper based encyclopedia, so no reason to delete sourced text in this case. -- PBS (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:c930:f411:792e:dc7f:2644 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per my talk page request and see also User talk:RickinBaltimore, giving the discussion one more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what more comments could be made here. Only four people have commented here (3 deletes including myself and 1 keep). If this isn't enough for a consensus, I don't think we will be getting more. It doesn't seem like these templates have much interest. 2601:2C4:C480:946:A0B5:2353:8652:D6E5 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • IP, two delete votes are from IP. We mainly look at registered votes, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Archdeacons of Scarborough, ON

Navigation template in fact without back link to the subject. It is linking the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, not the archdeaconry of Scarborough as you would expect. The Banner talk 14:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Muhammad's ancestors2

Propose merging Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 with Template:Muhammad's ancestors.
To fix redundancy. Advocate retaining the ahnentafel format of prior Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 rather than the text paragraph format of the destination template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Fear of redundancy is justified. But I want to clear up the reason for making two templates. Template:Muhammad's ancestors is about Muhammad's "fathers" or paternal grand-fathers, where Arabs cared most. It's showing how Muhammed is related to other Arab tribes. While Template:Muhammad's ancestors2 is about Muhammad's family-tree, and how his "fathers" and "mothers" are related to each other.--Maher27777 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
So I'd say leave the redundant one and then make viewers navigate the full scheme according to any personal preferences, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RC Narbonne and US Dax squad templates

These are navboxes for players for French rugby union teams. However, both these templates now have a vast majority of red links (just 2 and 4 blue links respectively), and these teams no longer participate in a fully professional rugby union competition, meaning current players won't be deemed notable as per WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. The majorty of players will have played at a higher level (the season before) and these two clubs are highly likely to return to Pro D2 in the coming years, it seems unnecessary to delete and then restore the info boxes of the teams relegated and promoted into Pro D2 each summer. Skeene88 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Skeene88:, the point of a navbox is to allow navigation between related articles. For these two templates, there are almost no articles to navigate to, so they don't serve much of a purpose. It has nothing to do with the team returning to Pro D2 (and your assertion that they are "highly likely" to do so seems completely baseless), but with the fact that none of the players have articles. So there won't be any unnecessary deletion and recreation based on promotion, it will be based on someone actually creating a large number of new articles to make these navboxes viable. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI : next year, 4 links will be ″blue″ on US Dax squad template : Felipe Berchesi, Arnaud Héguy, Toki Pilioko, Nemia Soqeta. It's more than last year/actual template, with 3 players. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Daxipedia:, template updated to reflect this and count updated in comment above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WBGconverse 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Barbara (WVS)/tv template

Appears to be an abandoned test template, creates WP:REDNOT categories Le Deluge (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Per the original closing comment, I've provided the correct link and reopened the discussion because I also came across the page in a round of REDNOT cleanup. That said, given that it's in userspace instead of templatespace the discussion may more appropriately belong at MFD rather than here — but I agree that because it's creating redlinked article-rating categories for a Wikiproject that doesn't exist to be rating articles, it needs to be either deleted or rewritten to strip its category-generating code. The categorization project can't have kludge like this polluting the redlinked category tracker in a permanent and unresolvable way — either the categories need to come off the page, or the page needs to go if that's not possible. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is REDNOT religiously followed in user-space? I've my doubts and hence, the relisting........
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WBGconverse 08:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In response to the relister's comment, yes, we do have to pay some attention to WP:REDNOT issues in userspace — not because it causes problems with the page, however, but because it causes unwanted kludge on Special:WantedCategories. So even in userspace, pages still shouldn't be declaring or artificially generating non-existent categories — the wanted categories tool must always be 100 per cent resolvable at all times, with no exceptions that the people working on category maintenance aren't allowed to deal with in one form or another. People who work with that tool are under no obligation to just accept that the list will remain polluted with permanent speedbumps that can never be cleared off the list — if it's there, then we have to do whatever is necessary to make it go away. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: Well WP:REDNOT is explicit "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category". Actually, userspace is even stronger, as WP:USERNOCAT bans most kinds of blue-link categories from userspace, never mind red links.Le Deluge (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:License of reference

This is pointless clutter that doesn't belong in articles. The licensing of a reference ("CC BY 3.0" vs "CC BY, version apparently not specified", vs ...) is something that belongs in Wikidata (and can be found by following the DOI links), not Wikipedia. Freely-accessible ressources can be marked with |doi-access=free, or are automatically marked if PMC identifiers are present.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ella Chen

Both templates don't include enough articles. If you remove the "TV dramas" and "Films" sections (which I found totally unnecessary for a singer's template) from the Ella Chen one, that template is left with only 3 articles. Beyoncetan 2 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Filmographies should not be listed in singer's navigational templates, leaving not enough articles to navigate between. Aspects (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Old discussions

July 25


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted on 2018 August 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:User ML Wikipedia administrator

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) WBGconverse 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unused after a month, just a bunch of red links, not a standard form of template Le Deluge (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 merge to Module:Math. (non-admin closure) WBGconverse 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:Sum with Module:Math.
As I said earlier when nominating Module:Log10 for merging, we don't need separate lua modules for every mathematical operator. The same thing applies here, the module for summing make more sense as a part of a more general module than as a specific one. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete OrdinalSuffix after replacing with Ordinal. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:OrdinalSuffix and Module:Ordinal

Two modules with very similar functionality. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ordinal does everything OrdinalSuffix does and more, therefore I don't object Ordinal replacing OrdinalSuffix. As far as I can see the call to OrdinalSuffix is compatible with Ordinal but not vice-versa. chi (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).


Although this module has a lot of unnecessary frills such as supporting zero parameters (not used at all), and a different message for the category namespace (use {{cat main}} instead; main is used on 8,000 categories, which is much smaller than the 129,000 uses of {{cat main}}), it is, at it's core, just "Main article/page(s): foo", which is exactly the usecase of the pre-existing Module:Labelled list hatnote, and can be implemented as {{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||article|page}}|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||articles|pages}}}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added a tfd tag exclusive to category namespace to Template:Main, as this proposal will make it no longer be used in category namespace. Anyone who thinks this is excessive is free to revert or reword the notice. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    The existing note ("The template below (Main) is being considered for deletion") confused me. (Especially on a page that had no {Main}, but {AP} (just a redirect to {Main}) instead.) I think a custom hatnote would be safer than what {Template for discussion [deletion]} displays. No one wants to delete Template:Main; you just want it to stop emulating {Category main} when invoked from the Category namespace [and act the same way everywhere - "Main article: ___"]. (Also the Tfd links to a null discussion that links to this active one.) Anyone can reword it, except that it's protected. Only Category pages that mis-use {Main} (how many?) bring people here. Perhaps something like "The template below (Main) is not intended for Category pages. Currently, Main acts as Category_main on category pages. There is a discussion of removing that function." (It's hard to be clear and terse.) -A876 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I broadly support this as the author of Module:Labelled list hatnote; I stopped short of implementing {{main}} with it because of the extensive category use, but those really ought to be disentangled entirely to {{cat main}}. I think I'd prefer to avoid mixing Lua and wikicode for functionality as seen in the suggested code, but this proposal's going in the right direction. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    What's wrong with mixing lua and wikicode in that way? I do agree, though, that the duplicate check is ugly, and it make more sense to have some syntax in Module:Labelled list hatnote for the plural to be concatenated to the singular, which would also help in Template:Transcluding articles. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    It's not strictly wrong, it just sets off alarms in my head about mixing approaches. Lua output isn't preprocessed, so you can't e.g. return '{{some template}}'; it'll produce "{{some template}}" on the page rather than producing a template call. While your example does things the other way around, and thus should technically work, I'd be happier with e.g. a wrapper module or extra parameter to enable the namespace stuff. I'd prefer to avoid the concatenation approach because I try to make the modules I create easily localizable so that they're more easily reused by other language editions, and concatenation is often unfriendly to localization. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    I was never suggesting having concatenation be the only syntax, just an additional option which languages in which it makes sense can use. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep What's happening to {{Main}}, as currently used on category pages? I can't see any nomination or discussion for deleting that.
I have no opinion on any internal implementation details, Lua or otherwise. But suddenly I've got a myriad category pages marked up that Main is going to be deleted, and no reason given. What gives? This isn't some more "move everything into wikidata" rubbish, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I made that notice a bit scarier than I needed to. This isn't in any way suggesting that any data be moved from Wikipedia to Wikidata. {{main}} isn't going to be deleted, but it is going to be deleted from category pages, where you will have to use {{cat main}} instead (a task that can be possibly done by a bot). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment No objections to convert all instances of "Main" in categories into "Cat main" by a bot, for as long as the functionality and appearance remains about the same. However, I would object if the functionality would be removed without a drop-in-replacement. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    That is what is being proposed, and some technichal backend cleanup afterwards. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep the functionality, anyhow. I totally agree with everything that User:Matthiaspaul wrote. And have no opinion on the merits of the technical implementation, being happy to leave such things to those who enjoy doing them. yoyo (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I defer to more knowledgeable editors when it comes to changes to modules, but I definitely support the proposal of removing {{Main}} from category namespace and replacing it with {{Cat main}} instead. Separately, and to avoid this issue arising again, is there any way to have {{Main}} display an error message when it is used in category namespace or to make this an ongoing bot maintenance task? It's not essential, of course, but would be nice to have. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, doing so is technically possible. Any discussion of the merits of such a proposal is best left to Template talk:Main or Wikipedia:Bot requests. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Main#Category namespace. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

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.

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.


Tamtam90, you're welcome to start a TFD/merge discussion for that infobox. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, I've started it here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Tamtam90, you misunderstood my statement; I was saying that if you felt {{infobox anthem}} should be merged into {{infobox musical composition}} that you should start a TFD - as mentioned in the procedural close of the TFD you've started, TFD is not the place to re-litigate previous discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Template:Audiosample2017 May 10Audiosample ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) merge with {{Extra music sample}}
    Jc86035, I notice you've moved this template and have done some work - why the duplication with (now) {{audio sample}}, and how is the progress coming in finishing this merge? Primefac (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Primefac: Would have been done sooner, but I was planning to substitute all the other templates in the group along with these two in one go ({{Infobox single}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Extra chronology}} and so on). This is stalled because subtemplate nesting errors (415) and formatting errors (7,240), which have to be fixed first, could not all be automatically fixed with AWB, due to limits in my regex writing, the obscene amount of variation in formatting errors, people not filling in all the data, and the lack of graceful fallback to not showing dates for chronologies due to the Lua regexes being written with parser functions instead of Scribunto (I don't know why I did this but it's not worth fixing at this point because the categories will take forever to repopulate). I am unable to write Python so pywikibot is out of the question unless someone else does the rest of the fixes. Possibly superfluous descriptions (438) in the audio sample templates also need to be gone through but I never got around to it. Jc86035 (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Jc86035, Primefac: 700+ instances of {{Audiosample}} have been converted to {{Audio sample}}. That should be all of them, so that leaves 1,600+ {{Extra music sample}} to deal with. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Geography, politics and governance


This request has been lingering for a year. Neither template is protected. There's no technical issues, just aesthetic ones related to the subject matter. The discussion had only one contributor Chicbyaccident who would seem ideally placed to include the required bits of {{Politics of the Holy See}} into {{Politics of Vatican City}}. Cabayi (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of templates that have been sitting here for a while, it's just that no one has gotten to them. It'll get handled eventually. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


  • None currently


  • None currently



To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute

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

  • None currently

To orphan

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 deletion

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. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA