Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
Page for discussing mergers and deletions of templates
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For templates nominated today, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 August 2. For nominating TimedText pages or talk pages, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 113 0 113
TfD 0 1 5 0 6
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 18 25 16 0 59
RfD 0 0 77 0 77
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Templates for deletion (TfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether a template or Lua module should be deleted or merged. Nominated templates are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
If you want to nominate a template or module for deletion or merging, follow the instructions below. The discussion could result in an outcome other than the one you nominate it for (e.g., a merge nomination can result in deletion).

How to use this page

[edit ]

Reasons for nominating a template

[edit ]
  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.

What not to nominate here

[edit ]

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

Nominate a template

[edit ]

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an template on your own.Your account isautoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to easily nominate templates!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate templates, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.

Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a template for deletion or for merging into another template. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related templates at once, nominate the first template using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional templates into the existing nomination.

You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the template should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, such as merge or redirect, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. For desired outcomes other than deletion, the statement typically starts with '''Propose merging''' [[Template:...]] into [[Template:...]].

Only registered users can nominate templates for deletion or merging. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate templates. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.

Methods

[edit ]

Twinkle

[edit ]
How to nominate a template at TfD
After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the template you want to nominate
Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!

The easiest way to nominate templates for deletion or merging is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:

  1. Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
  2. Go back to the template, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
  3. Select your desired outcome from the list (delete or merge) and write a short nomination statement
  4. If you want to nominate more than one template, follow these additional steps

Manual method

[edit ]

If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to nominate templates at TfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|name of the template}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the first nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use {{Catfd|header=name of the first template}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026_August_2#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

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

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

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

Related categories
If this template deletion proposal involves a category populated solely by templates, paste this code in the |text= field of the {{Tfd2}} template, before your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|name of the category}}

Nominate multiple templates

[edit ]

If nominating similar templates for deletion or merging, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition. However, if a template in the group has a significantly better chance of standing on its own merits, it should not be bundled—nominate it separately. For the sake of clarity, nominations should only be bundled near the start of the process, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following a couple other editors' comments.

Nominate the first template, preferably using Twinkle
To do it manually instead, follow Step 1 above. Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=name of the first template}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of the other template|heading=name of the first template}} instead of the versions given in Step 1 , but still not changing the PAGENAME code.
List the template
To do it manually, follow Step 2 above, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |).
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|name of the first template|name of the second template|name of the third template|title=name of the first template|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|name of the first template|name of the second template|with=main template (optional)|title=name of the first template|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
If there is a template you want the other templates to be merged into, you can optionally specify it using |with= as shown in the example above.

After nominating, notify interested parties

[edit ]

While listing a template at TfD is sufficient, 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 template policies or guidelines, and please provide a link to the TfD discussion page itself.

Deletion sorting lists
After nominating a template, you can optionally inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "Deletion sorting lists", such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or specific countries. Since many people watch these sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, adding your recent TfD nomination to one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. If you do it, insert {{subst:delsort|topic|~~~~}} as a new comment at the bottom of the TfD discussion, to let others know.
Notify 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.
Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will result in the article 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.
Notify 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 templates that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template, use the Page History tool, or use Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed. To notify them, you can ping them in a comment on the TfD discussion, such as {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Notifying contributors to the templates. ~~~~. Alternatively, you can send them a talk page message using {{subst:Tfd notice|Name of the template}} (if you nominated it for deletion) or {{subst:Tfm notice|Name of the template}} (if you nominated it for merging).

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator.

Discussion

[edit ]

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit ]

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

Current discussions

[edit ]

This arrived unannounced on some pages. There are multiple issues with it, and it adds to the template clutter. Some issues:

  1. The name is not properly defining. Evangelicalism is the head article. Evangelical protestantism is harder to define, since, for instance, in Germany evangelical just means protestant. We already have a protestantism sidebar.
  2. Assuming the intent is to have an Evangelicalism sidebar, this is not that. It contains early Pentecostals that were not considered evangelical, whist omitting all the early evangelicals. It is American-centric, and is really just one editor's conception of what constitutes evangelicalism, with no sign that there is any engagement with the historiography.
  3. We already have a whole portal for Evangelical Christianity (linked in the template). There is no need to duplicate the collation.
  4. The envisaged size of this makes it more appropriate for a WP:NAVBOX at the foot of pages rather than a visually intrusive WP:SIDEBAR.
  5. Fixable, but the heavy black used is a complete eyesore. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Trivial categorisation of a music review by a publication. No reason why this publication's distinction should be highlighted compared to other mainstream reviews. ~2026-42501-48 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, superseded by Template:Current leader PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 02:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, superseded by Template:Current leader PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 02:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply


team is no longer professional; no current squad template needed Joeykai (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

team is no longer professional; no current squad template needed Joeykai (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

too early for this. All links are red except at the top, which is a given. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

club is no longer professional; current squad template not needed Joeykai (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

club is no longer professional; no need for a current squad template Joeykai (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Similar to football, we should not be creating templates for every minor or regional futsal tournament. Only FIFA and confederation-organised tournaments should have squad navboxes. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary, all the links to the players are redirects to the squad page. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and per the outcomes of previous TfD discussions (example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), international squad navigational boxes should only exist for the senior men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. This template is not for such a competition, and there already is a dedicated squad subpage at 2026 ASEAN Championship squads, so information on the roster is still retained. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

team is no longer professional; current squad template not needed Joeykai (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

team is defunct; no need for a current squad template Joeykai (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Team no longer competes so a current squad template is no longer necessary Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

team is no longer professional; current squad template not needed Joeykai (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

team is no longer professional; current squad template not needed Joeykai (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

club is not active, no current squad template needed Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

club is defunct, no current squad template needed Joeykai (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply


No transclusions or documentation. No main article for this sidebar. WP:TOOSOON. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J 947 ‡ edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions or documentation. No main article for this sidebar. WP:TOOSOON. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J 947 ‡ edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

This appears to be an advertisement for ChatGPT. LLMs has next to no place on Wikipedia. I am nominating this template chiefly for discussion, not necessarily outright deletion (I picked delete in Twinkle mostly because the only other choice was "merge"). Perhaps the community would find it appropriate to ban it from certain spaces, for instance. For example: should we avoid using this template in Help and Wikipedia space (on doc pages)? Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Here is an example usage: Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models § Copyediting Personally I feel very dubious about this. Hence this discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply
How is it an "ad" for ChatGPT? You can indicate the model you asked the inquiry to. Is the similar "tweet" template an ad for Twitter? Why should this template be banned from any namespaces? I think such a template is useful even as LLM usage is discouraged across Wikipedia. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, So first off, no this isn't a ChatGPT advert. It's literally made so that you can plug in the name and reference any AI agent. Secondly, like it or not, we do talk about LLMs a fair bit, in our articles about them, on talk pages, in Wikipedia pages or on other discussion pages etc. This template just allows folks to have a format in which to show that a "chat" with the LLM, when discussing its behavior (regardless of whether they are discussing the interaction in a negative light or a positive light). The original purpose of the template was to illustrate vibe-coding, prompt injection attacks, and similar to the readers, however, I see that folks are using it in more places, and that seems fine. The aim here is not to encourage usage in violation of policy, obviously, but to use it similarly to the image/tweet/gallery, as an illustration of an effect/(in)famous interaction etc. -- Sohom (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

World Radio Network has never had any membership. It's a business (now owned by Encompass Digital Media) relaying programs from different international radio stations, which in no way are 'members'. https://encompass.tv/solutions/radio/world-radio-network/ Dalex dalex (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Why not rename "WRN affiliate stations" or similar? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, categories, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I felt sorry to be notified. Template_talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Main#Edit_request_30_May_2026 Sinsyuan ✍️ PJTW 04:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Keep this could be used on a case by case basis for featured articles on topics which garner controversy. Aasim (話す(はなす)) 06:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Premature, there is an open edit request that would add this template to system messages. Aasim (話す(はなす)) 06:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This is basically a duplicate of {{Infobox organization }}. Delete and replace with that. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 04:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

It is not "basically" a duplicate of inbox organization. Many unique parameters, which are the MOST important pieces information to have in the infobox for a presidential transition. The parameters that render "Date of election", "transition start", "inauguration date", "president-elect", "Vice president-elect", "outgoing president" "outgoing vice president", "chairman of the transition" are examples unique parameters that only need to be utilized in articles for presidential transitions.
This template is in use in nineteen articles. SecretName101 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep per the rationale of SecretName101 which makes great arguments that I agree with. Especially considering that President of the United States is basically both the most powerful and most famous office in the world. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Redirect templates for WikiProjects

[edit ]

I am nominating all (but one, see below) templates in Category:Redirect templates for WikiProjects for merging into their non-WikiProject equivalents (example: Template:R ME from former name into Template:R from former name). These templates have no reason to exist, as they directly duplicate specific rcat templates; besides, redirects can already be monitored by WikiProjects using the TM:WikiProject banner shell. This follows consensus established at a previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5#Redirect comics templates. I actually planned to nominate these WP:Comics rcat templates I see in WP:Capricorn, but the entries seem to be vestigial, likely because User:Wugapodes/Capricorn/RedirectTemplates.json has not been updated since last discussion, and they seem consistent with what was merged before. One exception: like in the previous discussion, I am not nominating Template:R comics naming convention because it has no equivalent and therefore serves a dedicated purpose, independent from its relation to WikiProject Comics. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Comment I realize that I am saying "merge", but in this case "delete" might be more appropriate, since the "merge" would simply involve tagging all the relevant pages with the equivalent non-WikiProject template and then removing them. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Pages like Deagol Deagol use the regular {{R without diacritics }} and instead include Category:Middle-earth redirects from titles without diacritics directly. In those case, you only need to remove the category without changing the rcat template.
Also, I think just saying that the redirects can be tagged with WikiProject banner shell should not be enough. The templates should only be deleted if this tagging is actually done. Warudo (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply
An automated mass edit of the talk pages of these redirects to add Template:WikiProject Middle-earth is probably not a particularly big obstacle, but it is not something that I should do or request preemptively in any case. While I see your point, I also do not believe it is the responsibility of the community at large to do maintenance that is only for the sake of specific WikiProjects. So while this can be a consideration regarding the how, I do not think it should affect the why of the proposal. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I mean, presumably the WikiProject editors thought that keeping track of these redirects was important enough to make dedicated rcats for them. I just don't like the idea of us coming along and breaking that functionality without providing an alternative. Warudo (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply
The functionality for these redirects and their tagging was set up a long time ago. I don't have time to check right now, but I don't think anything major would break if those commenting here were wanting to update things to the current consensus on how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

All the functions of these templates can be done by main templates - these are the ones that don't have a "2" at the end of the name. Unused, unnecessary. Maiō T. (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I have recently created the new template Template:Listed buildings in Berkshire, which includes all listed buildings with articles in Reading as well as in other districts of Berkshire. (This is similar to Template:Listed buildings in Hertfordshire or Template:Listed buildings in Buckinghamshire.) Since this Berkshire template contains all the information in the Reading template, I have replaced the Reading template with the Berkshire template on all the pages on which it appears. The Reading template could therefore be merged or deleted, since its purpose is now fully performed by the Berkshire template. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Won't these templates end up getting too large as there are over 4000 listed buildings in Berkshire and while not all will probably have articles many more probably will. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I don't think so; the vast majority of listed buildings are Grade II buildings of some architectural interest but where there is not really very much that anyone would want to write a Wikipedia article about (many of them are just old houses). My impression from looking through all these articles and comparing them with the official listings is that we probably have articles on most of the buildings that we would want to have articles on, and that we might reasonably expect to get a few more articles on some of the more interesting buildings in future but probably no drastic increase any time soon.
Of course if this did become a problem we could always consider dividing templates later, but for the time being I think it's best to have navboxes that allow the user to see a whole county at once, rather than just the small area consisting of a single district. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

phab:T375440 is complete. This is now not being used by mw:Extension:PageTriage. Sohom (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The template only has one active link. Backstreet Springsteen (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 04:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Essentially obsolete now, since the 2005 run ended in 2025. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 04:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:Ontario PC leaders with Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
{{Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario }} concisely includes all the articles included on {{Ontario PC leaders }}, and more. No need for a second template with slightly different formatting. RedBlueGreen 93 18:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply


All "lang-x" templates were merged to Template:langx. This one is not needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 18:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply


Unused template, not a type that is used on any other airline article, and is entirely unsourced. Not needed/wanted so delete. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Not sure why it was created in the first place. Cubnorth (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Template:Convert mu

[edit ]

Specific instance of a conversion (Chinese mu to hectares) for a unit that should be supported in Template:Convert. If there is a usage case for a different mu unit, that can be supported as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete (G3). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions. Broken and unusable. The wikilinks go to a fictional nation in a video game, to a redirect that leads to an article about a mountain, to an article for a river, or to a disambiguation page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
It seems that every one of these is meant to be for a fictional country in Genshin Impact , but some are not disambiguated correctly. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Same case with this discussion. ꕥ D.18th ꕥ →Message me← 08:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Please state the reason for deletion, Wontforgetaboutyou (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@Wontforgetaboutyou I think it is better that you click the link in the words "this discussion" then read and comprehend. ꕥ D.18th ꕥ →Message me← 11:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
When I clicked in the link in "this discussion" it only showed discussion on the finished 2026 AVC Men's Cup. The reason says "Single-use article content. 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup is over, so this table is stable," which is untrue for the upcoming 2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship. Still, the template of 2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship pool tables was deleted anyway, so all my opinions should not matter from now on. Wontforgetaboutyou (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As the creator and following the decision of this discussion. ꕥ D.18th ꕥ →Message me← 08:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Unused after content was place in the article where it belonged. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 02:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Now unused after content was placed in the article where it belonged. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 01:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply


Propose merging Template:Hellblade with Template:Ninja Theory.
Significant overlapping between the studio template and the franchise template OceanHok (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Oppose. The Hellblade template should remain separate from the Ninja Theory template, as they serve different purposes. The franchise template covers a specific video game series, while the studio template covers the developer's broader works and history. Many video game franchises have their own templates alongside developer templates, even when there is some overlap. A merger would reduce navigation value for readers interested specifically in the Hellblade series. The template could be considered for merging only if the franchise becomes inactive or no longer has enough relevant articles to justify its own navigation template. Axios512 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
There is essentially 100% overlap here though. I would understand the need for a separate template if you have games made by studios other than NT, character articles/articles about other media (see something like Template:Until Dawn), but so far I do not see the need why this needs to exist. OceanHok (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn in favour of MfD. Apologies, and thanks, Pppery :). (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This template is dependent on the now-deleted Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, which was populated by Template:Adopt me before its deletion at TfD last September. It now has no use (and permanently displays the number of users seeking adoption as -1). GoldRomean (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose merging Template:Infobox urban feature with Template:Infobox street.
"Infobox square" was previously merged into "Infobox Street". It seems that the latter can do this job (with minimal, if any, changes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Well, that's why I brought it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 27#Template:Infobox square - it doesn't make much sense for square to redirect to street, when it can redirect to urban feature, which actually seems logical (a square is an urban feature, it's not a street). --Joy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I should mention that I tagged that redirect for discussion, which affected ~50 articles, but this sort of a discussion affects ~4k + ~500 articles. I don't think the squares are enough of a big deal in comparison :) --Joy (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

What is the rationale for merging? Simply 'can do this job' doesn't imply any improvement and IMO is not a rationale. Please provide more details. Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Seconded. While I think we can reasonably say that a square is just a type of street (a flattened surface in an urban environment where people can move from one place to the next, or hold events, etc. with a street name, addresses etc.), "urban feature" is rather vague but simultaneously a lot broader than that. Does it include fountains, gardens, monuments, statues etc.? Then I Oppose this merger because those aren't "streets". NLeeuw (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Thirded. If there is to be any merger, then "Infobox street" should be merged into "Infobox urban feature", as the former is an example of the latter, not the other way round. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Nonsense:
A redirect from 'urban feature' to 'street' will suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Again, but why would we even bother doing any of that, when all I asked for is to have a good destination for Infobox square?
By this I implied that Infobox street was not a good one - the parameters mostly don't match. The parameters of urban feature, however, mostly do match.
I think I made a mistake, I should have simply updated it myself and cleaned up the 50 existing square transclusions, and it would have been less effort than to deal with all this. :) --Joy (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Again, WP:Infobox consolidation. The destination of the Infobox square redirect is orthogonal to the issue at hand. But Wikipedia is voluntary; you do not have to "deal with" with any of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
We already have other, more specific, infoboxes for fountains, gardens, monuments, and statues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
WP:Infobox consolidation. We have ample precedent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
As far as I view, {{Infobox street }} is more similar to {{Infobox road }} (used for "major" highways like the Henry Hudson Parkway) than {{Infobox urban feature }}. {{Infobox urban feature }} is usually used for points of interest like the Hess triangle. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Parameter analysis

From the monthly parameter reports, the following 49 (削除) 44 (削除ここまで) parameters are used in {{Infobox urban feature }} and have a corresponding parameter in {{Infobox street }}:

  • |address1=
  • |address2=
  • |area=
  • |complete=
  • |construction=
  • |cost=
  • |demolished=
  • |designer=
  • |destroyed=
  • |embedded=
  • |former_names=
  • |ind_name=
  • |ind_name_lang=
  • |image_alt=
  • |image_map=
  • |image_oth=
  • |image_place=
  • |imagesize=
  • |length=
  • |location=
  • |map_alt=
  • |map_caption=
  • |mapframe=
  • |mapframe-caption=
  • |mapframe-coordinates=
  • |mapframe-custom=
  • |mapframe-frame-width=
  • |mapframe-marker=
  • |mapframe-point=
  • |mapframe-shape=
  • |mapframe-stroke-color=
  • |mapframe-stroke-width=
  • |mapframe-wikidata=
  • |mapframe-zoom=
  • |name=
  • |native_name=
  • |native_name_lang=
  • |open=
  • |other_names=
  • |owner=
  • |type=
  • |pushpin_label=
  • |pushpin_label_position=
  • |pushpin_map=
  • |pushpin_map_alt=
  • |pushpin_map_caption=
  • |pushpin_mapsize=
  • |pushpin_relief=
  • |website=

The following 16 (削除) 21 (削除ここまで) parameters are not in {{Infobox street }} and would have to be added in the merge:

  • |amenities=
  • |architectural_style=
  • |builder=
  • (削除) |construction= (削除ここまで)
  • |coor_pinpoint=
  • |coordinates_footnote=
  • |dedicated_to=
  • |dimensions=
  • |features=
  • |footnotes=
  • |height=
  • (削除) |ind_name= (削除ここまで)
  • (削除) |ind_name_lang= (削除ここまで)
  • |manager=
  • |nickname=
  • (削除) |other_names= (削除ここまで)
  • (削除) |owner= (削除ここまで)
  • |parking=
  • |steps=
  • |surface=
  • |transit=

Given this analysis, I oppose the merge. While some of these 21 new parameters could be generally helpful (e.g., |other_names=), I think many of them would "junk up" {{Infobox street }} and tempt editors to make worse infoboxes. — hike395 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Many of the parameters you say are not in Infobox street are simply aliases for parameters that are (|ind_name= and |native_name=; |coordinates= and |coor_pinpoint=; |construction_start_date=/ |completion_date= and |construction=; |other_names= and |other_name=, for example). Some, like |parking=, are cruft that should not be in an infobox at all. |owner= is already in both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing those out --- fixed in the analysis above. I will stick with my oppose because I think the remaining 16 parameters will still junk up {{Infobox street }}, although it is definitely better than I originally thought. Unless you are proposing deleting more than |parking=? — hike395 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
We could delete or remap the following less-used parameters, and then I would support a merge: |amenities=, |architectural_style=, |builder=, |coor_pinpoint=, |dimensions=, rename |footnotes= to |module=, |height=, map |nickname= into |other_names=, |parking=, and |transit=. If we did this, then the extra burden on {{Infobox street }} would be minimal: |coordinates_footnote=, |dedicated_to=, |features=, |manager=, |steps=, |surface=. — hike395 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
All right, so I'm still not quite getting the concept here. Why would we declare it implausible that some of these urban feature topics have an architectural style, builder, dimensions, transit access, amenities etc, that are key facts about them? That just seems weird.
The urban feature infobox has existed since 2010, split out of the settlement infobox it seems. Pigsonthewig created the Infobox square redirect to Infobox street in 2014. Since then, the square redirect was barely used (448 transclusions). I looked for square articles that are using Infobox street directly that are not obvious from these statistics, and by going through [2] by my rough count there's 314.
So judging by that, we already know that this layout is not particularly appealing to the editors - they're actually using the somewhat awkwardly, generically named "urban feature" infobox more often than the street infobox for squares (448 > 314+34). What is the exact benefit of a consolidation that we're looking for here? How would this merge help make it more likely that people will format good infoboxes for squares, plazas, walkways, etc? It seems more like a technical migration for its own sake. --Joy (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
"we already know that this layout is not particularly appealing to the editors" We know no such thing. 448 vs. 348 (1.29:1) is closer to equal than decisive; and a significant proportion of those 348 are not squares.
The benefits of merging are explained in WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I have referred more than once already. No benefits of maintaining separate templates have been suggested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
You didn't see the part where I said "urban feature" is awkwardly named. It's just unlikely people think of that when they say "Hey I want this thing to have an infobox". So it's really weird that the ratio is that high.
The premise of infobox consolidation is covering the same subject. We already know that not all streets and urban features are the same, regardless of how they may have similar characteristics - the line vs. point distinction as identified nicely by AlphaBeta135 is very pertinent here. There's a reason why we don't try to merge infobox railway station with infobox railway line. --Joy (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
No, I did see what you said; I just didn't think it was as significant as the errors I corrected. If "'urban feature' is awkwardly named", what are you arguing to keep it?
Squares (and parks and buildings) are not points, they are areas. {{Infobox street }} already has an |area= parameter. As I demonstrate above, Infobox street is already, by your own rough figures, used for almost as many such features as is infobox urban feature.
We indeed don't try to merge infobox railway station with infobox railway line; but we have merged many, many station templates together, and many, many line templates together; even when they were very different kinds of stations, or lines, and we did so based on the similarity of the fields in the templates; as is the case here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
The elephant in that room is that I have no idea why we'd need an area parameter for a street. It's exactly the kind of a convoluted parameter that we get through excessive consolidation. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
It should also be borne in mind that the "urban feature" infobox is being used on a number of articles which should instead be using a more suitable infobox, like
It's even being used on Venetian Arsenal (a complex of buildings), River Landing Towers (a "mixed use development") and Lethbridge & District Exhibition (a corporation!). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I'm sure we can find some exceptions in the set of articles using infobox street. I already said the math was rough. The problem isn't the specific numbers on the margins, but the fact that the use of infobox square hasn't risen proportionally over time. --Joy (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
It's not that the maths is rough (which indeed it is); it's that the way you interpreted it was wrong (not least in claiming that a ratio of 1:29 or fewer was "far more"), which means that the conclusion you drew was erroneous. I have laid out why, and the correct conclusion, in some detail.
Any "exceptions" in uses of infobox street are likely to be far less significant, given its order-of-magnitude higher number of uses.
You (or anyone else) have yet to make any argument why both templates are needed; or indeed why an "Urban feature" template should be used for artworks, buildings, bridges, or parks, all of which already have their own dedicated infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
You're still ignoring the argument I made about naturalness of the infobox name, we're going in circles. --Joy (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
And you are ignoring all the points I made.
The "naturalness" (whatever that means) of the infobox name is immaterial, because redirects can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
I'm not ignoring all the points you made, I'm engaging with you. In retrospect, that might be a mistake, as the result isn't productive if you feel entirely not heard. --Joy (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
You still have duplicates listed, such as |dedicated_to & |namesake=; |coor_pinpoint= & |coordinates=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Mostly oppose. The fundamental issue with merging the two templates is that {{Infobox street }} is used for linear features (streets typically have two termini), while {{Infobox urban feature }} is used for point features. I do support retargeting {{Infobox square }} to {{Infobox urban feature }}. AlphaBeta135 talk 02:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
But that is not true; {{Infobox street }} is used for linear features (including stairways) and squares. Indeed, as our colleague points out above, it is used for 348 squares, almost as many as the other template's 448 uses in total. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of squares that use {{Infobox urban feature }} instead of {{Infobox street }}, such as Times Square, Kenmore Square, and Nubian Square. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I didn't say otherwise. My point was that Infobox street is also—almost equally—used for articles about squares, contrary to the claim you made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
All of this is meaningless because it's just random editorial actions - just like infobox street is used for squares because Andy redirected it there, urban feature is used for Times Square because I made it work with that. The key point isn't what a couple of particular editors do or have done, but what actually makes sense for the average editor who is supposed to use these constructs to improve the encyclopedia, what happens organically. --Joy (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Infobox street is not used for squares because I redirected it there. It was redirected because the street template was being used for squares.
The key point is not "what actually makes sense for the average editor", because the underlying code, thanks to template redirects, will not be seen by them, and nothing will change in the markup of the articles they edit. The key point is to reduce template duplication, as explained at WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I now refer you for the fourth time
None of what I wrote is meaningless. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
You can reduce duplication if it makes sense, and it makes sense if the concepts are duplicated. It doesn't make sense to merge just because of some overlapping syntax - yes, multiple things can have dimensions, but that doesn't make it right to merge based on that. If the concepts are distinct, which they are, it doesn't make sense to force editors to deal with a more complex combined template. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
Yes it does make sense, and we have ample precedent, over a period longer than a decade, of doing so.
The concepts are not distinct; they overlap.
Editors will not have to deal with a "more complex combined template", because redirects exist and existing markup will still work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
I've never seen evidence that editors react better to a single consolidated template with a huge amount of convoluted options compared to two more coherent templates with fewer, clearer options. The idea that the maintenance burden here suffices to push this is also unproven, and seems like a solution in search of a problem. --Joy (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
As I've already noted, we have over a decade of precedence, which shows a strong consensus for such merges. The problem is described at WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I once again refer you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
To clarify, {{Infobox street }} (a template for linear features) has parameters designated for two endpoints, because streets (and roads, see {{Infobox road }}) fundamentally have two endpoints. {{Infobox urban feature }} (a template for point features), however, does not have parameters for two endpoints, because urban features are typically represented by a single point (no endpoints).
On the subject of WP:INFOCOL, there are cases where consolidation failed due to disagreements on whether to include or exclude oft-used certain parameters on the merged template, such as Template:Infobox London station. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Not particularly useful imo. Only like 5 strongly relevant articles; imo this should be converted into a navbox on bottom if wish to be kept. When it's a sidebar it causes MOS:SANDWICH issues, basically prevents images from being placed. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This template seems to have a very broad and poorly defined criteria for inclusion. Why are a bunch of random commentators included? Is that just any notable journalist who reported on WA Inc? Not all their articles actually mention WA Inc. And the list of politicians seems to encompass people who were directly involved (Burke, Grill, Berinson, Dowding, Parker) to people who were only tangentially involved, to people who weren't involved at all, such as Lawrence and Hawke, who only happened to be prime minister when this scandal occurred. Same with the businesspeople. Why is Robert Holmes a Court listed? Steelkamp (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:UK Desiro and Template:Siemens trams and light rail vehicles with Template:Siemens Mobility.
These two templates have bothered me for their lack of general context for other products produced by Siemens and in terms of their organisation. The cleanest way for me to fix this was to create a new Siemens Mobility template to supercede them both. Apologies for my hasty substitution which means both of these are now left with no incoming transclusions. MKH1020 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Looking at it, sShould I have started a TfD instead of a TfM? Sorry about that... MKH1020 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't mind the proposed merge, but the now-unused templates had their list items in alphabetical order, and the new navbox items appear to be in no order that I can discern. It would probably be better for the list items to remain alphabetized. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    To clarify - I tried to keep them chronological by date of introduction and for submodels sorted in the same way as the given Wikipedia article - so yes it's not 100% consistent however I would prefer a chronological system to an alphabetical one in this case as we're talking about 25-30 years of railway vehicles which are not all contemporary to each other. MKH1020 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

No transclusions. Aquabus uses a small routemap directly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Article content with no transclusions and no template parameters. Copied and pasted into 2026 Premier Volleyball League on Tour, where it belongs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Delete and replace with {{Infobox museum }}. This sub-template is barely being used (146 articles vs over 12,000 by {{Infobox museum }}). It is also wildly out of date compared to the base template. There is not need to keep a separate sub-template just to pull a few values from Wikidata. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 05:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  • I would like to see us keep this template, at least for now. The aim of this version of the template is to demonstrate Wikidata integration within infoboxes, and it's served that role well over the years for the articles where people have deliberately opted into using this version of the template rather than the manual one (and that people have been using this in preference to the main version is impressive given that the main version doesn't even link to this one). It would be straightforward to update this version to use the latest base template version and, given the developments over the years, to expand it to use many more Wikidata properties (I'm happy to do this, but it probably doesn't make sense to do that until this discussion has concluded). This approach is particularly valuable for museums located in countries whose native language is not English, since there is often more data available for those on Wikidata than we have on enwiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    That information can easily be imported from Wikidata... Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 01:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Note the precedent of both {{Infobox theatre/wikidata }} (deleted at this TFD) and {{Infobox library/wikidata }} (deleted at this TFD). Both were deleted after separate TFDs on 14 July 2026. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 23:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Both of those precedents are not great - no involvement of the template creator or the community that's active with Wikidata integration with Wikimedia projects. This template also has a lot more uses than those two did. I'm happy to update/improve this one in the near future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Keep per Mike Peel - or, better, merge the Wikidata capability into the main template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving Lithuania already exists. --Joy (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. It matches the WP:NAVBOX requirements of a good navbox: there is a single article and there is a single, coherent subject - the List of wars involving Lithuania. As the creator of this template, I just overhauled it to be more coherent, succinct (as much as over seven centuries of military history can be), and pleasing to the eye, compared to other similar templates, such as Template:Hungarian conflicts, Template:Czech wars and conflicts, Template:Polish wars and conflicts, Template:Russian conflicts, and more. The subject of the template is Lithuanian military history and that also includes the two uprisings of the 19th century that sought to re-establish the state of Lithuania, so it seems rather relevant to include them in the template, as they're also mentioned in the article.
Considering that many more such military history templates exist, I see no reason for the Lithuanian one to be singled out and deleted. — D et P (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I don't think this works that way - make a list and then immediately reformat it into a navbox. That sounds like a cheap excuse :)
Thank you for adding to the list of more of these templates that should be reviewed. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NAVBOX as much too busy and not useful for navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 16:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply
BTW I nominated all the others and some more last week, and nobody came to speak up for them yet. --Joy (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Replace all instances with {{Infobox historic site }}. There is way too much going on in this Infobox that violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE along with multiple red linked labels which makes no sense. Anything not in Infobox historic site should be in the body of the article if at all. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 18:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Replace and delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Keep. No explanation what to do with the numerous unique parameters. ~300 usages is a lot just to dismiss. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply
For the record, the explanation to what to do with the numerous unique parameters is to remove them as they violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 03:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Old discussions

[edit ]

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Tomodachi Life series with Template:Mii.
The Tomodachi Life series is a subset of the Mii series. TPI81AF (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by nominator the two templates can coexist.TPI81AF (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't call "Mii" a series since no video games under the title of "Mii" have been published, only games that feature Miis as characters. I do think the Tomodachi Life series should be incorporated into the template, but I feel like if you want to merge the original Tomodachi Life series template, you'd have to also merge the Wii series template, which isn't in discussion here yet. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Streetpass Mii Plaza? Miitopia? Miitomo? There's Mii right in the title. The Wii series is a separate series with titles that do not contain miis at all, such as Wii chess and Wii music. TPI81AF (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Okay, I see the argument that Miis are far more integral to Tomodachi Life and that the TL template is small enough to warrant merging. But I have to ask:
Should the template's function be to create a canonical list of "Mii series" games or simply to catalog all games that have Miis as characters? Assuming the former, picking and choosing which series' games fall into the "Mii series" because some have Miis in them and some don't feels a little silly to me. For example, the "Wii series" is present in the template as though it's part of this so-called "Mii series" when you've argued this is not true; this cell only includes Wii series games that include Miis. Once you start having to break apart franchises and other subsets (for Wii Sports: that Wii Sports, Sports Resort, and Sports Club are part of the Mii series but Switch Sports and Switch Sports Resort are not), the idea of a comprehensive Mii series feels unhelpful. The latter interpretation makes far more sense to me. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I think it should catalog all games that exclusively feature Mii characters. The Wii series is to denote the games that have "Wii" in the title rather than "Mii". Switch Sports and Resort feature "Sportsmates", with Miis as a secondary option. Note that other games that only include Mii characters secondarily, such as Super Smash Bros. and Mario Kart, have been excluded from the list. TPI81AF (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Sorry for the slow responses. For some reason I cannot seem to subscribe to this thread and do not receive any notifications. TPI81AF (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@TPI81AF: (hopefully, pinging should solve your lack of notifications) I'm just not sure if total merging is the optimal choice here; since we've agreed that the template itself shouldn't be a list of Mii series entries, I feel like your initial reasoning for the merge is weakened. I do have a suggestion, though. To give the TL template more legs to stand on content-wise, I could add another cell for "developers" or "people"; do you think this makes sense? TheBrickGraphic (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
That makes sense. Thank you for pinging. TPI81AF (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@TPI81AF: I have just finished restructuring the template; let me know how it looks. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
You did an excellent job. I tried to simplify the layout slightly out of a preference for less-indented templates. TPI81AF (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm the creator of the template. I'm not familiar with the deletion process for templates. Why is it being discussed? ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 15:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Templates that are not used are typically deleted. This template has no uses, and no indication of why and how it might be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply
This template is used but it's always substituted. The documentation is lacking but it says what it's for. Of course, one could argue a template for something like this is not necessarily useful, but I look forward to discussions on this. ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 17:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Delete as undocumented and unused. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 01:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Just want to check, Zackmann08, that you saw the comment above about its "non-use" as well as the documentation issue. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@Primefac: no I missed that... That being said, it is still not clear to me what purpose this template serves? Baring some clear use case here I still support deletion. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 15:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template appears to have a (minimal) documentation and an explanation or non-use has been given. Looking for further opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Teangacha, Can you please specify what purpose does this template serves? Explaining it's purpose will determine outcome of this discussion as the documentation doesn't explicitly describe any purpose of this template.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 16:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Hello to everyone. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the whole discussion. I forgot about this and got no notifications until you pinged me.
The template is used to create the lead sentence in pages on letters of the Latin script. You can find examples in here: Œ, Æ, Ł, Eth, Latin gamma, Ø, Ë, Turned v, Á; as well as in the testcases.
The template came from a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics and subsequently on the Wikimedia discord server about inconsistency in these Latin-script letter pages.
I'm completely new to templates so if something is unclear or inappropriate feel free to let me know! ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 17:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. This template name is inscrutable and should probably be salted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The rationale is documentation, one can show how wikilinks work with this. BTW the title "Wikilink" is already taken, thus wl. Aasim (話す(はなす)) 06:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

[edit]

Propose merging {{Tfm notice }} and {{Tfr notice }} into {{Tfd notice }} and {{Template for merging }} into {{Template for discussion }}.

TfD uses 3 different talkpage notice templates based on the proposal: {{Tfd notice }} for general "for discussion", {{Tfm notice }} for merging, and {{Tfr notice }} for renaming. For consistency with similar templates, and for ease of maintenance down the line, they should be merged into one like what has been done at {{Afd notice }}. See {{Afd notice/testcases }} for how a similar arrangement works. The {{Tfm notice }} and {{Tfr notice }} would become wrappers of {{Tfd notice }} in the same way that {{Merge notice }} is a wrapper for {{Afd notice }}. I've already made a small attempt at this in this diff, which changed the wording of the header and the icon based on the nomination.

The same applies to {{Template for merging }} and {{Template for discussion }}, there's no need to keep two duplicate templates: the former should become a wrapper of the latter. See {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases }} for how it can look: instead of having 4 different templates at AfD, we simply have one which changes with a parameter. Much easier to maintain. Also, "Template for merging" doesn't really exist, there's only "templates for discussion". That would be like calling AfD "Articles for draftification" based on the nomination. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

So meta :D
But in seriousness no objection to such a merge. I see one template easier to maintain than four. Aasim (話す(はなす)) 03:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Merge along the lines suggested in the nomination, this consolidation makes sense to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Merge per above. I will note, shouldn't AfD be renamed to Articles for Discussion? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 12:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@Axolitl You should read WP:RENAMEAFD, and especially the April 2026 discussion. FaviFake (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Infoboxes for individual elements

[edit]

List of templates nominated
The individual element infoboxes listed above are just wrappers of Template:Infobox element with nothing special added to them. Although there has been an initiative to merge infoboxes with similar parameters, these should not even be merged, but instead should just be substituted onto each relevant article. The current situation is like having "Infobox Canada", "Infobox Russia", "Infobox Sweden", and so on as wrappers of "Infobox country". SVG-image-maker (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply
There is at least one similar example of template consolidation. At one point, we had hundreds of different IPA templates, one for each language. However, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_27#IPA-xx_templates, those were replaced with a single template with a parameter for language. Using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, substituting all of them. No need to have a separate template for each one. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination; shouldn't be individual templates. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh, have you considered what it would be like to edit the resulting article? There are about 100 parameters in these infoboxes, and a dozen refs. You'd open the article to fix something in the lead, and the first thing you'd have to do is scroll down through 125 lines of wikitext, just so you can find the first sentence. That's bad enough on my laptop, where it's four screenfuls, but this would be actively hostile to someone editing on a smartphone. We might as well put a sign on the article that says "Thanks, but no thanks: we don't need anyone editing the lead of this article ever again." We should keep these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, now that VisualEditor is default for most editors. It's 2026 and we have the visual editor separate from the wikitext editor, which easily allows one to switch between the two modes. For the "many parameters" argument, there are plenty of counterexamples to this, including compounds such as p-Xylene, military conflicts such as Russo-Ukrainian war, countries like Georgia (country), politicians such as Keir Starmer, and many others. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    What is this "visual editor"? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    The OP has used the visual editor for only 15% of his mainspace edits, and he's never used the mw:Mobile visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Ok thanks, so it's an opt in editor, not a default. It's WYSIWYG, except templates are form fill-in. But if the template is not documented, full fail. Thus Visual Editor fails to edit the Boron infobox because {{infobox boron }} is not documented, but it works on Hydrogen infobox because of the subst change.
    One unfortunate side effect of unpacking the {{infobox hydrogen }} into hydrogen is the edit of the introduction now starts with a bunch of template. Or maybe this is a benefit, may scare off some editors... Johnjbarton (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as they are a good way to package a chunk of code to make editing easier. Visual editor is already slow enough without having to load a large template call. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Would the nominator SVG-image-maker please subst one of these to show the result. That can be reverted later if the result here is keep. Take, say, the first item {{Infobox hydrogen }} and subst it at Hydrogen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Done. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the previous TfD's in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, what Double sharp said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    I think that using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Can't we just redirect each doc page to tm:infobox element/doc? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    I get what you mean, but the rationales for having separate template infoboxes for each element could theoretically be applied to every BLP, every country, every chemical compound, and so on. The principle of infobox consolidation is that infoboxes with similar parameters are best merged into one. As for the argument "it would take some scrolling", the template {{Infobox country}} as used on Armenia has 109 lines of wikitext. Whereas {{Infobox beryllium}}, for instance, has only 92 lines of wikitext. SVG-image-maker (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • If the templates are substituted, they should be redirected to preserve attribution. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It does not seem like there actually is any maintenance across the overwhelming majority of them...the content of each is essentially static. Spending time documenting each seems like a waste (though no prejudice against someone wanting to spend their time that way). Further, each is just the specific details against a central template, so the way to help maintenance is to make sure that {{Infobox element }} is documented, in line with Johnjbarton's comment. That would be equally true if all the element-specific templates were subst'ed or not.This static nature of the content, unlike many details in many other infoboxes, is an overlapping but specific reason to keep these infoboxes out of the main article. It avoids cluttering up the editor with things that nobody is going to be editing. Contrast that with the Armenia infobox, where my quick glance is that about a third of the fields, which are spread throughout the source lines, are likely to be edited periodically forever. The first general guideline of WP:Template is "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." but this is not content that is likely to be edited, and guideline beats the essay on consolidation. But if we're talking consolidation, that suggests you' like a single template that is passed an element and generates the infobox for the requested element. So that single template would have all the data for every element, which is a lot harder to manage and edit correctly. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    If they're primarily edited in bulk, wouldn't having them all in one place make that easier?
    One approach could be to create a wrapper template that has one big {{#switch}} parser function invocation that maps the number, symbol, or name to the whole hard-coded template call for each one. Editing any individual element's information is just a matter of using Ctrl+F (or equivalent) to find the target element, and then editing the template usage as usual.
    Alternatively, we could create a Lua module that has a "table" (mapping) for each property, then uses them to fill in each of the parameters. This would have the benefit of allowing us to easily repurpose the data for display in other ways, such as creating sortable Wiki-tables of their properties.
    If someone puts all of the template invocations in one file, I'll be happy to make regexes to convert into and between these formats as desired.
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DMacks who provided a lucid and convincing explanation of why these infoboxes are helpful—they contain complex yet static information that would only obfuscate the article wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Note that none of these were tagged. * Pppery * in solidarity 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Template:Infobox element after subst to preserve attribution. Information at the infobox for Jupiter is unlikely to require frequent update, but dedicating an wrapper to it would require one for every article that uses Template:Infobox planet. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous TfDs. The argument that "it would reduce maintenance" doesn't seem particularly compelling when the editors who are performing said maintenance all oppose this change. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per what Double sharp and others have said. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Delete these are all single use templates and there is no reason to keep them as they currently are. Doesn't help anything or anyone. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 03:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, per all previous discussions about the same thing. These greatly facilitate management, reduce vandalism, cleanup the lead, and many, many more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, per Headbomb and DMacks. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge, per other keeps, merge cause there are way too many for each specific element. – KaijuEditor (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    There's one infobox per element. There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the benefits of substituting these infoboxes into their respective articles (easier reference re-use, potentially being able to update parameters) are outweighed by the downside of all this information that is highly unlikely to change being frontloaded into a set of highly visible articles, making editing potentially harder. As already stated the transclusion of "infobox country" and the like makes sense because this information is likely to change. Element infoboxes are mainly edited to change the header image in current times. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. This is a unique case. I find the keep arguments here and in the three (!) prior discussions convincing. The essay Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation makes good points that surely apply in many seemingly similar scenarios but many editors have how the maintenance burden and other typical considerations either do not apply or are actually better handled by the current setup. Deleting these does not represent a material improvement and is likely to create more problems than it solves. —Myceteae ‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Drainage basin succession templates

[edit]

I am nominating all of the templates in Category:Drainage basin succession templates (and its subcats) for replacement with {{drainage }}, which I created to centralise all of the 2k templates into one easy-to-update template. This means that if a new drainage basin is needed, a single template can just be edited rather than having to create yet another template. There will be no visible change to any article; code-wise it will simply be changing (for example) {{PAchelous}} to {{Drainage|Achelous}}. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?
I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC) reply
I... did? I made {{drainage }} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC) reply
That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous }} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC) reply
That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place {{drainage|Achelous}} inside of {{PAchelous}} just to show that they give exactly the same output:
{{PAchelous}} → ‹See Tfd› Achelous→ Ionian Sea
{{drainage|Achelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea
I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC) reply
I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC) reply
I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) reply
General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC) reply
I've used claude.ai to see if Lua can handle the issue that Markussep raised better. The result is at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage (again, this is AI-written). Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Apparently there is an error in the module. When I tried {{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage|chain|Fulda}} (or any other river), I got "Lua error in Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage at line 436: attempt to concatenate field 'Lake Baikal' (a nil value)." It's a nice idea, but I guess it needs good documentation for anluabetes like me. Markussep Talk 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply
@Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC) reply
But I need to emphasis this, this was done with AI so if anything from this is used, the data needs to be verified. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, the proposed template works for all current cases, so while I am fine with using a module (which I agree will allow for easier creation of new links) the replacement doesn't have to use the module from the get-go (assuming the replacement proposal is accepted). Primefac (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC) reply
At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Agree, but they're not unused (at least the ones I checked, like RLoire, REms, RPo, RAngara), they'll have to be substituted. Markussep Talk 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Ah, those weren't in the unused reports so they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC) reply
A month later and no additional opposing input, so fully support proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Support replacement, this looks like sensible consolidation to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC) reply
Comment: 300+ river templates starting with "R" appear to have been replaced with something else as part of this as-yet-to-be-concluded TFD, in edits like this. They are appearing at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates, a report of unused pages in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply
That is only vaguely inspired by this TFD; I'm independently following WP:TEMPLATECAT to add categories directly to the page; the fact that the R templates have the category already and I can just subst to get them makes it a lot easier to add them. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Completed discussions

[edit ]

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

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

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /