Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 19 102 121
TfD 0 0 0 7 7
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 27 3 30
AfD 0 0 0 18 18

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[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete 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 (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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:


  • 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 or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: for discussion/Log/2021_January_24#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[edit]

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects[edit]

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{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[edit]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Closing discussion[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

January 24[edit]

Template:Infobox actor performances[edit]

0 to none usage beyond documentation and redirects. Template is already covered by Template:Infobox filmography list. Even though, the documentation states it's for discography articles, Template:Infobox artist discography already covers that. Paper9oll (📣📝) 12:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sapari Game[edit]

Seems to be an abandoned test attempt at creating an infobox for use in one specific article. The target article in question, SAPARi, is currently using {{Infobox VG Online Service}} which works just fine. I'm not sure if we even allow single-purpose templates like this, but regardless, now it has no use whatsoever. Delete please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Template:Modernist composers[edit]

Propose merging Template:Modernist composers with Template:Modernism (music).
Merge these two to match the practice at Template:Romantic music, Template:Classical period (music), Template:Baroque music etc. It would be more helpful to have the composers next to the topics they associate with; both "lead" articles of the templates are the same one already. Aza24 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


The JSON file this module parsed was converted into a redirect by Discospinster, so this module is no longer usedul. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It feels like this request for deletion is purposefully misleading. The message above for some reason assumes what Discospinster did was correct and this is the end of story. The discussion should be adjourned until User:Pppery and User:Discospinster justify their edits. I have spent half an hour coding this and I don't even get a reason why my changes got reverted. Dixtosa (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Argentine presidential election, 2011[edit]

Unused; results are presented in a better formatted table at 2011 Argentine general election#President. Yilku1 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unused and surplus to requirement. Nigej (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/Ohio/Franklin County medical cases chart[edit]

This template hasn't been update since September (I assume incorrectly??) and is not included on any pages. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I developed this toward the start of the pandemic, with the anticipation that it wouldn't last for the year+ it seems it will now. The data keeps changing; even historical data is changed as ODH officials count or figure where to place illnesses and deaths. I've been hoping maybe to come back to this when the pandemic is over to create a final, unchanging record of covid data here. Is that alright, or should I just stick with the graph in the article (recently devised to overcome the obstacles of changing figures and enormous mass of data)? ɱ (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I was going to edit my reasoning a bit and say that the image in COVID-19 pandemic in Columbus, Ohio is probably a better resource than this template would be and less time consuming to update, even updating the image to include weekly totals might give a better snapshot of the cases in the county. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@: I think your approach is fine. I also plan to, in the future, create a category for templates that need updating to maybe bring some other editors to help out. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Members of the First Legislative Yuan[edit]

This is a massive template, with only a small fraction of the entries bluelinked. There is no reason to have something this large that does this little. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm in the process of creating articles for around 85 of the people listed (who were the first women MPs in China). They're all valid redlinks as the people in question pass WP:NPOLITICIAN and 575 of them were linked to the articles using {{ill}}, but this has been removed for some reason. The template has a majority of bluelinks. It's fairly common to have these kinds of navigational templates (see e.g. {{Members of the 5th Bundestag}} which also appears to have a majority of redlinks) Number 57 11:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm happy to userfy until the majority of those pages are created. As per the usual arguments, the existence of one redlink-bloated template isn't a good reason to create another. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Recommend procedural withdraw and replace with wider RFC, without prejudice to re-listing in light of outcome of that RFC on issue of templates like these which are likely to have non-English blue-links available. If I had to take a position on this particular one case, I would say keep, as useful if it has or soon will have inter-language links assuming the 575 links are restored. However, this class of templates - templates which are mostly filled with links that will "always be red in English, not due to notability but due to lack of writers with the interest or the language skills to create a page, or if a page is created, it will be very small compared to the non-English page," should have a wider discussion. As for cases where there likely will NOT ever be inter-language links or English links, I usually prefer list-ification or category-ification. I say "usually" because there are some things, like Nth legislature of the state of Y or Yth parliament of the country of Z, where may of the "Nth" in the series are well-developed, but a few are not. In those cases, for the sake of consistency, I prefer keeping them all in the same format, even if many of the "older" (pre-20th-century?) ones are full of redlinks. As above, I'm also open to a wider RFC on cases like this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    We don't put {{ill}}s in navboxes, and we don't create navboxes that are 90% redlinkes (whether there are 50 or 500 total). Primefac (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Surely this should be a list article, eg. List of Members of the First Legislative Yuan. It serves no useful purpose being turned in a vast template, much too large to useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the template is mistaking being complete from being navigation. Just strip the template of all redlinks, and reformat into a single listgroup of the exiting bluelinks. Thus it wil function to navigate between extant articles. Just as how musical band templates only list extant album articles and not every album the band published. -- (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete – This navbox fails several points at WP:NAV. The majority of its links are red and provide no navigational aid; with >800 entries, it's too big. Several links point to a wrong target. It's also malformed, not using hlist properly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: but cut all redlinks template is useful in the quite a few articles it is used in. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Template:South Vietnam[edit]

Hardcoded instance of a country infobox. Possibly just a test? Whpq (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

But what is the template required. He might have created the template by copying the infobox. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:The Road to Cincinnati[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Very clearly not a template. Created by a newer user, so possibly a test page. Article for the The Simpsons episode in question is already located at The Road to Cincinnati. Magitroopa (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2021 (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:Life in Cambodia[edit]

Sidebar template consisting of nothing but cross-namespace links to categories. Izno (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete template has very little use in the article namespace and has little usefulness. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete appears in Geography of Cambodia but nowhere else. The 5 links direct to categories rather than articles. Nigej (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 21[edit]


Unused and doesn't make sense. Originally Template:CUeject, but not used by CU; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:CUeject ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Supreme Court case[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Supreme Court case with Template:Infobox court case.
Redundant wrapper with only one parameter being overriden (|court=). Suggest merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Template:Ingrid Andress[edit]

Contains a total of 3 articles, each of which link to the other 2 without the aid of this navigational box. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - So little to actually navigate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links to justify its existence. Nigej (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She's only on her second single. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inside infobox[edit]

Unused and obsolete. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused and seemingly pointless. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Nigej: There was a time when Route Diagram Templates needed to be hardcoded to display properly inside infoboxes, hence the note to editors to be aware of the extra code. Since then RDT templates have been improved and it's now just a matter of a parameter setting. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


Unused (merged into Module:String2), though Special:WhatLinksHere hasn't updated yet. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • What is the status of isnumber? It looks potentially useful to me. --Trialpears (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The module was created when I was considering forcing order onto infobox pepper's heat scale. I don't remember if I got the number check to work, but given that everything else that did work was picked up before I was aware that anyone other than me was using the module then probably not. Everything from the module that is used should have been merged already so I am good with deleting it. Falconjh (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Module:String * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Template:Fringe Theory[edit]

This just is not a useful template. We have other templates that do this much better than this one. Template:Pseudoscience, for example. jps (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Biogeographist (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and done better by other templates. Crossroads -talk- 03:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Indeed unnecessary, we have {{Pseudoscience}} and while fringe theories has a wider scope, non-pseudoscientific conspiracy theories are still usually in other related templates, like the {{Antisemitism}} sidebar, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Inoi-Chalkis Line[edit]

Unused and not sure where it would be used Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The line is part of the Proastiakos network, where the template is now used. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Delete {{Oinoi–Chalcis railway diagram}} (created August 2019 vs. April 2009) instead. Photo and diagram are now in the Oinoi–Chalcis railway article. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Since {{Inoi-Chalkis Line}} is indeed older, I think it's best to delete {{Oinoi–Chalcis railway diagram}} and move {{Inoi-Chalkis Line}} to that title, which is in line with the article titles Oinoi–Chalcis railway, Oinoi railway station and Chalcis railway station. Markussep Talk 08:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Oinoi–Chalcis railway diagram[edit]

Redundant to {{Inoi-Chalkis Line}}. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, see my comment above. Markussep Talk 08:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge these two, or subst+delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cyprus dispute detailed map[edit]

This is a war map template. However, there is no war in Cyprus. The map has not been edited in about 3 years (because nothing is happening), except for 2 edits by User:Pppery (one to tag it with Tfd and another to undo his own edit 7 minutes later). As of now, the map doesn't show anything contested. All the map shows is that Cyprus is divided into North Cyprus and South Cyprus. This has been the case since 1974. All this does not warrant a war map template for Cyprus. There is no updating taking place. The Cyprus template should have never been created. It is important to delete this template because many people might put more time and effort into it. In any case, I have the code saved on my computer if there is ever a war in Cyprus and we need to re-create this template. Finally, I want to note that I am also nominating the associated module for deletion as well: Module:Cyprus dispute detailed map. Tradediatalk 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. As for my previous edits, I was doing a TfD of several rarely-used modules, and then reverted myself because I decided I didn't understand how war map modules worked well enough to nominate them for deletion. Now that someone who does understand them has done so, I agree it should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that the war is stale, does not mean there is no war. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    This is still useless as a template; it isn't linked to or transcluded in any article, and it hasn't been updated in years. The third and subsequent sentences of the nomination are still valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Debresser. That's why it's called "Cyprus dispute" - not a "war"; the dispute is undeniably still active. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above, unless the Cyprus dispute is completely resolved I think that keeping it for now is pretty useful. Even though its inactive because of a deadly virus or some political shenanigan, I think it should be kept in the meanwhile because it is an ongoing dispute not an ongoing war. PyroFloe (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above, the war and ongoing division are still relevant, so a map like this is as well. Otebig (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This template has no transclusions and a picture like File:Cyprus_districts_named.png which is used at Cyprus dispute seems to be more appropriate since it more clearly shows who control what area and does not include any of the irrelevant and unused items in the caption such as "Strategic hill" and "Industrial complex". --Trialpears (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Trialpears. The other map is useable and clear, unlike this one. Nigej (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:1948 United States presidential election imagemap (AH)[edit]

Unused "alternative history" template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Struggling to see any point in it. Unused. Nigej (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no reason why said template should be retained. As Nigej pointed out, it is also unused and serves no apparent purpose. Lord Stephenson (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Template:Free and paid online education[edit]

The two primary defining categories of this template - paid and free - are unworkably simplistic and misleading with many of the listed organizations employing many different models. It might be possible to construct a new template with appropriate categories but this one is fatally defective. ElKevbo (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I'll defer to ElKevbo's judgement as I'm not overly familiar with online education. I'm not sure I see anything fatally flawed here, though; couldn't we just remove the grouping so that they're all alphabetical and move the navbox to {{Online education}}? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
We could do that but I'm just not sure how a template of any kind would be helpful for readers. This is a very complex market with every possible permutation of services and fees and I don't know how a template can capture any of that. Frankly, I'm also worried about this is a spam magnet given the always shifting players in this market and how eager VCs (and universities) have always been to fund new companies; I'm pleased and surprised that this hasn't yet been a significant, lasting problem but I wonder if that's only because the template isn't used in many places so it has rather low visibility. ElKevbo (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete (without replacing) The paid/free — and even nonprofit/for-profit — categories are sometimes misleading because several institutions leverage different subtleties and nuances. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete without replacing per Modulato. I just don't see any permutation of this navbox serving a useful navigational value, there are way too many ways and nuances and variations for a navbox to be useful. I think this is best served by a category. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Yemen NFT results[edit]

The template isn't used now. HawkAussie (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete The results were once split into several articles but they have now been combined, making the template unnecessary. Nigej (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Nigeria national football team - results[edit]

Not used now. HawkAussie (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Template:Philippine expressway network[edit]

Propose merging Template:Philippine expressway network with Template:Expressways in the Philippines.
The same thing. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge Looks the same topic to me. Tradediatalk 04:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge and keep the expressway routes template.--RioHondo (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:IPC profile[edit]

Propose merging Template:IPC profile with Template:IPC athlete.
There are some 800+ transclusions of Template:IPC profile. They go to an archive page, because the original link doesn't work, but with the first five I at random checked, the archive page doesn't work either: Scot Hollonbeck, Stephen Eaton, Jonas Jacobsson, Sirly Tiik, Konstantin Lisenkov.

It seems possible to replace the template with Template:IPC athlete: {{IPC profile|surname=Tretheway|givenname=Sean}} becomes {{IPC athlete|sean-tretheway}}. It is safer to take the parameter from the article title than from the IPC profile template though: at Jacob Ben-Arie, {{IPC profile|surname=Ben-Arie|givenname=<!--leave blank in this case, given name not listed-->}} should become {{IPC athlete|jacob-ben-arie}}[1].

If the replacement is too complicated to be automated, then simply deleting the IPC profile one is also an option, as it makes no sense to keep templates around which produce no useful results. Fram (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:SIIMA Award for Best Actor - Telugu[edit]

Duplication: Contents are already covered at Template:SIIMA Award for Best Actor Ab207 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Fiat Chrysler Automobiles with Template:Stellantis.
On 16 January 2021, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Groupe PSA has been merged to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Groupe PSA with Template:Stellantis.
On 16 January 2021, Groupe PSA and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has been merged to form Stellantis. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge - Merging the three templates will result in one overly huge navigation box. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - FCA and PSA template could be converted to Stellantis US/Stellantis America and Stellantis France, respectively, or whatever they will be called, just like how the Chrysler template was renamed to FCA US LLC template Andra Febrian (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

More New South Wales unused deprecated templates[edit]

8 deprecated unused{{s-line}} templates in New South Wales replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Sydney Trains and Module:Adjacent stations/NSW TrainLink. This concludes the conversion of Australian succession templates to Adjacent Stations, except for South Australia for which I do not have the necessary information. This has involved the deletion of 463 templates throughout New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Fleet Lists (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

January 16

Template:WSA for Soundtrack Composer of the Year


There seems to be a recent trend to create navigation box templates for every category from every entertainment (film, music, etc.) award given out. This is one such example. Alexandre Desplat alone has 20 such navboxes including this one. The sheer number of these within a single article seems like a hindrance to navigation not a benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)



Propose merging Template:WPUS50 with Template:WikiProject United States.
There have been ongoing discussions about trying to reduce talk page banner noise. It would be great if this template could get merged into {{WikiProject United States}} to operate in a similar manner to {{WIR-00-2020}} within {{WikiProject banner shell}}. –MJLTalk 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Shushugah (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: The challenge encourages editors to contribute articles related to the United States and has proved very successful. Its use can hardly be compared to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment a new bannershell should be created to contain these editing challenges and revisions templates, including when they are included in classroom assignments. Though I will note that WPMILITARYHISTORY includes its editor challenge as part of its projectbanner, so perhaps the nom's path forward is the way to go in this case -- (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate per Ipigott; their rationale pretty much sums up my thoughts. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment MJL could you explain why the WIR template is better? It looks to me exactly like the WPUS50 banner as applied say at Talk:Wendy Carlos. I must be missing some nuance. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Bri, I think it might have something to do with the documentation that the WIR templates have. It's all very neatly contained and easy to update and expand. I've never had to update the US templates, so I can't really compare. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I have to answer my own question now after looking more closely. The WIR template collapses like the other elements inside the banner shell, instead of residing outside the banner shell like the WPUS50 tag. I suppose the former behavior is better so I will support the proposal. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support behavior in collapsing banner shell as described in my comment above. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate: The challenge templates shows people that articles were worked on for it, while the United States template solely shows they are part of that Wikiproject. --K. Peake 07:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - What banner noise? There is no noise when clicking it 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge There is no reason this sort of thing should be privileged from archiving and forever remain at the top of a talk page, unlike actual messages that discuss article content. Either merge into the wikiproject banner or bot convert to a "discussion" type post that will get archived in due course. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge I think that banner blindness is a not insignificant issue and I think this information can be displayed inside the collapse of {{WikiProject United States}} just as well as with the current format without hindering it's purpose. If the talk page is short no loss in visibility would occur since the banner wouldn't be collapsed and on busy pages like Talk:MAX Light Rail more attention would be given to higher priority information. For the sake of clarity I am imagining this working like the display for task forces. --Trialpears (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge, no reason to keep it separate per nom. PyroFloe (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • merge per nom, better to consolidate. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge – Nothing is being gained by allowing for increased banner clutter. (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Levivich harass/hound 07:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per Trialpears. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per Trialpears and Calliopejen1 Wug·a·po·des 20:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

January 15

Template:WMF IP


Propose merging Template:WMF IP with Template:Private IP.
These templates basically serve the same purpose, in fact the template Template:Private IP was actually mostly copies from Template:WMF IP. The templates also link the same meta page in the "more info" link. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support They do actually serve a slightly different purpose. Template:WMF IP (the original) is used for IP addresses that face the Internet at large, also known as "WAN" or "external" IP addresses. These can show up when a person or automated tool (accidentally) makes edits through a Foundation data center internet connection. Even if a person or bot were to edit from within the Foundation network and the same data centre, these interactions still go through the "front door" and have a WAN source address. On the other hand, Template:Private IP describes an internal "LAN" or "private" IP address (such as User: and the various 10.x.x.x). It is not be possible, even by human mistake, to interact with the wiki in such a way that one's IP address appears as a LAN address. However, over the past ten years there have been one or two occasions where the wiki was misconfigured and interpreted IP information incorrectly. When we edit the wiki, we go through many servers over the Internet between our device and the Foundation web servers processing the edit. If the wiki software loses track of part of that chain, or looks at the wrong end of the end of the chain, it could think the edit came from itself, which manifests as the edit being assigned to 127.x or 10.x addresses.
    In a nut shell: Template:WMF IP generally refers to edits actually made from a Foundation server, usually due the editing user themselves doing so by mistake. Template:Private IP generally refers to normal external edits that where, due to a technical mistake on the wiki side, the source IP is lost and thus got wrongly attributed to a private LAN address.
    Both of these are very unlikely now, since these address sets are generally blocked by abuse filters and such. I support merging them, because the distinction is confusing and not useful to people, and for those technically interested, the distinction remains evident from the address itself. --Krinkle (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Question, Krinkle, should a merged template provide a parameter to provide a distinction between these two? e.g. a {{Private IP}} that has a |type= with values "internal" vs "WMF", which changes the display output of the template slightly. Or do you think the distinction is not even worth noting in that manner? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @ProcrastinatingReader I don't think the distinction is worth noting. I believe those who would know what to set it to, or want to read it, already do this based on the shape of the IP address alone. For the purpose of wiki admins and patrollers, I'm not aware of this being a factor into how they would or should respond. --Krinkle (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment if merged, it should use "WMF IP", and there should be a switch indicating the private address space IP -- (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Bob Willis Trophy templates


Pointless templates, only used once, so we should subst and delete Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete to Bob Willis Trophy where they clearly should be. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Template:2020 Bob Willis Trophy South Group is used twice - also used on the Kent County Cricket Club in 2020 article. In recent years it seems that only Kent have had articles written on them. There is potential to use these elsewhere as well fwiw - on 2020 English cricket season for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The Kent article should link to the Bob Willis Trophy article which should contain the detail, the Kent article containing some text "eg Kent finished runner-up in the ...". There's no need for the detailed table to appear in two places. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I disagree about there being no need for the table there - particularly with such a short table. Just about every club article linked from Template:2018–19 in English men's football has a cut down version of the relevant league table showing 5-7 places in it, for example. Given that this table only had that many teams in it, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we should do that here as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
      • More importantly, the nomination is in error in this regard. Regardless of how people think they should be used, one of them is being used elsewhere. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy templates


Pointless templates, as only used on one article. Therefore, we should subst and delete Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete to Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy where they should be. Nigej (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Could be used on 2020 English cricket season as well. Arguably should be. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No it shouldn't be. The 2020 English cricket season should contain a summary, the detail should be elsewhere, in the main article. Nigej (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • That's an opinion, sure. I tend to think they could be used there sensibly though. If they were massively long tables I might agree, but they're not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Composition genre navboxes


Same reasoning as with the Rachmaninoff templates and Dvořák templates; I thought it best if we do this altogether. The individual genre templates are significantly older than the unified composer templates, and largely deprecated. Many pages transclude both templates, which is a significant duplication of content. intforce (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all These are all a sub-section of the main template, eg {{Arnold symphonies}} contains just the symphonies listed also in {{Malcolm Arnold}}. The Arnold symphonies only contain the Arnold symphonies template, not the main Malcolm Arnold template. Firstly, who's to say that someone in a symphony article only want to navigate to other symphonies. Secondly, it's all overall complicated, the user expects a certain consistency and finding radically different templates about the same composer will simply confuse them. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete with caveat – in general, Intforce, I'm supportive of deleting the ones you have put here but we need to be sure that the pages with removed templates will be substituted with their appropriate duplicates; e.g. an article like String Quartet No. 2 (Piston) won't be left with out the Walter Piston navbox. I don't know if you want to do this, or a bot can, but this is certainly something that should be addressed. 05:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Should not be a problem, once the discussion is closed with consensus to delete, I can do a pass with AWB. intforce (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • intforce I've just created {{Robert Simpson (composer)}}, if you want to add {{Robert Simpson symphonies}} to the nomination Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

January 10

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset


Propose merging Template:Infobox member of the Knesset with Template:Infobox officeholder.
To my understanding, Knesset infobox is the only Infobox template for members of an individual parliament, while everywhere else Officeholder is used. Even Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have such Infobox and uses Officeholder instead. Knesset infobox is very short and it makes articles about Israeli politicians uniquely less informative. It creates inconsistency when some Israeli politicians have Knesset infobox while other have Officeholder, with Knesset as a module inside. When used as a module (as in Benjamin Netanyahu), it appears at the end of the Infobox without separation inside "Military service" section, creating a messy layout "Politics -> Personal details -> Military and Politics again".

Various contributors tried to change to Officeholder in different articles, but were reverted by the Knesset template creator Number 57 (talk · contribs), for example:

I didn't found an instance of any other editor changing infobox Officeholder to Knesset. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose as it stands. The reason this template was created (13 years ago) is that {{Infobox officeholder}} is incapable of displaying information in a concise manner. Israeli politics features frequent changes of parties and ministerial positions, which cannot be displayed effectively in Infobox officeholder. Also, it contains far fewer additional parameters, which discourages the addition of information that is not particularly important – on Gideon Sa'ar, compare the officeholder version (so long you can't see his party or Knesset term information on the first screen) and the member of the Knesset one.
    I would be open to a merger if Infobox officeholder could be amended to display the information in a more compact format, similar to Infobox memebr of the Knesset. Some time ago I began experimenting with how this could be done at {{Infobox MP compact}}.
    There was a previous TfD in 2013. Number 57 12:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    PS, worth noting that with the exception of the Sa'ar article, which was yesterday, those diffs are from 2010, 2013 and 2015. Number 57 13:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Number 57, I don't think it is that long. At the end of the day it doesn't negate other information and our job is to give all of the sourced information. There isn't another website that will provide readers with a summarized table. Idan (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    It is not a requirement to include all that information in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states an infobox should "summarize key facts... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". I do not believe the names of Sa'ar's wives, number of children, his overseas awards, national service duties or almamater are key facts. Number 57 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Number 57, I agree, but the army achievements should be. Idan (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree – this was his national service, not a proper military career like Ami Ayalon. Number 57 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia community believes that spouses, number of children, alma mater, national service etc are key facts for Infobox, along with government positions. It's standard for politicians to have Infobox that you call long: UK (Brandon Lewis, Michael Gove), Germany (Olaf Scholz, Horst Seehofer), Canada (Dominic LeBlanc, Chrystia Freeland), Greece (Nikos Dendias, Michalis Chrisochoidis), Japan (Tarō Asō, Katsunobu Katō). If you disagree you should address this at Template talk:Infobox officeholder, and not pushing separate Infobox for one country only. And evidence of you adding this Infobox is not only "from 2010, 2013 and 2015" as you said, but from 2020, 2019, 2019, too. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    The infoboxes in most of those articles proves my point – these are not helpful summaries of the key facts, they are excessively long lists that a reader cannot view on a single page; the one on Olaf Scholz is particularly ridiculous and the ones on Michalis Chrisochoidis and Katsunobu Katō are several times longer than the article itself! And I am not pushing a separate infobox for one country – I am defending one that has been around for well over a decade. Number 57 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's been around for well over a decade because you created it and keeping on inserting it in one country only, against numerous other contributors. And examples from other countries I provided are the longest infoboxes I could find to show that even those are fine with everyone. Most are shorter, for example, Gideon Sa'ar version you reverted, and most others. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's been around for over a decade because it was kept at the last TfD discussion. Number 57 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    The previous TfD was closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    All three responses were in favour of keeping it. No idea why the close was as such. Number 57 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    It now seems the nominator is resorting to WP:CANVASSing. The last TfD had three participants, yet only the editor in favour of deleting it has been notified of this discussion.[2] Similarly, editors that have removed the infobox in question are being asked to comment.[3][4][5][6] I assume any !votes stemming from this will be discarded? Number 57 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've just notified the rest of participants from TfD. You could've just done it yourself. And as for "editors that have removed the infobox in question are being asked to comment" – all other editors who changed infobox besides you were removing the infobox in question, as I already said. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. None of the supposed obstacles are insurmountable, and most of the objections seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and Andy Mebbett. I think several of the reverts looks better with Infobox officeholder and I don't see that its harder to view the information in a concise matter. In my opinion the current infoboxes contains too little information. Tholme (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – first of all, per Number 57. The officeholder infobox holds a ridiculous amount of unnecessary information, like who preceded the officeholder in every single office held, which is against the definition of what an infobox should be on Wikipedia. To say that no one complained about the other bad stuff so there is no problem with it, is both a logical fallacy, and a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question should not be what everyone is defaulting to (after all, it's very hard to propose and implement changes to major templates), but which template is better for the task at hand? A random example that proves the point, already given above, is Nikos Dendias, which is a longer-than-average article compared to Israeli MKs, yet even there the infobox is longer than the article. This should never be the case, as such a long infobox does not make it easier—but rather harder—to consume information. Compare this to Miri Regev, where the infobox contains more-than-average information, but easily fits on a computer screen.
Second of all, there is a problem with this type of proposal in principle: it's saying let's merge first, for the sake of consistency, and ask questions later. Since there was a previous TfD that was closed with no consensus on the same issues, it would be nice if the nom addressed them in the nomination. I don't feel that true consensus can be achieved, even if most !vote a certain way, if the genuine problems raised by opposers aren't addressed.
Finally, the technical issue raised in the nomination shouldn't be insurmountable. If there is a formatting issue I can have a hack, or one of many Wikipedians who have an even better understanding of templating issues. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ynhockey: The longest part in Officeholder infoboxes now are government positions, which may be shorter with use of parameters from Knesset template if it's merged. Then, Israeli lawmakers will not be the only ones on English Wikipedia whose infoboxes are missing biographical information like relatives etc. And it will bring consistency among Israeli politicians, as well. Currently, every Prime Minister of Israel is having Officeholder, because everyone understand that Knesset infobox is insufficient for a serious biography. Meanwhile, most MKs are having Knesset infobox. Is there a rule? What if Yair Lapid or Gideon Sa'ar becomes a PM in two months? Are we going to change to Officeholder, even though there will be more information to manage? And why Benny Gantz is having Officeholder, while Miri Regev is not? This should be synchronized. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4: I'm not sure I understand why it's important that the infobox has a 'relatives' field, or anything not currently covered by the MK infobox. I agree with you that there should ideally be consistency, and I would support using the MK template in all but very special cases. Unfortunately I can't personally monitor, much less fight over, every single use of the template, such as in the examples you provided. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Infobox member of the Knesset is customized for MKs. If Infobox officeholder has items that could be relevant to Infobox member of the Knesset, they can be added -- just improve it, don't merge it into a generic infobox not designed for this one's specific purpose and loose usefulness in the process. ------Chefallen (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In theory this should be merged. It’s a subset of the template and officeholder should cater for all its needs. In practice, I happen to think that template is quite bloated and suboptimal, and this one quite well designed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge - per Andy and my replies above. Idan (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Question. As I understand, 'oppose' voters are against upper part of Infobox officeholder where government positions are. I think the solution is not to just delete Knesset template, but to merge parameters from it to Officeholder. The latter already contains parameters specific for United States and Ukraine. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As I've said, I am open to a merge if the officeholder infobox can be upgraded to allow it to do something like the example I created at {{Infobox MP compact}}. As it stands, one problem with any merger is that it would have to be done manually as although minister1 and ministeryears1 can be replaced by office1 and term1, the Officeholder infobox has no equivalent to the party1 and partyyears1 parameters.
Separately, why on earth are you advertising this TfD on talk pages of articles that don't even use the template? It just seems a bit desperate, particularly as you've basically done nothing else on Wikipedia for the last few days. Number 57 17:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And now you're spamming talk pages of articles that already have a notification on them... Number 57 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
All the pages I left notice on have direct connection to this topic area. I did it to draw broader attention to the discussion. What's the problem with that? "And now you're spamming talk pages of articles that already have a notification on them" – that notification appears on infoboxes in biographies, not on editors' watchlists. And I wouldn't like to be told what pages I should or should not contribute to, so keep your WP:Personal attacks to yourself. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Data from party1 and partyyears1 can be displayed in a more compact way with Officeholder, as in Ehud Barak. Can a bot help with this, potentially? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
party1 and partyyears1 in the MK infobox are not the same thing as party in the Officeholder infobox. In the latter it refers to general party membership (which would extend beyond their term in parliament, as it does in Barak's case), whereas the MK one is specifically for faction represented during their time in the Knesset (which also includes alliances their parties are members of). The closest thing the Officeholder infobox has is the parliamentarygroup parameter. To switch to using Infobox officeholder, an example change of code would be (for Sofa Landver)
Current code New code
|party1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears1 = 1996–1999
|party2 = [[One Israel]]
|partyyears2 = 1999–2001
|party3 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears3 = 2001–2003
|party4 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears4 = 2006
|party5 = [[Yisrael Beiteinu]]
|partyyears5 = 2006–
|office1 = Member of the [[Knesset]]
|parliamentarygroup1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (1996–1999)<br>[[One Israel]] (1999–2001)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2001–2003)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2006)<br>[[Yisrael Beiteinu]] (2006–)
I am not sure a bot would be capable of doing this, particularly if person in question had also held ministerial office, which means the office number would be different. Also, it doesn't really work with the term parameter when MKs have had gaps in their spell in the Knesset. If you want to display the term, you would need to do this, which having tested it, looks awful.
Current code New code
|party1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears1 = 1996–1999
|party2 = [[One Israel]]
|partyyears2 = 1999–2001
|party3 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears3 = 2001–2003
|party4 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]]
|partyyears4 = 2006
|party5 = [[Yisrael Beiteinu]]
|partyyears5 = 2006–
|office1 = Member of the [[Knesset]]
|term1 = 1996–2003
|parliamentarygroup2 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (1996–1999)<br>[[One Israel]] (1999–2001)<br>[[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2001–2003)
|term2 = 2006–
|parliamentarygroup1 = [[Israeli Labor Party|Labor Party]] (2006)<br>[[Yisrael Beiteinu]] (2006–)
I've created an example of what it would look like at User:Number 57/MKs. I'd be amazed if anyone seriously thought the officeholder versions were an improvement. Number 57 18:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing what you did there. I meant to move info from "Faction represented in Knesset" to "Political party" and "Other political affiliations", as it is in Ehud Barak now. Why not? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Because they're different parameters showing different things, so you can't move one to the other. party in the MK infobox is equivalent to parliamentarygroup in the officeholder infobox. Number 57 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Then maybe new sets of parameters could be created for both "Faction represented in Knesset" and "Ministerial roles" in Officeholder. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I have created 'suboffice' and 'subterm' parameters in the sandbox version of infobox officeholder, which allows for the display of information in a compact fashion. See an example on the right here. If this can be adopted to the main Officeholder infobox, I would be fine with a merge. However, I think it would still need to be done manually as the parameter numbering would not match up. Number 57 14:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to create separate sets of parameters for factions and ministerial roles? And then, instead of using "office1" and "office3", create headers for them which will appear if these parameters are filled? The way it's done in personal details. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why that would be necessary (unless you're just looking at making it easier to merge the templates?). The office parameter is used for all forms of office, so I'm not sure it's a wise idea to hardcode a specific type of office into it, plus it would fix the order of them in the infobox, whereas the current solution enables them to be added in at any appropriate point in the offices held section (if you wanted to add a relatively minor office, it would come above any new section hardcoded). The subterm/suboffice parameter also enables usage for a variety of roles which might not be specific to this particular discussion, so I don't think it's a good idea to hardcode a particular section heading.
If it is just about making it easier to merge them, I don't think it's an appropriate reason – it's going to have to be done manually. I reckon you could do it in a semi-automated fashio with AWB (autoreplacing the infobox title and "party1/minister1" with "suboffice1" and "partyyears1/ministeryears1" with "subterm1" etc, then adding the office1 = lines manually and fixing the numbering for anyone with a combination of Knesset service and ministerial roles. I'd be happy to help sort this out if a merger with the new parameters is agreed. Number 57 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"Ministerial roles" and "Faction represented in the Knesset" are not offices, but headings. The parameter "office" in Officeholder infobox is used for posts like "President of ...", "Minister of ..." etc. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You can add anything into the office parameter and it appears as a section heading (the code in the template is the same for any heading created using 'office1' and the hardcoded 'Personal details' heading – they are both coded as data headers). As you can see in the example on the right, the 'Ministerial positions' and 'Faction represented in the Knesset' headings appears identical to the 'Personal details' heading – there is no need to hardcode it. Number 57 20:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not right and messed up. It's just utilizing existing parameters for different purpose to make them appear in a new way. "Faction" appears second but must be coded as "office3". "suboffice4" and "subterm4" have no "office4" which they're "subs" of. It will be unreasonably difficult for contributors to edit. I will try a little later to make new headings in sandbox if I'll be able to. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't messed up, as I've demonstrated it works to the satisfaction of at least one other editor. Hardcoding a specific heading is a really bad idea as it makes it completely inflexible both in terms of where it appears in the inbox, and also doesn't allow it to be used for potential alternatives. I don't believe this is massively difficult for editors to code correctly. Number 57 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"it works to the satisfaction of at least one other editor" – I'm talking about a solution that would look the same as what that editor agreed with, using different coding.
Current MK infobox is inflexible. Could you provide an example where infobox needs a heading other that Ministries and Factions? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
For people who become Prime Minister or President, that would be office1 in the usual officeholder format and then have their other ministerial roles in the more compact fashion below. Similarly, you might have a role that's considered more minor than a ministerial post (like being Ambassador to Denmark or something) and you'd want to list that below their ministerial posts. Plus there are other positions like Speaker of the Knesset, Leader of the Opposition, leader of a specific party, etc, which is less clear whether it should be ranked above or below ministerial positions in importance and can be decided on a case by case basis.
The good thing about the sandbox version is that it isn't restricted to a certain use (I would almost certainly use it for non-Israeli politician bios that I write) or order. Given there is a perfectly viable flexible option that delivers the solution, why would we opt for an inflexible version? Number 57 14:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If headings are custom it would require to type it manually everytime, which would make the same thing to have slightly different title from one infobox to another, while it's better to be standardized. The two headings could be "Positions held" and "Parliamentary factions". That would encompass everything, and could be used in any politician, not only in Israelis. And it would avoid confusing numbering in the code, of course. The two new sections could be placed below current "office" roles, allowing important offices to be ahead and more detailed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree and maintain that it's best to keep it flexible. There are no hardcoded titles in the infobox – standardisation between articles of people holding the same posts is achieved by editors keeping an eye on things. Over 1,000 of the 1,052 Knesset members/ministers have this infobox and if a merge were to go ahead, virtually all of them will be edited in the same batch of edits, ensuring consistency can be achieved. Plus the numbering issue is a standard part of using infobox officeholder (if you want to add a new more prominent office to someone's infobox, you have to renumber all the previous roles). Anyway, this discussion is wasting our time as you are not going to persuade me that your proposal is acceptable, and vice versa. I will ask other users if they think a flexible or inflexible option is preferable. Number 57 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
As an example of why the flexible option would be preferable, editors might want to create separate sections for ministerial roles and ambassadorial posts, or state-level positions and federal-level positions, if someone has held several of both. This wouldn't be possible with a single fixed heading. Number 57 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion #1 and #4 are the best. Mainly, I like the condensed view of the infoboxes there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I wouldn't oppose a partial merge and/or a more compact format for Infobox officeholder as discussed above. Sadly, the officeholder infobox tends to be way too long and take up too much space with predecessors, successors and relatively unimportant offices leading it to grow to a ridiculous length in some cases. (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Sorry, I haven't been active recently. I have been busy for awhile, however, when I was active in editing Israeli articles awhile ago, this was an issue I ran into. Using a proper infobox, would allow for people who are notable for other reasons to have more information listed. The ideal situation would be to keep this template and standardize pinning it to a normal infobox however, often when this is implemented it is reverted except in very specific and extraordinary cases. ShimonChai (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @Chefallen, Ynhockey, ProcrastinatingReader, and Buidhe: Would you be happy with a merge if Infobox officeholder can be amended to display information in the same way as the MK infobox (as displayed on the right at User:Number 57/MKs). And if a merge does happen, would you prefer this to be done via the 'flexible' option proposed by myself (adding new suboffice and subterm parameters that sit beneath an office heading) that can be used at any place in the infobox and repeated multiple times with any heading, or the 'fixed' option proposed by Triggerhippie4 (creating something similar to the the parameters in the Knesset infobox), where the information would have a limited number of fixed titles and a fixed location below any roles entered using the office parameter. Cheers. Number 57 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, ShimonChai, Tholme, and Zvikorn: May I also ping editors voted for merge, if they have opinion on which way this should be done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm open to a merge if Infobox officeholder can be amended to display information in the same way as the Infobox Member of Knesset, with either 'flexible' or 'fixed' parameters. --Chefallen (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If this can be done, I'd rather still have the MK infobox that just uses the officeholder infobox but keeps the existing fields. That would prevent the need for replacing them, plus allow for simpler syntax and encourage using fewer fields (a good thing); but I wouldn't be strongly against just moving to the general template. In short, Strong oppose would become Weak oppose. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If your proposed changes are made then no objections from me. They seem like an improvement to officeholder anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, the unique nature of the Knesset makes it so that the current infobox is best suited for the appropriate articles of Israeli politicians. While the infobox officeholder could technically be tweaked to accommodate a merge, I think the least problematic and stressful is to keep the two separate. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and WP:AINT. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to the closer. It appears Triggerhippie and I have reached agreement on how the appropriate parameters could be integrated into Infobox officeholder.[7] I'm happy to process this should the close be in favour of merging in this way (which I think there is probably a rough consensus for). Cheers, Number 57 15:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge The smart people at {{Infobox officeholder}} will perform the required magic as they have many times before. Everything will be fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC).
  • Oppose I agree with a lot of the points mentioned previously. israeli MKs would be a mess with infobox officeholder, they serve nonconsecutive terms quite often, they serve under a ton of parties, and take upon themselves a large number of political offices. itd not work with officeholder, and would be hard to transition into. you could probably (idk much about editing infoboxes), edit the graphical style of the infobox to look more like officeholder as a compromise? idk Total (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Totalstgamer: We're now talking about making Officeholder to function as the Knesset template adding one parameter there. It will look like the Knesset infobox plus personal details. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4: Sounds like a good idea to me Total (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Completed discussions[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.


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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've written some regex for AWB but my problem is that I don't know how (or even if it's possible) to set a whole row as a conditional check. Currently this fails if the template isn't written in this exact order. Any ideas? @Primefac: have any ideas?

Find: \{\{Infobox reality talent competition\n.*\|.*name.*=.*\n.*\|.*logo.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*logo_alt.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*first_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*last_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*judges.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*coaches.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*host.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*cohost.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*broadcaster.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*competitors.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*finalsvenue.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*num_tasks.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*image.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*caption.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-name .*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-origin.*=\s?(.*)\n\|winner-genre.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-song.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-name.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-image.*=\s?(.*)\n\}\}

Replace: {{Infobox television season\n| image = $1\n| image_alt = $2\n| module1 = {{Infobox reality competition season \n | host = $7\n | judges = $5\n | num_contestants = $10\n | winner = $15\n | runner_up = $19\n}}\n| network = $9\n| first_aired = $3\n| last_aired = $4\n}} --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oof, that's a bit nuts. I'll try to dig into that regex soon, but I'm starting to think that using an AWB module to save, store, and modify those parameters to convert the template use might be the best way forward. The other thing we should probably do is find out where the template is used alongside {{infobox television}}, since we shouldn't convert it to "season" if that's there (instead, just folding it in). Primefac (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Favre1fan93: I've made a substable wrapper in the sandbox based on your wrapper. Go to any transclusion, plug a /sandbox on the end (or change to {{Infobox reality talent competition/sandbox}} if it's using a redirect) and preview. This should be how it looked pre-wrapper. Then chuck a subst: in front and preview, and this is how it'd look being substed. By my eye, testing on a couple of pages, this all looks correct, however the winner's national origin isn't being mapped in the wrapper (Gonnym?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: is there consensus to remove the various parameters removed in the current wrapper? See eg pages in Category:Pages using infobox reality talent competition with unknown parameters, for example The X Factor (British series 11) when previewed with the sandbox version (which will show the old template v before your wrapper convert). It seems like many labels missing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates[edit]

Link templates[edit]

  • None currently


2020 February 1Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )


To convert[edit]

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

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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[edit]

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

Archive and Indices[edit]