Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

"WP:TFD" redirects here. For templates nominated today, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 October 12. 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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	24	15	39	15	93
TfD	0	0	5	3	8
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	15	17	3	35
RfD	0	0	30	36	66
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

Templates for discussion (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.

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

Reasons for nominating a template

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

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help. Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for discussion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

What not to nominate here

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:

• Stub templates – Stub templates and categories should be nominated at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
• Userboxes – Userboxes should be nominated at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
• Template redirects – Nominate all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
• Moving and renaming a template – Use Requested moves.
• 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}}. See also WP:T5.
• Policy or guideline templates – Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be nominated at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.

Nominate a template

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an template on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. 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

Twinkle

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

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: For deletion: {{subst:Tfd}} For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:Tfd|type=sidebar}} For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}} and don't add a newline after the notice. For merging: {{subst:Tfm|name of other template}} For merging an inline template: {{subst:Tfm|type=inline|name of other template to be merged}} and don't add a newline after the notice. To delete a module or a different type of template, see Template:Template for discussion § Display on articles 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: {{subst:Tfd}} Use an edit summary like Nominated for discussion; 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_October_12#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

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

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

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

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

October 12

Template:Savannah Steel roster

• Template:Savannah Steel roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jacksonville Waves roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Charlotte Crown roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or documentation. Savannah Steel, Jacksonville Waves, and Charlotte Crown seem to be working just fine by putting article content into the articles instead of in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Front-facing other

• Template:Front-facing other (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. This template was an interesting experiment that ran into some fundamental design issues that the creator was unwilling to address (see the template's talk page). The creator has since left Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:UEFA Second Category Referees

• Template:UEFA Second Category Referees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. This gigantic list should be a category, not a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:The Grand Tour

• Template:The Grand Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. Nearly all of the links to episodes are either red links, links to the wrong page, or links to a small table that shows nothing about the episode in question. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Antrim family tree

• Template:Antrim family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Wait, what... I created it and didn't use it? Very sloppy! I'll take care of that now. Thanks for keeping up on these. —GoldRingChip 01:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks, GRC. There are more at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates. Search for "family tree". – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Honor of the Nation Decoration

• Template:Honor of the Nation Decoration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. This should be a category, not a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Forward to streaming

• Template:Forward to streaming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep The documentation explains how this template works and its purpose. It is part of a tool I have been developing on Toolforge but have not yet finished creating all elements of. This template is also helpful in testing how it would interact with the tool, even if it is not ready for a wider deployment. AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Roman Aristocracy in the 10th-11th centuries family tree

• Template:Roman Aristocracy in the 10th-11th centuries family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indian RRBs

• Template:Indian RRBs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:St Kilda railway line

• Template:St Kilda railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

With a little bias, I disagree on deletion, I believe that documentation should be added as stated. LachlanTansey (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@LachlanTansey: This specific template isn't transcluded at St Kilda railway line#Line guide, but there is an almost exact copy of this route map there (with a few small differences), which hasn't been separated into a template per RDT convention. Was this template copied from there? Fork99 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the railway line template was copied from the present template. I do apologise for not following convention as I wasn't aware. Same for the Port Melbourne template. LachlanTansey (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Mitochondrial Outer Membrane Proteins

• Template:Mitochondrial Outer Membrane Proteins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Port Melbourne railway line

• Template:Port Melbourne railway line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging creator @LachlanTansey: This specific template isn't transcluded at Port Melbourne railway line#Line guide, but there is a very similar copy of this route map there (with a few differences), which hasn't been separated into a template per RDT convention. Was this template copied from there? Fork99 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:WBSCTE

• Template:WBSCTE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Navbox with only two blue links in the body to standalone articles. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:SLA Bomb attacks on Pakistan infrastructure in Sindh

• Template:SLA Bomb attacks on Pakistan infrastructure in Sindh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Only the title article would reasonably have a two-way link to this sidebar. All of the others are either links to sections of that article, are not reasonable reciprocal articles, or can be linked in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Post-start and sibling templates

• Template:Post-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Post-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Post-member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Superseded by {{MilLeadership}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

October 11

Template:Wonder Woman publications

• Template:Wonder Woman publications (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Wonder Woman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Wonder Woman publications with Template:Wonder Woman.
The Wonder Woman main template contains all included articles already, and more. Emcgonigle (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Bruh

• Template:Bruh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with no clear use case defined and very unlikely to be used (I mean, is it really that hard to type 💀 '''Bruh'''?). The creator of original template on Commons (who has been globally blocked recently) claims that it's meant for "discussions" without elaborating.

— NotCory (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Pretty self-explanatory. It's a reaction meant to express that you found something funny or silly. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 17:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Why is the documentation scanty to the point of uselessness? When would it be used? What on earth does it mean? Is it some street slang that has no place on Wikipedia, the serious encyclopedia that anyone can edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Userfy. If this template is used solely by the creator as a reaction template, it can just be in their userspace. That's what I do with User:guninvalid/r and User:guninvalid/wmu and like 6 other templates. guninvalid (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Dice

• Template:Dice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template does not actually contain related articles and has no likelihood of being used (as those listed on the template are not likely to be articles for certain). Miwako Sato (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No links in this navbox. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

October 10

Template:Gwenpool

• Template:Gwenpool (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created navbox that is just a collection of related links for associated characters that are not explicitly defined to this character alone, plus a plethora of redirects. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 12:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently, the creator previously contested speedy deletion arguing that this template was a copy of its Italian equivalent and not a recreation of the previously deleted ones, which were repeatedly recreated by socks and got this template salted. This may be a continuation of that sock, so salting should be reinstated. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 12:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, I'm the creator of the new version of the template, I'm sorry for making trouble creating the template. I know nothing about its history, I just wanted to translate the italian version of it. I can assure I'm not a sock of any previeus account, I'm actually an Italian user and I mainly work for the italian Wikipedia, you can check there. Mikirito 07 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I just found it concerning that this template was recreated yet again, though you're in the clear. However, now that @Fiction Fanatic III (pardon the courtesy ping) removed only some of the redirect entries from the navbox, there are still a few issues with it that remain. The Unbelievable Gwenpool is the only entry that directly correlates with the title character, with the other characters are ones that appear in a multitude of other Marvel comics and are not exclusively distinct to this character as supporting ones. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep with no prejudice against judicious culling. Certainly there are entries like Jeff the Land Shark which seem appropriate. I added the artist Irene Strychalski.
• Comment: As the nominator, I would like to further emphasize that, even after good faith efforts to recontextualize this navbox, it remains just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of links that are not exclusively defined or correlated to the character itself. The artists arguably are not suitable entries to justify its existence, let alone the marginally related characters. There is some overlap with the also recently created Template:Gwen Stacy, which I have also brought to TfD. WP:Not everything needs a navbox, and categories may be a more organized approach to provide readers with a way to navigate these correlated characters and comics, especially considering nsvboxes are traditionally not available on mobile devices. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment This is a borderline case for me Imho, there are a couple of characters and publications which are explicitly Gwenpool specific, but they're not many.★Trekker (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Eastern Christian Diocese

• Template:Infobox Eastern Christian Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

recently created fork of Template:Infobox diocese. if there are features missing in Template:Infobox diocese we should add them rather than forking it. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should seek to enrich Template:infobox diocese to accommodate distinctive characteristics of eastern Christianity jurisdictions.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of changes that have to be made. Make all the fields, on titles and stuff renameable, for instance. I think it can be deleted after those changes have been made. Most of the fields in the infobox diocese template are relevant for only the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic churches. Halershes (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I also have to point out that the Template: Infobox Eastern Christian Diocese is pretty inclusive for all Christian denominations with an Episcopal polity, atleast that was my intention, even for Western Christians. Halershes (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This is to say, that keeping the Template:Infobox Eastern Christian Diocese is probably the best move considering how difficult it might be to change the established Template:Infobox diocese. Halershes (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Halershes, did you propose changes at Template talk:Infobox diocese? Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church

• Template:Monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Serbian Orthodox monasteries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church with Template:Serbian Orthodox monasteries.
This new one duplicates the old one, but also adds eparchy information and segments the information a bit differently. Are those things improvements for navigation? I don't know. --Joy (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Joy: Thanks for opening the merge discussion. I am neutral on the formal outcome. My intention in creating Template:Monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church was to make a comprehensive navbox grouped by eparchy, listing monasteries both with and without English Wikipedia articles. It contains all the monasteries from Template:Serbian Orthodox monasteries, as well as additional monasteries that do not yet have English Wikipedia articles. If the community decides to merge the two templates, I have no objection either way. However, I would prefer the merged result to keep the eparchy-based organisation and, if possible, the fuller list of monasteries. The country grouping and the Kosovo/canonical-territory footnotes from the older template could also be retained as notes or as an alternative grouping if that is considered useful. I do not have a strong preference for the final template title. - Mmns21 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• On that note, I support redlinked entries. I believe our process and thinking about red links are currently a bit broken (and need more fixing than just this). I also don't know how I feel about the images on {{Serbian Orthodox monasteries}} - they are fine on the old ("wide") layout, but on the new narrow ("standard"), they float around a bit awkwardly. So, re-reading my own comments, I seem to prefer {{Monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church}} layout when merged. Including a map like File:Map_of_Canonical_Territory_of_the_Serbian_Orthodox_Church.svg that shows the location of eparchies would be the icing on the cake to help the uninitiated reader. ~2026-50419-70 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that I'm not necessarily seeing any opposition, but also not a ton of support either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Party shading

• Template:Party shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Also all of Special:Prefixindex/Template:Party shading

This is a template that I would like to discuss rather than nominate strictly for deletion (though I am advocating deletion for the subpages). Currently this template has about 1k subpages, each with a colour profile for a specific political party. We already have Module:Political party though, so like {{party color}} and similar this should be a wrapper for it. In other words, I think we should be changing {{party shading/XYZ}} to {{party shading|XYZ}} and get rid of all of the subpage nonsense. This allows for near-infinite expansion and is more (to quote from the nomination that prompted this) useful ... for editors who are not fluent in creating templates, as all that is needed is to update the module if a party isn't in it. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

If someone really wants me to mark all of the subpages for deletion I will do that, but I'd rather get at least some indication that this move would be ideal before doing so (i.e. I don't want to make 1k edits if it's a SNOW close or similar). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Probable merge to {{party color}} in some way, or to a similar template. These many subpages appear to be redundant to the party color template, which uses shared modules. I note that the Party shading templates produce output of the form style="background:#AACC99" while {{party color}} produces output of the form #E41C3E, so we might need a new merge target. I'd like to see a quick-and-dirty demonstration. This reminds me of the Module:Adjacent stations merger, which greatly reduced the number of railway color and link templates; this merge should be a lot simpler. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  My thought is to make {{party shading}} be coded as style="background:"; this is essentially what the submodules do with hard-coded colour values and (as demonstrated above) would require a one-character change in any existing template calls. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Er, I would never say there's a huge difference in ease for people (newbies) to edit Lua module code compared to editing Mediawiki template code. At the same time, in this specific case, both options seem to be set up with not a huge amount of regard for editor usability.

The individual templates with subpages seem relatively easy to navigate to, but at the same time there seems to be next to no documentation, so that's horrible. Once you find a party's entry, the relatively short portion of template code seems a bit too complex, too.

On the other hand, the module sends one to check one index page per starting letter, which is pretty large (the two examples I checked were both were quite slow to load and probably intimidating by default). When you find the entry in a list, it looks good, but it can't be edited from there, you have to open the whole thing and find it inside. The line formatting is less complex, so that's better.

It's a good thing these things relatively rarely change so this is not a big deal either way. --Joy (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that the module has ~15k parties listed. The shading template currently only has ~1k, but someone could theoretically make the other 14k pages that aren't currently in existence (it's actually one of the reasons the module was made, as there were that many subpages of {{party color}} at one point which have since been deleted). These subpages are probably not really watched by anyone and thus changes are very unlikely to be noticed, much less contested. 27 subpages are a lot easier to watch than 1k! Primefac (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Unblock link

• Template:Unblock link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The first edit summary explains why @Awesome Aasim created it: create template that generates links to appeal blocks. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason I created this template is so that it is easier to link to the appropriate unblock preload from block templates and in places like H:B. I do think it has potential use and the fix would be to actually use the template rather than argue that because the template is unused it is pointless and thus be deleted. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Ingenious. I think it looks useful, do you intend to use it yourself, or to make others aware of it too? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unused. Is it going to be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hb17

• Template:Hb17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Hb17-rt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Hbw16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-year template for under-X national teams which can/should be replaced with the more generic {{hbu}}, {{hbu-rt}}, and {{hbwu}}. Note that {{Hbw16-rt}} has already been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:CCHE

• Template:CCHE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• comment, it looks like this is just an index of the templates associated with Template:CCHE/2026/invitation to keep it from being deleted as a unused subpage. It looks like the event will be over in a couple weeks and there will no longer be a need for this invitation. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment on comment No need if it is subst'ed everywhere, increasing database size considerably. If it is used as a template, we will need to preserve it to preserve talk page history and talk page archives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:40, 28 September 2026 (UTC).
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Expand index

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. G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND ASUKITE 17:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Expand index (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New maintenance template, created within the past few days by a single user without evidence that they made any effort to establish a consensus that it was actually required. This is in use exclusively on four set index pages about British football (soccer) team histories, where those histories have been split up into multiple subpages due to length and so the set index page exists to provide a list of those subpages instead of a single very long article -- but for that very reason, it's unclear how much "expansion" of the index pages is really needed or even possible.
Nearly all set index pages, in fact, just comprise a list of the relevant subpages rather than "expanded" summaries (see e.g. Timeline of the future of the universe, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia or History of newspaper publishing in the Middle East), so this could just be indiscriminately added to every set index page that exists on Wikipedia at all, and left there indefinitely in the absence of any defined standards for how much a set index page needs to be "expanded".
This additionally spawned several new dated monthly maintenance tracking categories that do not exist, and accordingly showed up on Special:WantedCategories -- but categories like that would require a consensus that they're needed, and will actually be maintained and used, before they can be justifiably created, as opposed to a single editor just throwing a laborious new process onto everybody's plate willy-nilly.
So editors need to propose things like this in the appropriate venues first to gain a consensus that they're needed, and should not just be inventing complex new processes at their own personal whim. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

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

October 8

Template:Ih16

• Template:Ih16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{ihu}} (Template:National men's ice hockey team under) Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

October 7

Template:Greater and Lesser Magic

• Template:Greater and Lesser Magic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not being used in any meaningful way, and includes bizarre entries such as Tesla coil which it would be inappropriate to transclude onto anyway, the same of most of the entries. Massively fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, just take a look at the transclusion check and what links here --woodensuperman 15:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete if this navbox was cleaned of all its irrelevant or even random entries, it would look even more unconvincing than it already is on the very few pages where it is currently included. I do not think there is any hope to turn it into something useful, let alone something that can meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:21, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Redundant to the LaVeyan Satanism navbox. Anything defining to this can go there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Random Alice Quote

• Template:Random Alice Quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Unsure what practical encyclopedic value this is supposed to have. --woodensuperman 13:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Userfy While it is unused and unlikely to be used in mainspace, it is used by its creator, who obviously cares or cared enough about this to make it. I see little harm in userfying instead of deleting, and while I know it matters little in a TfD discussion, I have to admit this thing is at least a bit charming. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:25, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

October 6

Template:Iceman track listing

• Template:Iceman track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused new track listing template containing article content and no parameters. We no longer create track listing templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I followed Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples, where it states "An album track listing may be added to infobox song as long as the following criteria are met: 1) the article does not have a navbox in which the song appears; and 2) a majority of the album's songs are linked to WP articles. Currently, three different approaches to listing album tracks are found in infobox song." Cheromaniii (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The track listing was used in every Iceman song, but all my edits adding the template were reverted...? Cheromaniii (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete, track listings in infobox are redundant clutter, and I believe this kind of template fails the first general WP:TG, as it collapses and obscures article content. however, if we no longer create track listing templates this should probably be reflected in the documentation of Template:Infobox song, because right now it would be quite natural to think they are still the norm. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

"Templates should not normally be used to store article text that may need to edited, as this makes it more difficult to do so. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader."

All songs of Iceman are already made, they are most likely not going to be edited in the future at all unless an article is moved.

"... [A]s it collapses and obscures article content"

That is the exact reason why there is conveniently a collapse and expand button, and why the template is normally collapsed.

"[H]owever, if we no longer create track listing templates this should be probably reflected in the documentation of Template:Infobox song,..."

This just sounds like your opinion on the track listing templates in general, not this specific one. Unaware what this contributes to the Iceman track listing template.

"... [B]ecause right now it would be quite natural to think they are still the norm"

Nothing indicates that it is not the norm, I'm unaware why nobody uses this template on albums that have good content on every song's individual article on an album.

Cheromaniii (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Camerica

• Template:Camerica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Codemasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Camerica with Template:Codemasters.
Most of the items listed here are developed/published by Codemasters; only one item is solely related to Camerica. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge. Since the games (and, apparently, at least one accessory) were developed by Codemasters, I agree that the Codemasters template is a more sensible place for them. Camerica was a publisher and licensee, by virtue of their distribution deals. Ringbang (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge Template:Camerica into Template:Codemasters, which should still make the Camerica connection clear. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Sport death category templates

• Template:Sport deaths in South America (category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sport deaths in Africa (category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sport deaths in Asia (category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sport deaths in Europe (category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same rationale as the recently-deleted North American template - tons of redlinks, few categories. There's also a "Sport deaths in Oceania" template modeled in the same fashion, but I can't seem to access that one for some reason. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete these navboxes look particularly useless for navigation within categories, as every (actually existing) entry in those are child categories of "Sport death in [Continent] by country" parent cats. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

October 5

Template:First place

• Template:First place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Second place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Third place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are redundant to {{won|place=X}} and only used in a handful of places. Templates noincluded as they're table-cell templates and would break things. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. These templates are pretty good. The resulting text is displayed in bold. And there is also a nice option to use the first parameter → 3px red border.
  Used in a handful of places... For example, in this one article alone (FIBA U18 EuroBasket), these templates are used a total of 272 times...
  Maiō T. (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Just a thought on your last point, those 272 uses could just as easily be {{won|place=1}}. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  As a follow-on question, would it be better to remove the |place= option from {{won}} and use this template instead? Either way there's duplication that could be addressed. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Every instance of {{won|place=XYZ}} visits 37 nodes, while {{pl1}} = 2 nodes. Moreover, {{won}} doesn't support bold text, nor borders. Let's leave everything as it is, I'd say... Maiō T. (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Won template is more consistent. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete let's not do the opposite of consolidation just for the sake of minor cosmetic preferences like a big red border. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:48, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay people, but improve the {{won}} first! I am currently using this code: {{pl1|h}}, so in the future, I would like to use the "Won" template in a similar easy way, for example: {{won|1|h}} and of course with the same result: bold text and a nice 3px red border... Maiō T. (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Template category navboxes

• Template:Europe templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asia templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has been placed at the top of certain categories, dominating the category and leaving category navigation secondary. We should not be using navboxes to navigate categories. This undermines the whole point of categories. --woodensuperman 08:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomination format side discussion

• Combine Nomination This one should meet the same outcome as the Asian templates nomination above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done --woodensuperman 10:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (as creator of 1): The WP:CLNT guideline gives us some latitude so I don't think a navigational template in the category space is forbidden, but it's certainly fair to ask if it's useful beyond the native functionality of categories. I'm not sure. (But, if there is consensus to delete these, we might later consider whether the some of the other contents of Category:Navigational metatemplates meet our current standards.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the others in that category, they all seem to be templates navigating other templates, which are placed on the bottom of templates and are only visible in template space. In them, for the most part, it is clear that they navigate other templates by the use of curly brackets. This is a different function to what we have here, where the two in the nomination seem to be unique, certainly the only navboxes I've seen that navigate between categories of templates. Honestly they're more confusing than useful, and it's not even clear you're navigating categories. --woodensuperman 15:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  You're right that the rest of them are linking actual templates (as opposed to template categories) but I'd pose a similar question: do we need both Template:Spaceflight navboxes and Category:Spaceflight navigational boxes? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete as completely redundant, since every entry of these templates is (or, in case I missed some, can be) a child category of Category:Europe country templates and Category:Asia country templates. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs

• Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the external link is no longer functional, I recommend deleting it. Willy1018(talk) 15:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• comment I fixed the links to point to archive.org, so at this point maybe either substitute/delete or keep? Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
There are a lot of transclusions so something a bit more than a shrug might be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Willy1018 Any resonse? Techie3 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

External links shouldn't use archive page.Wikipedia:External_links:"Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. " Willy1018(talk) 11:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Substitute all of them, as they contradict WP:TG by obscuring article content and making it harder to edit for no tangible benefit. The example input given in the documentation, "{{SUNYAnatomyLabs|18|st|02|08}}" shows how unpractical this is to work with compared to normal article text accompanying a link. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:2025-2026 Broadway Season

• Template:2025-2026 Broadway Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox does not pass WP:NAVBOX #2, #3, #4, and #5. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete While I do not think following the suggested guidelines for a good WP:NAVBOX always means that failing either of these bullet points is a problem, the connection between these articles feels too tangential to justify one, which is probably why we do not have navboxes for other seasons. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Missing rationale2

• Template:Missing rationale2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice with Template:Di-no non-free use rationale.
Template is outdated and was previously used by obsolete editor Betacommand and his bot. I suggest merging this to here because it mainly focuses on missing a fair use rationale, like how I nominated Template:Missing rationale. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 13:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think these templates should be separate ones. Missing rationale2 is for article talk pages, if you read it it says "[[:{{{1}}}]] is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use." Di-no non-free use rationale-notice is for user talk pages. If there's a Non-free file with no non-free use rationale, it would just get removed from the article and missing rationale2 would be added to the article talk page. BuickRiviera99 21:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Subst and delete Template:Missing rationale2 entirely, per nom. Except there's no need to merge - the existing template is sufficient as-is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

One is meant for article talk pages in cases where there may be a FUR for a different article but not for the one in question, and the other is meant for user talk pages to warn an uploader that there is no FUR at all. Oppose unless the latter template is heavily revised to serve both purposes. A notice on an article talk page is more likely to get the attention of other editors and therefore more likely to get the problem resolved.

Despite the similar name, {{Missing rationale2}} doesn't serve the same function as {{Missing rationale}} did, so the latter's previous deletion is a red herring. --Sable232 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Substitute and delete Template:Missing rationale2. While I agree with Sable232 that merging is inappropriate because of the different use case, I do not believe Template:Missing rationale2 is useful at all. If there are issues with a local non-free file, this is to be discussed on the file talk page, or at WP:FfD, not on an article where the file may or may not be the next day. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:25, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bodybuilding contest

• Template:Infobox bodybuilding contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Articles that might use this template (see Category:Bodybuilding competitions) appear to be doing just fine with {{Infobox recurring event}} and {{Infobox tournament}} and {{Infobox organization}} and {{Infobox sports league}} and {{Infobox MMA event}} (and maybe more). They could use some standardizing, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Bodybuilding is labeled as defunct. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete unused, and while not completely unlikely to be used, we ought to be using every opportunity we can get for WP:CONSOLIDATION of sports infoboxes. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Big South Conference football coach navbox

• Template:Big South Conference football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Big South Conference football venue navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Big South Conference football team seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxen with no transclusions because the conference no longer has any men's football teams. All schools in the conference either do not have men's football teams, or the teams play in the Ohio Valley Conference. The navbox is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete unused and unlikely to be used per nom. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Big South Conference NFL draftees navbox

• Template:Big South Conference NFL draftees navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions of this navbox. Just one link in the body, making it useless for navigation. Also see the above rationale. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete unused and unlikely to be used, per above nomination. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cite check

• Template:Cite check (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Verify sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cite check with Template:Verify sources.
I'm failing to see the difference between the two, and the names don't help distinguish them either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge but keep the wording of Cite check. "an editor has expressed concern..." is obvious since there is a maintenance tag. Rolluik (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. I agree with Rolluik on the target of the merge. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment Hum, the Cite check is different from Verify sources; the former is for when citations added to claims do not verify the claims and need to be fixed, while the latter is for when sources cited in an article are irrelevant or questionable. They clearly do not appear similar in scope or task. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Cite check is for an article containing fictitious references, while Verify sources is for "irrelevant and questionable" citations. The meaning of "questionable" isn't entirely clear, but it's clear to me that these templates serve two different purposes. The former template is for a much more serious problem that shouldn't be glossed over. --Sable232 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as the two templates seem to serve different purposes to me. Cite check is for text in which the supporting citation(s) may not verify it. Verify sources are for irrelevant citations, which I guess means citations which are not exactly very useful in supporting the text. I agree with Sable232. Babin Mew (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Per my comment above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Template:Verify sources into Template:Cite check, as the wording of Cite Check is much better and I do not think we should change it. I do understand the point of opposes saying that their is a subtle difference between what these two CTAGs intend to be about, but we already have an impractically high number of them, so I think a bit of simplification here outweighs the slight loss of distinction. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Unless the content of the new template message is an amalgam of the two current, "Cite check" with "Verify sources" address two different, and largely distinct failure modes, and so should remain separate. (One can detect, through citation checking, an apparent pattern of source misuse, while the sources nevertheless remain relevant and otherwise apropos for some part of the content.) Moreover, tags have short half-lives as it is (so unseemly it's perceived to call things as they are); moving tags toward less explicit or less accurate just gives editors more concerned about article appearance than warning readers about clear shortcomings more cause to remove them, when something should remain in place. Otherwise, what does this housekeeping suggestion accomplish? Yes, we would have one less statistic to track, but in its place we would have one with larger, less meaningful numbers/intelligence. Signed, a retired, but still occasionally active academician and editor (of many tens of thousands of edits). ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Far-right politics sidebar

• Template:Far-right politics sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A new addition (made a few days ago) to our heaps of useless, overbroad sidebar templates. Nearly every entry in this navbox is violative of WP:SIDEBAR and further, WP:NAVBOX. This does not help navigation with anything and is crammed with useless links - the entire principles section is violative of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and the focus requirements of SIDEBAR, there are numerous links to disambiguation pages and redirects. Extremely, extremely minor ideologies that were coined in the past few years (militant accelerationism) are presented alongside "Populism" as "main ideologies", when they are not main ideologies. We do not need more visual cruft on the sides of these articles, this adds nothing, this does not match how people would realistically navigate this topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This template is indeed a mess, and where it contains things are legitimately far-right, those tend to already be covered in other sidebars like Template:Fascism sidebar. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Just saw this added to a clearly inappropriate page and thought "not another one". We already have Template:Fascism sidebar, various country sidebars such as Template:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom sidebar, and various right wing and conservatism sidebars. This one is created without discussion, and is stuffed full of an editor collated synthesis of pages that are clearly not tightly related to any subject. Also per the nom., this is not useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Not all far-right politics is fascism, so the Template:Fascism sidebar alone is not enough. Moreover, not every country has a far-right sidebar. I think this tem is very useful. ProgramT (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, my "delete" is very strong too. This template has 125 links so far, and 89 of them are not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. You say Fascism sidebar is not enough. But among those 125 links are links to neo-fascism, List of fascist movements, List of fascist movements by country, para-fascism, proto-fascism and the very first ideology link, of course, is fascism. The fascism sidebar is highly duplicative of this template (or rather, this one duplicates that). If you want to argue that the fascism template should be renamed because it is actually broader than fascism (and it is, as it stands now, and if it were pared back it would be duplicative of Template:Nazism sidebar) then that is a move discussion for that template. But no, we don't need two duplicative templates that will get added to the same pages and link to the same things. This undiscussed synthetic and duplicative creation is not good for the encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, instead of deleting the Template:Far-right politics sidebar, it should be improved. ProgramT (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is not possible to improve this template (as demonstrated by the edit history). The very concept of this template is problematic and it adds visual cruft on every article it is placed on. It adds nothing and does not actually serve as navigation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep (and disclosure that I was the one who made the template) - While there is (inevitably) a lot of overlap with fascism and the far-right in general, it does not account for 1. far-right politics that predate Italian fascism; and 2. topics or movements uncontroversially considered far-right, but have scholars that disagree on whether or not they count as fascist (i.e. Kokkashugi). I fully understand the criticisms here, but I still thought it useful for a template to exist that deals with the far-right generally, rather than fascism (neo- or otherwise) specifically. XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  @XTheBedrockX What does this add though? No one would navigate between these topics this way, and its content massively duplicates already existing sidebars. On many of these pages we would be getting 3 or 4 sidebars stacked because of this! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Why did someone make this? Should all ideologies have infoboxes? Since apparently, each ideology seems to have one. The far-left politics should have one too. — KaijuEditor (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  As demonstrates the problem with this template, since its creation there has been an abundance of crufty, tangential, and highly specific conventions in contravention of WP:SIDEBAR. Nearly every entry anyone has added has been bad. It will only get worse, and this template adds nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think this sidebar template is problematic enough to warrant deleting it. If I had enough time, I would be more than willing to use this template to explore the far-right in depth. Domoso55 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC) — Domoso55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per @ProgramT arguments. I think it's useful to have these sidebars. HOWEVER...I do agree with @Sirfurboythat bidirectionality is essential, or else the sidebars become useless. I support keeping, but think we probably need to trim the amount of links contained and make sure all links are specifically relevant and bidirectional. Aunger67 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Soft Delete per Sirfurboy's arguments. Though I agree that fascism and far-right politics are distinct, maybe Template:Fascism sidebar should be renamed instead. This new sidebar doesn't seem warranted and there don't seem to be enough hands on deck to collaboratively improve it and make its existence justifed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeastConcern (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Sirfurboy; we already have so many such terrible sidebars, let's try to cull the ones we have instead of making ever worse ones. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:43, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Scissors

• Template:Scissors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has currently 500 transclusions, which may seem like an impressive quantity, however, virtually all of them are from doc pages/user toolboxes for other templates in the discussion template series.

Other than that, I'm very hard pressed to find where this template is being used, besides in a few random discussions from 2012. Or, really, in what situation one would use it. Sure, running with scissors is probably dangerous for Wikipedia, but I'm still not sure in what situation this would be a useful template in a discussion. Maayaaaaa (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and tag with {{humor}}. A few people have occasionally found it useful. Examples: User talk:Bishonen/Archive 19, User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive029/Archive013#Smelly sock. No big loss if it is substed and deleted where it has been deployed, though. (BTW, I'm seeing only 26 transclusions at this writing; it is unclear what happened between the OP's nomination and now.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Jonesey95: I guess I'm just not really sure how and when this template is supposed to be used in discussion. I think the template author intended for it to be a sort of facepalm, but I think in most cases it would just come off as a non-sequitur. Anyways, most of the transclusions were from the early 2010s, and it hasn't been used at all in the past 10 years. Maayaaaaa (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or substitute, no strong preference between the two; this thing is harmless. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's rationale after substing. Useless. FaviFake (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox classical composer

• Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has absolutely nothing unique that sets it apart from {{Infobox person}}. If you examine the code, all it does is set a number of aliases... These aliases actually violate MOS:INFOBOXNAME as they do not match the label (example) and need to be removed anyway. A quick bot run (which I will happily do with ZackBot) and this can simply be redirected to {{Infobox person}}. Was tempted to simply be bold but felt this warranted a discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The documentation and usage is significantly different, and that would be lost if this is deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Name
Years active	"Flourished"
Works	"List of works"
Relatives	"Notable family"

@Nikkimaria: what is actually different about the usage? Every unique parameter in the wrapper violates MOS:INFOBOXNAME and is going to be replaced, regardless of the TFD. For example: {{Infobox classical composer| flourished = "Flourished" | notable_family = "Notable family" | list_of_works = "List of works" }}. Despite using |flourished= the label displayed is NOT flourished, but is "Years active". Same thing with the use of |notable_family= and |list_of_works=. These all directly violates MOS. Can you be specific about what usage and documentation is important to keep and why can the exact same result not be achieved with {{Infobox person}}. Seriously if you can provide an example of what cannot be achieved with {{Infobox person}} I will withdraw this TFD... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

|flourished= is one such example. It is not intended to be a synonym for |years_active= as typically deployed within {{infobox person}}, but rather, as the documentation indicates, as floruit - an alternative to lifespan when those dates are unknown. "Flourished" (plus or minus a link to floruit) would be a more appropriate label.

It appears that the undiscussed conversion to wrapper introduced a number of other parameters that shouldn't be there; that should be undone, rather than used as a rationale for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Infobox person. {{Infobox classical composer}} and {{Infobox person}} are identical. Khiikiat (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• redirect, a very basic wrapper to translate a couple different parameters. not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per original consensus. BTW, I will notify other restorer of the template people related. Techie3 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. This infobox is a result of a very complicated compromise. Folks unfamiliar should see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and the later semi-related Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, and become familiar with the relevant history. Here be dragons. Quiddity (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd keep {{Infobox classical composer}} for historic reasons. It may be known that Project:Composers was sceptic of infoboxes at all, afraid of overly large boxes. In 2010 the project ran an RfC (mentioned above, link to one of several closing proposals) that disapproved all infoboxes for classical composers. Infobox classical composer was created (beginning in 2008) to limit parameters for a compromise. - People like myself were not much impressed and made infoboxes for composers like for other people anyway. In 2026 (!), the project changed its mind in a new RfC: the guidelines were changed, and hidden messages, requesting to find consensus before adding an infobox, disappeared. You will find them only in the articles of a few editors who still want to keep their articles free from an infobox. I use {{Infobox person}}. Infobox classical composer is not needed, but presents in its short version a decent subset of parameters. Why delete part of our history? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: you are missing a number of key details

  1. The history would not be deleted... The template would be redirected and the page history retained.
  2. Keeping a separate set of code just for historical purposes makes no sense and helps no one. Do you go back and look at revisions of a page from 2008? What is the reason to keep this around... Redirecting it resolves the need to maintain separate pages that are duplicates.

  Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think what you missed in my reply was that I use infobox person all the time. But I respect others and their view that classical composers are a completely different kind of subject than the rest of Wikipedia biographies, although I never understood it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  But the code being used is identical... There is no reason to maintain a second page just to have a custom name... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect Classical composers are not so unique and distinctive that a customized wrapper should be needed just for them. Template:Infobox artist is perfectly appropriate for editors who want to use a more specialized wrapper of Infobox person. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  You are right but there's Contentious topic infoboxes, and if you look where the "contention" is, it's not infoboxes, but those for a few classical composers and a few other liberal arts people. Take a look at the 2010 RfC (linked twice above) and you know how much energy some users have put into this topic. Two discussions are ongoing but if I name them I'll be accused of canvassing. (Check my talk if you are curious.) I'm not able to understand the resistance to mentioning birth and death data and provide a link to a list of works (less even than infobox classical composer suggests), but that stance has earned me the response that I did much damage and have to live with that. Any movement to achieve at least mutual understanding in the dispute is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Jason Momoa

• Template:Jason Momoa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:PERFNAV; the subject is not the primary creator of most entries. Some written material with others and producing credits all for films he has starred in do not count. Precedent is against such actor navboxes; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Template:Brandon Routh. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete clear WP:PERFNAV case per nom. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Old discussions

October 4

Template:Django Unchained

• Template:Django Unchained (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not appear to be necessary. All links could be included in context within the article. WidgetKid ^Converse 20:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete not useful, and cannot meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox art historian

• Template:Infobox art historian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Grand total of 17 uses. All this does is add an |exhibitions= label (which IMHO isn't MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and hardcode the occupation to "Art historian". No reason to have a custom Infobox for this. Just replace with {{Infobox person}} on those 17 pages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• replace and delete, it doesn't look like |exhibitions= is being used in the 17 transclusions, and if it is, could be translated to |notable_works=. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Replace by Template:Infobox person and delete, completely unnecessary wrapper. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:10, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Rom-Dom numerals

• Template:Rom-Dom numerals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or template parameters. I'm guessing that this article content was copied directly into an article (I haven't looked). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with @Jonesey95. This is basically not functioning as a template. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete unused, and a clear case of storing article content in a template in breach of WP:TG. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

September 26

Template:Comma-separated list

• Template:Comma-separated list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Comma-separated entries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Enum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose turning {{Comma-separated entries}} and {{Comma-separated list}} into wrappers of {{Enum}}.
These three templates basically do the same exact thing: make a list separated by a comma. This causes an unnecessary maintenance burden. Since {{Enum}} is the oldest and most mature of the bunch and is the only template that supports every feature (disabling/enabling "and", custom separator, serial and non-serial comma, etc), I propose merging {{Comma-separated entries}} and {{Comma-separated list}} into {{Enum}} and turning them into a fully-functioning wrapper of {{Enum}}, so we don't have to maintain three separate templates. FaviFake (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to provide a demonstration page showing that all of the features in the "Comma" templates can be performed by Enum. Please be sure to include inline and block examples, since Module:Separated entries appears to be an inline template while Module:Comma-separated list appears to be a block template. [Edited to add: I would have preferred a talk-page discussion to think through this merge proposal before adding TfM templates that caused tens of thousands of Linter errors and is causing messages to be displayed on tens of thousands of pages. TfM/TfD messages that are this widespread tend to cause a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful traffic on TfD pages by people saying "Don't merge, this is causing too much disruption."] – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why {{Comma separated entries}} needs to be merged when it's already effectively merged with all the other templates using {{#invoke:Separated entries}}. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 15:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, {{Cslist}} as actually very different than the other two, as it actually uses HTML <li> tags. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

OT: Since this discussion opened, every Template:Blockquote in the namespace seems to show a technical note "‹See TfM›" linking to this discussion (which is how I got here). I'm not sure I understand all technical details - is this discussion about wheither the syntax itself might be overhauled, or does it only affect its "rendering machines" (so-to-say)? Tartigradesinspace (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Every {{infobox website}} with parameter headquarter is also affected by this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 16:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Suggest possibly discussing this at the Village Pump or some such to ensure visibility and skipping the notification template? This TFD is extremely visible and will have massive splash effects for a week if left here, so by IAR, maybe better to pick some other way of discussion. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Why would we need to discuss routine maintenance at the Village Pump? If the automatic TfD notice is showing up in too many places it can just be removed. FaviFake (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  As I explained above, unless there is a clear plan and a demonstration of how the merge would work, the TFD will cause unnecessary disruption for readers and editors and attract a lot of less-than-useful feedback, making the closer's job more difficult and making a "no consensus" outcome more likely. We saw this exact thing happen last week with the poorly-thought-out column template nominations. It benefits everyone, including the nominator, to have a discussion and make a plan before going through the formal TFD/TFM process. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and starting a discussion on one of the templates' talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  the TFD will cause unnecessary disruption for readers and editors and attract a lot of less-than-useful feedback
  No it wouldn't, unless we keep the <See TfM> notices on the articles. I'm not knowledgeable enough to create a fully-fledged proposal, we just need to get consensus that we don't need three different templates to do the same thing, and then the folks at the holding cell will do the rest and figure out how to implement it. FaviFake (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  The TfD completely broke {{db-multiple}} before the notice on {{enum}} was noincluded, as the second speedy deletion criterion was replaced with "See TfM". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I said "No it wouldn't [cause unnecessary disruption], unless we keep the <See TfM> notices". FaviFake (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  The tags have been hidden because they caused unnecessary disruption. Q.E.D. As for "the folks at the holding cell" figuring it out, we can't do magic at the holding cell. Merging an inline template with a block template may not be possible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that this merge is possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  The tags have been hidden because they caused unnecessary disruption.
  ... Am I being unclear? You suggested closing this discussion partly because the notice disrupted other templates. Then the notice was removed, and I said that rationale for closing this TfD is now invalid, because the notices have now been removed...

  The burden is on you to demonstrate that this merge is possible.
  Where is that written? Most TfD merge proposals I've seen are vague. FaviFake (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Your implicit TFD nomination criterion is number 2, The template is redundant to a better-designed template. I'm asking you to demonstrate that this is the case. Multiple editors have stated objections to or questions about this merge, citing the block versus inline nature of the nominated templates. If you are correct in your statement that These three templates basically do the same exact thing, demonstrating that should not be difficult. If you prefer to argue with me instead of showing that your merge rationale is valid, that is your choice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Your implicit TFD nomination criterion is number 2
  I asked for where it says that "The burden is on [the nom] to demonstrate that this merge is possible". I've never heard such a rule before.

  demonstrating that should not be difficult
  Well, I do find it difficult, which is why I didn't want to be specific in my nomination. FaviFake (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This TfD has broken {{db-multiple}} even with the tiny font size for the notification. I can demonstrate if required. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yep. It did. International Fujita scale (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  It was fixed by Jonesey95 on the Enum template. International Fujita scale (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Seems to be a way so that you can edit all template content outputs in transclusions at once. Reduces hassle. International Fujita scale (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect {{comma-separated entries}} and {{enum}} to {{comma-separated list}}. CSL can return A, B, and C or A, B, C, etc., so it would be best to have the other two be its aliases. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: {{Comma-separated entries}} has the most transclusions by far, so if a merge is to be performed, CSE may be the best of the three templates to merge to if we want to minimize the work that may need to be done to correct transclusions of the other two templates. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merging inline and block templates without a demonstration that all of the current features of each template can be preserved. The nominator needs to do their due diligence, and they have so far declined to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: A merge via redirect may be possible:

Wikitext	Desired output	Result by template
		{{comma-separated list}} Used in 3,507 articles	{{comma-separated entries}} Used in 306,443 articles	{{enum}} Used in 14,304 articles
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}}	Alpha, Bravo and Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|oxford=yes}}		Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, and{{nbsp}}}}		Alpha Bravo Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie	Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|etc.}}	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and etc.
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=,{{nbsp}}|after=, etc.}}		Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=,{{nbsp}}|etc.}}		Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, or{{nbsp}}}}	Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie	Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=, or{{nbsp}}}}		Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, Charlie	Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie

  Results don't sufficiently match the desired text

  Results match despite the use of template-invalid parameters

If these templates are merged, the final template would have to be coded in such a way that it would minimize the number of articles that would need to be edited to ensure that tranclusions of any of these templates would still return text that says what it's supposed to say. CSE's conjunction parameter and enum's and parameter would have to become eachother's alias.

While making this, I discovered that substing {{comma-separated list}} causes its text to disappear. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for compiling the above table. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the difference between inline and block usage, and the substing makes it a lot of work to go back to update the demonstration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't like how—when using the conjunction parameter on {{comma-separated entries}} or the and parameter on {{enum}} to put or between Bravo and Charlie—I have to sandwich the word between non-breaking spaces to avoid getting this:

Alpha, BravoorCharlie. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all three, otherwise Merge {{comma-separated list}} and {{enum}} into {{comma-separated entries}} and make enum's and parameter an alias of the conjunction parameter, based on the following information:

• {{comma-separated list}} and {{comma-separated entries}} are transcluded in 309,734 articles, 216 of which use both. If these are merged into {{enum}}:
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo and Charlie would continue to do so despite using parameters from other templates.
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc. would have to have |and=,  added so they don't read Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and etc..
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie would instead return Alpha, Bravo and Charlie unless conjunction is an alias of the and parameter.
• {{comma-separated list}} and {{enum}} are transcluded in 17,809 articles, 2 of which use both. If these are merged into {{comma-separated entries}}:
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo and Charlie but erroneously return Alpha, Bravo, Charlie can be corrected by adding |conjunction=, and .
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc. but erroneously return Alpha, Bravo, Charlie can be corrected by removing after=, .
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie would instead return Alpha, Bravo, Charlie unless and is an alias of the conjunction parameter.
• {{comma-separated entries}} and {{enum}} are transcluded in 320,167 articles, 580 of which use both. If these are merged into {{comma-separated list}}:
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo and Charlie would have to have |oxford=yes added so they don't read Alpha, Bravo, Charlie.
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc. but erroneously return Alpha, Bravo, Charlie can be corrected by removing after=, .
  • Transclusions intended to produce Alpha, Bravo or Charlie wouldn't be correctable unless CSL is given a parameter that is functionally equivalent to CSE's conjunction or enum's and parameter.

Accounting for the effects of merging enum with CSE

Scenario	Equivalent wikitext	Result
{{enum}} remains a separate template
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}}	Y Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=,{{nbsp}}|after=, etc.}}	Y Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=, or{{nbsp}}}}	Y Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie
{{enum}} redirects to {{comma-separated entries}}
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}}	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=,{{nbsp}}|after=, etc.}}	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|and=, or{{nbsp}}}}	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
and becomes an alias of CSE's conjunction parameter
	No difference, as that parameter isn't used here.	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=,{{nbsp}}|after=, etc.}}	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, or{{nbsp}}}}	Y Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie
after=,  is removed from the transclusion
	No difference, as that parameter isn't used here.	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=,{{nbsp}}|etc.}}	Y Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.
	No difference, as that parameter isn't used here.	Y Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie
In case it wasn't there already, |conjunction=, and{{nbsp}}  is added.
	{{comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, and{{nbsp}}}}	Y Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie
	No difference, as that parameter is already present.	Y Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc.
	No difference, as that parameter is already present.	Y Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie
New code is tried on {{enum}} pre-merge
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, and{{nbsp}}}}	Y Alpha, Bravo and Charlie
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=,{{nbsp}}|etc.}}	N Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and etc.
	{{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie|conjunction=, or{{nbsp}}}}	N Alpha, Bravo and Charlie

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued details. I'm worried that this analysis continues to ignore the block and inline differences between the templates. I asked the nominator to create this demonstration or withdraw this nomination, but they have not yet done so. Here is a basic demo:

The three items are {{enum|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}} → The three items are Alpha, Bravo and Charlie

The three items are {{Comma-separated list|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}} →

The three items are

• Alpha
• Bravo
• Charlie

The three items are {{Comma-separated entries|Alpha|Bravo|Charlie}} → The three items are Alpha, Bravo, Charlie

I hope that this simple demonstration shows why a straight merge, at least of {{Comma-separated list}}, is not yet possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

they have not yet done so
As they explained already, they have not done because they do not have the time nor the skills do do it themselves, which is why they opened this discussion.

They have also asked you twice to point them to a page that states that "The burden is on [the nom] to demonstrate that this merge is possible", yet you have not yet done so FaviFake (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per editor Jonesey95, there does not seem to be any feasible way to merge an inline type template with a block type template. The image I get in my mind is planet Saturn floating on the surface of the Pacific Ocean. I have to agree that a discussion about this in a (such as) less formal venue would be better if the nom somehow thinks this merge can actually take place. I don't think it can. And when another TE with many years experience needs to see a demonstration that all of the current features of each template can be preserved, then I think a nominator would accomplish much more by being cooperative, whether or not it is stated on some page somewhere. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wait, I have nominated 3 templates, not just 2. If they are inline and block templates, can't at least one of them be merged into another? FaviFake (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  That is a good question! and one which can be better answered in an informal discussion in a different venue. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

September 24

Template:Line 4 (Ho Chi Minh City Metro)

• Template:Line 4 (Ho Chi Minh City Metro) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• See my comments at the TfD for Line 5. Fork99 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Userfy per Fork99. Useddenim (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Thabazimbi POI

• Template:Thabazimbi POI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, categories, or incoming discussions to explain why it exists. Created about two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jonesey95, thanks for the feedback. Have updated the status with a POI table Derek J Moore (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Derek J Moore Since this template is clearly not quite ready for primetime, would you like it moved into your userspace as a draft until it's ready to be published? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Line 5 (Ho Chi Minh Metro)

• Template:Line 5 (Ho Chi Minh Metro) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming discussions to explain why it exists. Created one month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'd imagine this would be used on Line 5 (Ho Chi Minh City Metro), but as it currently doesn't exist, there's nowhere it could be transcluded. It might exist in the future (see Ho Chi Minh City Metro) and would need to be recreated from scratch if deleted and the article is created. Too bad I don't think there's a userfy option at TfD. Fork99 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Userfy per Fork99. Useddenim (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fork99 do you want it userfied to you? If so I'm happy to close this and move it... (please {{ping|Zackmann08}} me in your reply). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: nah I'm not likely to remember to keep tabs on whether that metro line article is created and I've no interest in creating it, although I might put it on my watchlist preemptively. The original creator might but as they've not responded to this, no idea what they think. Thanks for the offer though! Fork99 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Normally, userfying moves the template to the creator's user space. That would be Bbbbuuuunnnn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep This will be useful if/when a Line 5 article is created. There's no point throwing it away out of an excess of zeal. There's no better place for it than the current location. Ensure it's correctly categorized. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC).

Template:Party shading/Parti Rakyat Malaysia and other Party shading subpages

• Template:Party shading/Parti Rakyat Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Party shading/Constitutional Democratic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Party shading/NUP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Party shading/NPC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Party shading/Kugi Uswag Sugbo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep Like all the subpages of Template:Party shading, these are designed for use in other templates or pages about elections, and it is not necessary for each of the 1000+ subpages to have its own documentation. Even for templates that are not currently used, it's useful to have them for future pages that might involve these political parties for editors who are not fluent in creating templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

How is it possible to tell the difference between a page that is unused but useful and a page that is unusable? – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unusable"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC).

Delete if only because they are redundant, and I have advocated for making all of the subpages redundant. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Completed discussions

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.