Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
This page is about discussion of templates. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 2 178 0 180
TfD 0 0 10 0 10
MfD 0 0 5 0 5
FfD 0 0 12 0 12
RfD 0 4 81 0 85
AfD 0 0 2 0 2
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page

[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here

[edit]
Shortcut

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

[edit]
Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, adhere to the following three-step process. Utilizing Twinkle is strongly recommended as it automates and simplifies these steps. To use Twinkle, click TW in the toolbar (top right of the page), then select XFD. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps, unless specifically instructed otherwise.

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If it is an inline template, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025_April_3#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the |text= before the why (or alternatively, after the }} of the Tfd2/Catfd2).

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

[edit]

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

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

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

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

Twinkle

[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. To use Twinkle, click its dropdown menu in the toolbar in the top right of the page: TW , and then click 'XFD'.

Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Closing discussion

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]

April 3

[edit]

Template:Hipodil

[edit]

After redirecting the obvious non-notable albums, this navigational template is left with one blue link (Nadurveni vuglishta) and one related artist link (Svetlio & the Legends). Insufficient for navigation. ✗plicit 13:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peppa Pig

[edit]

Fewer links in navigation template. Absolutiva (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk Soup hosts

[edit]

Textbook WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 10:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


April 2

[edit]

Template:Team Cherry

[edit]

Only contains two articles, both of which are already interconnected. Limited usefulness in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Medical football navbox

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions. All linked articles have been merged into American Medical football, so there is nothing to navigate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Road designation

[edit]

Arbitrary mostly unnecessary colors that anyway I think may be duplicated by one or another of the other road templates, and that is used only once in the past 2 decades. Izno (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wawel map

[edit]

Single-use content template. Izno (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problem easy to remedy - I've added the template to articles that it features. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that was your answer also three years ago. If it again is removed, then restoring to articles that it isn't wanted on is probably not the answer. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment by Gonnym regarding this specific template. Izno (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Light hair coloration map

[edit]

Content template used in only a pair of talk page archives. Izno (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Li test

[edit]
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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, undocumented. Izno (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, db author. — Yuri V (t•c) 06:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Light eye coloration map

[edit]

Used in only a single archived talk page. Izno (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K'iche' rulers

[edit]

Single-use content template. Izno (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan PR list candidate

[edit]

Table row template used on only two pages. Note that the nominated end template is a redirect to {{end}}. Izno (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NTW versions

[edit]

Content template used on only one page. Izno (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


April 1

[edit]

Template:Member Constitutional Court of Albania

[edit]

Navigates too few pages. Izno (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1878 VFA ladder

[edit]

Single-use content template. Izno (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Nevada State Route 426

[edit]

Unused after being removed here. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Como-Harriet Streetcar Line

[edit]

Unused route map (if added to article during nomination, I'm withdrawing nomination). Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article. Central Corridor ...talk? 13:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Second Life Viewer

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this template, the version info has since been moved to WP:DATA. I don't see any reason to keep it around. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 12:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/libavcodec

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/OnyX

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Libav

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Google Sheets

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/7-Zip

[edit]

Unused release version template. Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/CloneDVD

[edit]

Unused release version templates as CloneDVD and SEMCAT were deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western United FC/colour

[edit]

Unused color template. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Tanzanian English

[edit]

No transclusions. The template's documentation says that it is "to denote articles that use Tanzanian English", but that page is a new redirect from December 2024. The redirect goes to Languages of Tanzania, which does not mention anything about "Tanzanian English". As such, this template provides no guidance to editors about how to edit, so it is useless. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Following the OP's decision to push for deprecation of the {{EngvarB}} template, which had been intended to serve as a single-use identifier for all of the varieties of what could loosely be called "Commonwealth English", we have no choice but to retain templates for all of the individual languages which fall under that broad umbrella. These dialects have broad similarities, paritularly in spelling, but also differences, as an article like Kenyan English explains. Tanzanian English is probably close to that Kenyan English actually. Anyway, EngvarB was a good compromise because while there are small differences between the variety spoken in the UK, Australia, India, Kenya etc, they all have broad similarities which make a single umbrella useful, and the individual differences can be sorted out case-by-case by consensus at the individual articles. Absent that broad all-encompassing template, we're left with having to list one for each country where English is spoken. Which is OK but not optimal. What I would definitely not support is defaulting all EngvarB uses to {{Use British English}}. Kenya and Tanzanian dialects are not identical to British English and it would be a rather colonial sort of attitude to attempt to shoehorn them in at this stage, when all are individual sovereign states. Finally, if this template is not in use that's because nobody has done the work to place it on the relevant articles, not because it doesn't belong anywhere. I just added it to Dar es Salaam for example, a clear case where using Tanzanian English would be the correct approach, as mandated by WP:TIES. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Star Athletic Association football coach navbox

[edit]

No transclusions of this navbox. The article at North Star Athletic Association says "2025 – The NSAA will cease operations as an athletic conference after the 2024–25 academic year" and the American football season is over, so there are no longer any football coaches in the NSAA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EUCouncilcountEuropeanParty

[edit]

No transclusions after replacement by Module:SeatsEUPPs, according to the creator of this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 31

[edit]

Template:PulitzerPrize Criticism 1970–1975

[edit]

These templates are redudent as there is already a Template:PulitzerPrize Criticism which encompasses all of the links and isn't that big. Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 23:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the nominator misunderstands how transclusion works. I would support a merge, but not a delete of these templates, which are used in many articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete Template:PulitzerPrize Criticism or merge these to it. There is no reason to have both styles. Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest North Carolina hurricanes

[edit]

This is article content on template space. Perhaps best place to use is on the main Hurricanes in North Carolina article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into List of North Carolina hurricanes per nom (WP:TG no. #1: Templates should not normally be used to store article text.) NLeeuw (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Minister of Liberation War Affairs timeline

[edit]

Unused timeline and we don't need a timeline templates for ministers of a certain or any governments of any nation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Single mainspace use template. WP:Subst and delete.
Bongan® →TalkToMe← 17:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map of Superpesis Teams

[edit]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Individual tornadoes

[edit]

Unnecessary and extremely large navbox for tornadoes. There are plenty of tornado navboxes. We don't need something like this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is there a policy-based reason? It’s a navbox of articles on individual tornadoes; I’ve seen several that are much larger. EF5 22:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or whatever the process to get this as a category are. This is very helpful for navigation, and a category doesn't exist as-is. Departure– (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even a cat for "individual tornadoes" would not be appropriate categorization as it is not specific enough. A vast majority of articles in this template are already covered by other tornado templates. So what does this do differently from other templates? Wikipedia:NENAN serves as a useful rule of thumb and so does Wikipedia:Template creep. Think of how many articles there for "individual tornadoes". Every single one of them on a template like this is not useful for navigation. "A category doesn't exist as-is" is not a reason to keep a template because it would lead to eventual cat creation. Templates are to navigate across articles. Cats have nothing to do with navigational purposes. Both keep votes don't give a valid reason to keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It’s WP:USEFUL to readers looking to read about individual tornadoes, since you clearly are looking to discount every vote that disagrees. How is it not specific enough, exactly? EF5 23:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll also note that many of these aren’t covered by templates as the nominator suggests; even then that doesn’t subtract from its usefulness. EF5 23:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why haven't you used it since creating it? Its been over two months. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? Add it to one and it that can be fixed. On vacation; I’d add it to several articles but mobile source editing is hell. EF5 13:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be opposed to an "Individual tornadoes by decade" or "Individual F4 tornadoes" style of dividing the category, assuming it's "not specific enough" for a blanket category? Departure– (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TBH I would do dropdown menus for different decades if possible, but this works 100%. BTW I still need to add Udall on there LMAO.
Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with nom that the current template is not very useful, but given that it has already grouped a lot of tornadoes by year, listification has much added value without the contents getting lost.
User:Departure– seems to agree that a category would also be fine, which strengthens the case against having a template such as this per WP:TG no. #6. I would just prefer a list instead of a category, because a list allows us to sort tornadoes by year (and other details), especially with Wikitable sortable.
I tend to agree with Wildfireupdateman that a subdivision by year, decade, century or something is a useful way of presenting this group of articles. But doing that in a template while autocollapsing all content by decade, thereby forcing the reader to drop down whatever decade they are interested in, does not really aid navigation. It also goes against WP:TG no. #1: [Templates] should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. Collapsing should only be used to make a helpful template less cumbersome, but the very helpfulness of this template is in question, and won't really be saved by just collapsing everything. A list, on the other hand, is fully dedicated to showing a full group of articles with all the relevant details the reader could wish for in an overview. It doesn't jeopardise the readability of any of the articles on the list, because those will be separate pages.
I would propose following WP:CSC no. #1, so that the list may include every stand-alone article about a tornado that already exists, or can be demonstated with WP:RS to be important enough for a future stand-alone article. The template's creator, EF5, has given us a very helpful group of existing articles to start our list with, so that's great. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socialism in Norway

[edit]

Unused and no main article for it to be used. Best for now to let the main cat to do the work of finding these articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moser spindle visual proof.svg

[edit]

Unused and no need to transclude image on template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greece in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]

No links outside main article. Only a redirect. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VK user

[edit]

VK does not belong to external links section per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and WP:NOSOCIAL. As frequently discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Template:Myspace. Absolutiva (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source archived

[edit]

Largely unused citation archive proof of concept from 2015 that never took off ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 17:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Swedish colonial conflicts

[edit]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping of Swedish military actions, in which "colonial" appears synonymous with "overseas", including Finland. Template:Campaignbox/doc indicates campaignboxes should only group battles of a single campaign, war, or (in exceptional cases) closely-connected series of wars. But these battles have nothing in common except that one of the belligerents was Sweden and the location was outside Sweden and Norway. Many are redlinks or contain WP:OR countings of battles (1st Foo, 2nd Foo etc.), plus unnecessary subheadings by century which should be avoided where possible. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Template:Campaignbox Swedish anti-piracy actions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 30#Template:Christianization of Finland for related templates with similar problems. NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't aware of the template guidelines (which I should've been) when I made it. But shouldn't we then also delete templates like Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns, Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts, and Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns? Gvssy (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although I could imagine that WP:LISTIFY would work well for Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns and Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts. For the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire, we've already got plenty of lists and categories of conflicts involving Russia; I'd favour just deleting that one. The Portuguese one surely is way too long to help navigation in any meaningful way. It's a great way to ruin the layout of articles when unfurled, but I doubt that should be the purpose of campaignboxes, would it? NLeeuw (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Other campaignboxes in Category:Colonial campaignbox templates may also be worth reviewing. Not all of them have to be deleted necessarily. Template:Campaignbox Danish–Hanseatic Wars (1361–1370) seems fine, Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns seems justifiably concise, and Template:German colonial campaigns is a good navbox, but in the wrong category. But I would advise listifying the Danish, Dutch and Spanish campaignboxes where possible, if such lists did not exist already. Preferably, listification of battles by war, not battles by belligerent. Otherwise, we end up with these bloated lists involving Fooland, where some Fooland nationalist comes ambling along every so often to edit it such that Fooland had many more victories than defeats and therefore Fooland Stronk. NLeeuw (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a good reason to erase Russian colonial campaigns because there are a lot of list of conflicts involving Russia, the campaignbox seems pretty fine to me for the context of a Colonial Empire that was Continental instead of Oversea (so the wars of conquests are also colonial conflicts from a previous contigous colony).
Concerning Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Danish, I think that it's needed to order those militar actions into the campaigns they belongs. Like in the case of the first 3, classify the battles that are specifically parts of Eighty Years War colonial campaign (which also intersects with all Dutch-Portuguese War and the Thirty Years Wars and it's derivated conflicts, which can cause some complications due to the lack of academic research about this). And the residual battles turn them into "Others" or something like that, because still are objectively colonial conflicts . Also erasing Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Russian colonial campaignbox will be the elimination of most of the colonial campaignbox, which can be a more serious problem. Sr L (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''', the article just need to have modifications to improve the excess of information by clasifying better which one of the conflicts wanted to develop Swedish colonies and which one were just oversea wars (then make a category about oversea expeditions to separe the ones from colonial conflicts) Sr L (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Swedish anti-piracy actions

[edit]

Another recently created, bloated campaignbox that arbitrarily groups a bunch of articles and non-articles by combining a country, in this case "Sweden", with some subject across multiple centuries, in this case "anti-piracy actions". The first entry already fails the criteria, because the Victual Brothers were neither "Battles" or "Wars". The Wrecking of the Kattan (which I've just rewritten) involved a Swedish ship with 70 civilians sent for settlement in North America getting wrecked in the Caribbean, and only thereafter being captured by pirates, but confronting pirates wasn't the ship's mission (maybe it shouldn't even be framed as a 'battle', but just a maritime disaster). The Standoff near St. Christopher involved Swedish ships confronting Turkish privateers, which is not the same as pirates. Then 3 redlinks and the Swedish–Algerian war of 1791–1792, which doesn't even mention pirates (apparently assuming everyone living on the so-called "Barbary Coast" was a pirate, quod non). First Barbary War doesn't use the template, followed by two redlinks. Only the last 3 links are somewhat justified, but in each of these cases, Sweden did not act alone, but in cooperation with other countries, in three separate conflicts. A campaignbox should normally only pertain to 1 conflict or series of closely-related conflicts, not the entire military history of country x across the entire planet. Finally, the section on Prosecutions has no place in a campaignbox. NLeeuw (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think it would be better to convert the article Wrecking of the Kattan into a description of the ship and the fate of its crew on the 1649 journey, rather than as a 'battle'. That also better connects it to sv:Kattan (1641). It has no place in a campaignbox on "anti-piracy actions". NLeeuw (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 30

[edit]

Template:Alhambra

[edit]

WP:NENAN, mostly non-existent entries or redirects. Not needed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christianization of Finland

[edit]

Sidebar template that has several issues. 1) No mainspace article about Christianization of Finland. 2) It is instead being used on Christianization of Scandinavia in the middle of the article under the Finland section. 3) Only articles directly related to any Christianization is under the event section with four articles. 4) Four articles in the location section have very little of this subject other than a general history to a relevant link in the events section. The last is just a church whose relevance I can't find to the subject. 5) As for people, they are involved with the event section articles, but since there is no main article for the template it hardly makes it a subject worth navigating in template form. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 Australia Representatives

[edit]

I don't understand what this template is trying to convey. The template seems to have been added to all 2022-25 Australian MPs, regardless of whether they are actually contesting the election. Banner templates should not be used as a substitute for sourced information about the end of an MP's term. We also don't need a further disclaimer beyond the general Wikipedia disclaimer that any content may be out of date. Election related content will either be added to MPs' articles, if notable enough and someone can be bothered adding it, or it won't be. A 40-day campaign period is not a fast-moving event where there is an expectation of conflicting information or inaccuracy. I T B F 📢 09:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template idea is one I've run for a few years, most prominently at the United Kingdom general election, 2024. When the House of Representatives dissolves its members cease to be members and thus it is inaccurate for their pages to continue to described them as incumbent. Putting this template at the top of the article (the wording of which can be centrally updated at different stages of the election cycle) is easier than manually updating each page in multiple places to remove references to incumbency (including the MP post-nominals) and then changing them all back again for those who are re-elected. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm inclined to agree with you here. There's no need for an entire template mentioning that parliament has dissolved. I don't believe it's inaccurate to describe them is incumbent MPs either, this is very much a British political concept. An MPs postnominal's don't just disappear when parliament dissolves. I also don't understand "This article may be out of date during this period. Feel free to improve it (updates without reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page.", why is this needed? The template isn't even on every MPs page. I just fail to understand the purpose of this template. What is it trying to achieve? Perhaps it should go. Viatori (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no need for a dedicated banner for this. Vestrian24Bio 05:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template is simply wrong. "has not been an MP since the dissolution of the house on 28 March." is wrong. Parliament is dissolved, a MP remains an MP until the election results are released. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Member%27s_titles :- "A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament". 37.162.188.79 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page to which you linked doesn't say "a MP remains an MP until the election results are released". It does say "The title [of MP] is not retained by former Members." The page to which I linked also explicitly says "Members are no longer Members". The line "A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament" is clearly referring to incoming or continuing members after the election, not candidates and outgoing members before. A member's status does not depend on the house meeting but still depends on existing. Infosheet 25 likewise says "members of the House cease to be members". Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the IP above, this template is simply untrue. The Parliamentary Education Office says that "When a member of the House of Representatives loses their seat in a federal election they are no longer a member from the date of the election." This is represented on Wikipedia as well. On any Wikipedia page for members who lost at an election, the end date for their time in parliament is the date of the election. Steelkamp (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That page to which you linked says nothing about the status of the outgoing parliament's members (whether or not they get re-elected) during the election period which is what's being noted in the template. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above reasons, it is simply untrue, and even if were true, is unhelpful for editing purposes. Could you imagine rewriting every article of every Member of Parliament to remove any concept of incumbency and re-election? See the forest for the trees. 147.161.213.96 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "rewriting every article of every Member of Parliament to remove any concept of incumbency and re-election", the whole point of the template is precisely to avoid doing that. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your template says: "Parts of the article suggesting incumbency are incorrect during this period. Feel free to improve it (updates without reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page." Is your understanding that Australian Members of Parliament cease to be incumbents during the period between the dissolution of the house and the election, and then retroactively become incumbents upon their re-election (notwithstanding the question of whether someone can be re-elected when they're not an incumbent)? Because that's what your template suggests. 147.161.213.116 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Shang Dynasty

[edit]

The flag itself is fictional (the rest of the user's uploads were wiped, and this file will be too once this template is deleted) and this template is unused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 29

[edit]

Template:Melodrama (Lorde album) tracks

[edit]

Redundant to the navigation provided by {{Lorde}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mr. Blue Sky: The Very Best of Electric Light Orchestra tracks

[edit]

Transcluded in only two articles, probably because this track list is for an album of re-recordings by Jeff Lynne. So while the existence a template like {{A New World Record tracks}} could possibly be justified, having track list templates for cover albums or greatest hits albums is excessive and unnecessary, especially with navigation to these songs is just as easily handled by the main {{Electric Light Orchestra}} template and the album's article itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puntland ministries

[edit]

There are three existing topics in template, but some are insufficient. Absolutiva (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ministries of Puntland more than three you welcome to expand QalasQalas (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 28

[edit]

Template:Ben Spider

[edit]

Navbox with no blue links in body. DB1729talk 21:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was pretty good for readability. You must be right about the deletion, obviously. Thanks. Isolda (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crf

[edit]

broken, and I am pretty sure this violates MOS:ICON if it did work Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twikipedia

[edit]

One article and it's not even for the musician. It's for an album article that is also up for deletion. Completely premature. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidents of the American Civil Liberties Union

[edit]

Redundant to {{American Civil Liberties Union}}, which lists the presidents of the ACLU and more. That navbox is nowhere near the critical mass where splitting is a good idea to make it more manageable for readers to digest. This template's name is not a good redirect, so we should delete it after replacing uses with {{American Civil Liberties Union}} (if it is not already transcluded on the article). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom User:JustSomeoneNo 18:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 27

[edit]

Template:Cheekface

[edit]

Navbox with a main article but no other blue links. No prejudice to recreation once there are enough links to justify its existence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair I mighty put it back up after fleshing out the albums themselves as they have some quite well known releases Beachmilk (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

[edit]

March 26

Template:Teen Titans and Teen Titans Go!

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Teen Titans --woodensuperman 14:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this doesn't seem to be redundant AHI-3000 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, all valid links are included in the wider navbox. --woodensuperman 13:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Template:Seattle Sounders FC seasons

[edit]

Redundant to Template:Seattle Sounders FC, as all season links included. --woodensuperman 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Lost in Quebec (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No needs to set up a separate template for this as it is (not yet) overly long. The Banner talk 15:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in January 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ...It's the FLR version of the templates in Category:Nomination_link_templates. There's not a lot of FLRs at any one point, so it's sometimes not transcluded. --PresN 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to a recent usage? Without documentation, it is difficult to understand how this is used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I went through the Featured list removal candidates archives; none of them seems to have ever used this template, is it needed? Vestrian24Bio 11:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not used in FLRC itself. None of the "X link" templates are used for that. The last use I know of this one was [1], right after I made it. The entire family of "<type of process> link" templates was originally made for pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content, wikiproject pages to list out all the ongoing review processes; that page (and the "Good content" sibling) pretty much always have a few instances of the FAC/GAN/GAR/etc. templates, but there's not usually a lot of FLRs going on at any one time for any one project. The documentation for the whole family should be cleaned up ({{GAN link}} has the most, though not much, but it's been 11 years without any complaints), though I guess ideally it would all be one template. --PresN 22:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps adding a TemplateData to the documentation could be useful. Vestrian24Bio 06:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyrillic alphabet sidebar

[edit]

In this TfD and at the talk page, it has been suggested to replace this sidebar with a navbox. The navbox to replace this sidebar is at TM:Cyrillic navbox. Janhrach (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete. Can't redirect as the placement is completely different, and most likely there are already both of these templates on the same page. Also, "sidebar" is a bad redirect to something that isn't a sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I second that the sidebar should be deleted, it is a messier duplicate of List of Cyrillic letters that clutters up the pages it is used on. The proposed navbox is cleaner and has more useful information IMO. Underswamp (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why you do that I need it to editing Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: The proposed navbox to replace it isn't even close to including all of the information that the sidebar does. 99.69.7.113 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Template:2007 NJCAA independents football records

[edit]

Unused NJCAA tables. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now apparently used on new drafts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Template:2023 Tailteann Cup Team of the Year

[edit]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted as not an actual team. Vestrian24Bio 04:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Template:Social media post

[edit]

Unused fork of Template:Tweet. The only functionality this adds to the standard {{Quote}} and {{Quote box}} is to add decorative logos and mimic the appearance of posts on external websites, which is contrary to MOS:CONFORM. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wait per Hex. I think we should figure out what to do with Template:Tweet first, and then reassess. (Full disclosure; I'm the one who attempted to create this template (and i guess i could be blamed for its lack of being good). Also, I was actively participating in the convo on Template talk:Tweet). I also agree with Hex on Joe boarding conflict of interest here. It's worth noting that they previously removed the twitter iconography from the Tweet template without any consensus, and they implied that there was consensus for Tweet to reworked to be more like {{Quote}}, but when pressed cited a 10 month old RfD with a consensus to keep the Tweet template unchanged, and a half dozen short talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago. Tantomile (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that they previously removed the twitter iconography from the Tweet template without any consensus, and they implied that there was consensus for Tweet to reworked to be more like {{Quote}}, but when pressed cited a 10 month old RfD with a consensus to keep the Tweet template unchanged, and a half dozen short talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago. No, they cited MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR and MOS:LOGO.
MOS:LOGO is a guideline, and there is consensus to follow it, even if you disagree with that consensus. It says (among other things):
The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged: While illustration of a logo may be appropriate at the main article on the topic to which the logo pertains, use of logos as icons is not useful to our readers, and often presents legal problems.
It is fine that you disagree with Joe, but please don't misrepresent what they say. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Tweets don't perfectly fall into being quotes, so I would argue that MOS:VAR also applies here, as the manual of style does not contain guidance for how to deal with Tweets. If we think of tweets/social media posts as being quotes, then it falls under VAR's recommendation that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", and if we consider tweets/social media posts to not be quotes, then an argument can be made that the Tweet template is a common and consistent way of citing tweets, and under VAR; "Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style." and "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there."
I don't think that I entirely misrepresented Joe, at least not intentionally; It is true that Joe deleted the logos from the template with no prior consensus to do so beyond MoS, and against the results of the earlier TfD that decided to keep the template unchanged, including that iconography. They only mentioned that they'd removed the logos days later in an only semi-related talk page conversation. Also, while they did later cite NAVBOXCOLOUR and LOGO, they did initially claim that "As discussed at the recent TfD and just about every other section of this talk page, the whole concept of this template is a blatant violation of MOS:QUOTE and WP:NOTPROMO". When I asked for more details because I couldn't find this deluge of consensus against Tweet, they did provide the 10 month old RfD and a half dozen talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago, which is why I say "when pressed". I do suppose that I could have provided more information here, and I'm sorry for any confusion that caused, but I maintain that my previous statement was factual.
I do understand that MOS:LOGO is a guideline (and please don't make me out to be some kind of delusional egotist who thinks that my opinion overrides the MoS.), although I would argue that the use of a small twitter icon in the corner of a tweet would be allowed under MOS:DECOR, which states that "[Icons] should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". The Twitter logo (and other social media logos, if we end up using {{Social Media Post}} ever) are often widely recognizable icons that quickly communicate to the reader the source of the post. It's common for the twitter logo and a basic outline of a tweet to appear whenever a tweet is cited in a book or shown on the news.
Also, @Polygnotus, I hate to ask, and I know you have a right to be here and participate, but did you have a previous connection to Joe? You replied to me without being mentioned and with no prior activity on Tweet an hour after I replied to Joe, and you've voiced a near identical opinion to them throughout this whole ordeal. Also, you and Joe both seem to be fans of quoting content by putting it in light green text without quotation marks. Your account appears to be mostly used for AWB, and this looks like a departure for what appears to almost be a single-purpose account, so in the interest of revealing in any conflict of interests that may be applicable to this TfD, I just want to ask if you are an Alt or Shared account that Joe Roe has access to or if you've been asked off-wiki by Joe to support them in this. Sorry, I just have to ask, please don't feel like this an attack in way, that is not my intention. Best, Tantomile (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joe uses Joe Robot for automated edits. While I am not Joe, and Joe is not me, we do agree. I don't think we have ever communicated. And you shouldn't use words you do not understand, single-purpose accounts are used for a single purpose. Any further accusations will be treated as casting aspersions and you will have to explain your behaviour on WP:ANI. Although it is flattering that you think I could be that sexy. Polygnotus (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry for accusing you. There just were a few similarities between you two and I figured it'd be better ask you directly now rather than finding out later that you were actually Joe wearing a big pair of sunglasses the whole time. Also, I see your point about single-purpose accounts. I read the guidelines for them in the middle of the night, and basically thought you were almost a single-purpose account with the purpose being AWB. Looking back that makes very little sense, and I'm sorry. Best, Tantomile (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the attempt at wikilawyering makes little sense. Polygnotus (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This narrative of events is so divorced from reality I don't know where to start. Others can read the actual discussions on Talk:Tweet. Though this TfD, I'll note again, is about a different template which you created and which is not used anywhere.
P.S. The light green text without quotation marks is {{talk quote inline}}. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My representative on Earth means Template talk:Tweet not Talk:Tweet. Probably still a bit dazed from our soulmerge. Polygnotus (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please declare all soulmerges that could reasonable be expected to have an effect on editing at Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. (this is joke btw) Thanks, Tantomile (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This narrative of events is so divorced from reality I don't know where to start.". First off, that is a great sentence and i might have borrow it in the future. This TfD is closely related to Tweet because this template extends Tweet's capabilities, and the result of this TfD against SocialMediaPost will likely be used as prior consensus for Tweet and vice versa. This is why I again think that we should put this TfD on Hold until we figure out what to do with Tweet, which being the used template will set precedent for what a template like SocialMediaPost should be. Also, even through this TfD is about SocialMediaPost, It was started immediately following a conversation on Tweet, is being participated in by several people who previously interacted and voiced options on Tweet, and Social media post was previously discussed on Tweet's talk page, so some prior discussions on/about Tweet are relevant here.
Also, super embarrassed about not recognizing {{talk quote inline}}, I mostly use the visual editor, and I don't often end up needing to quote things.
Overall, I don't really care if Social media post stays or goes in the long run, I just don't think this is the right time for that conversation to happen. Best, Tantomile (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artist formerly known as Joe Roe has 20 years of experience. So if you disagree with them it is not unreasonable to assume that it is because they know something you don't. Polygnotus (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your point with this comment. I provided my reasoning for continuing to discuss Tweet in this RfD in response to being questioned as to why I mentioned it. I explained how I felt Tweet was relevant both to this RfD as a whole and my response to this RfD. I guess I'm sorry for not joining this website 20 years ago? Actually, no I'm not. Please read WP:PULLRANK, Argument from authority, and Cognitive bias. Having randomly decided in 2005 to join a website is not reason that your opinion is unequivocally better than everyone else's. Tantomile (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Strawman argument. Polygnotus (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was here 3 years before Joe, and I've been an administrator 10 years longer than he has. So really, Polygnotus should be championing my opinion here. Right? Of course not, because that's not how it works. Polygnotus: Tantomile wrote a polite and detailed comment, and that was a discourteous response which failed to address even a single point of it.  — Hex • talk 11:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hex Then you should know better than to respond to a single post without bothering to understand its context. And you should be familiar with the concept of a strawman argument. Polygnotus (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: How about we move this template to Template:Tweet/Multi-app version or something such, so discussion can take place on one single talk page and there isn't an unused template in template space? Personally I don't think that's any kind of issue for a brand new template in a huge, slow-moving project with infinite quantities of unfinished business, but clearly some people don't like it.  — Hex • talk 11:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the discussion is resolved. This is a new template under discussion. Too soon to delete as unused, because there is some probability that it will be used based on the discussion. Also not appropriate to delete as a redundant fork for the same reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is under discussion there? – Joe (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks redundant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the more specific {{Tweet}} template was nominated for deletion by this same user with the same reasoning re MOS:CONFORM but the consensus there was to Keep. They don't indicate what makes this template any different. Personally, I think it is fine to display social media posts in a little box and this is already conformed to Wikipedia style by wrapping quote box and mimicking our appearance here - it doesn't use the Twitter/whatever font, colours, exact layout etc. it's made to fit in with our style (and it is not a quote like a book etc. so it would not be appropriate to use the {{Quote box}} template and it is fine to have a template that uses our styling but looks more like a social media post). The other reason raised for deletion is that the template is unused but we shouldn't delete templates because they aren't used now - only if they don't have a potential to be used in the future - and this seems useful for displaying posts from twitter-like websites so in my opinion should be Kept. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even if this is a violation of MOS:CONFORM, that alone is not enough reason for deletion. Such a box to display a social media post would have uses outside mainspace (i.e. to show a post made by the account of a wikiproject in projectspace, or to show a post you yourself made on your userpage) and the MOS only applies to mainspace. If the user believes this is inappropriate for mainspace, they should start an RfC for all templates like this including {{tweet}} asking if these violate MOS:CONFORM, TfD seems like the wrong venue and it seems strange to nominate only this template when we have many like them such as {{tweet}}. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really good point. If consensus is found that this and/or {{Tweet}} aren't suitable for mainspace there are plenty of other places they could be used. That for me instantly makes the rationale for deleting this invalid, when it could just get an accompanying instruction on appropriate usage. Deleting a new template because it hasn't seen use yet is obviously spurious.  — Hex • talk 16:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the logo option as it goes against MOS:LOGO. Arguments to delete could still be made that it puts undue emphasis on the quote, but the specific issue with logos mentioned above shouldn't count towards deletion. Two editors suggest keeping the template based on the possibility to use it outside of articles, but I think this should not count towards keeping the template because the documentation specifically says it is for use "within articles" and the discussion at Template talk:Tweet says that it is for use in "an article". 47.7.107.69 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's no obstacle to changing what the template can be used for. We're not forced to choose between only "delete" or "do nothing" as the outcome of this discussion.  — Hex • talk 00:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Template:Hotels in Los Angeles

[edit]

Navbox with no transclusions and no main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added transclusions for all relevant articles. Sewageboy (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TCC Entry

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. Created in June 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Template:Uw-controversial

[edit]

I find this template troubling for several reasons. The wording seems arbitrary:

[O]ne of your edits may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted.

Controversial edit? What the heck is that? One might think that perhaps it is related to our contentious topics procedures—but no. There doesn't seem to be any clear guidance about when it applies, or when it doesn't.

I started this discussion about it at a central location to discuss it but got no response after a week, so bringing it here. More details at the link. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1273714158"