Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

"WP:TFD" redirects here. For templates nominated today, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 August 7. For nominating TimedText pages or talk pages, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. For a list of templates used for discussion, see Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	115	0	115
TfD	0	1	5	0	6
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	6	10	10	0	26
RfD	0	0	119	0	119
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

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 deletion. 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: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude> Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly. Related categories If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|name of the template}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the first nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use {{Catfd|header=name of the first template}}.) TemplateStyles pages If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page: /* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026_August_7#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

August 7

Template:WikiProject Syria topicon

• Template:WikiProject Syria topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should be replaced by {{WikiProject country member top icon|country=Syria}} Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:PINQ-Y

• Template:PINQ-Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PINQ-N (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

rarely used, can be replaced by other Checkmark insertion templates Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Taekwondo at the 2028 Summer Olympics

• Template:Taekwondo at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no main article, and no blue links in this sidebar. Created by a now-blocked editor who has created significant disruption in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Dan Abraham

• Template:Dan Abraham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only directed two notable films. Does not meet the threshold for WP:NENAN or MOS:FILM#Navigation. --woodensuperman 11:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Judo at the 2028 Summer Olympics

• Template:Judo at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, no main article, and no blue links in this sidebar. Created by a now-blocked editor who has created significant disruption in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Copyright violations essay

• Template:Copyright violations essay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in March 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone depopulated the banner. I went back and restored them.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The removal of transclusions, for example this one, appears to have been valid, combining this template with a similar one using a feature of {{essay}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is the template also places articles in Category:Wikipedia essays about copyright violations, and when the template altered to a hybrid template removed the category. These templates perform multiple functions and are not easily replaceable. 4meter4 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

August 6

Template:2020 French municipal elections

• Template:2020 French municipal elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2026 French municipal elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all redlinks, and barely enough bluelinked contents to support a navbox. They are also used to populate the categories, which is problematic because this TfD exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Holden (singer)

• Template:Holden (singer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one directly-related article. Offers no additional benefit to navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete, provides insufficient bidirectional navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

August 5

Template:Infobox Pakistani province government

• Template:Infobox Pakistani province government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:INFOBOXCOL, as Template:Infobox political system exists, and I have removed all transclusions of this template and replaced them with latter. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Support - I was about to oppose, but after checking the Infobox political system and seeing on how similar it was to Infobox Pakistani province government, I now support this decision. I think that Template:Infobox Pakistani province government should be a redirect though. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hong Kong government agency

• Template:Infobox Hong Kong government agency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:INFOBOXCOL, as Template:Infobox government agency exists and. I have removed all transclusions of this template and replaced them with Template:Infobox government agency. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tonga icon

• Template:Tonga icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Country data Tonga. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Samoa icon

• Template:Samoa icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Country data Samoa. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Fiji icon

• Template:Fiji icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Country data Fiji. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cook Islands icon

• Template:Cook Islands icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Country data Cook Islands. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Māori icon

• Template:Māori icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Country data Māori. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Niue icon

• Template:Niue icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Flagicon, which includes Niue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• comment: I definitely agree that there is no reason for one of these for a single country wikiproject, but what is the equivalent method for producing a flagicon that links to a Wikiproject? or is the idea to just substitute/delete this? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:UK Desiro

• Template:UK Desiro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Siemens trams and light rail vehicles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Siemens Mobility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Looking at it, sShould I have started a TfD instead of a TfM? Sorry about that... MKH1020 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't mind the proposed merge, but the now-unused templates had their list items in alphabetical order, and the new navbox items appear to be in no order that I can discern. It would probably be better for the list items to remain alphabetized. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify - I tried to keep them chronological by date of introduction and for submodels sorted in the same way as the given Wikipedia article - so yes it's not 100% consistent however I would prefer a chronological system to an alphabetical one in this case as we're talking about 25-30 years of railway vehicles which are not all contemporary to each other. MKH1020 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:WA Inc

• Template:WA Inc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:İçli Pide

• Template:İçli Pide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Convert mu

• Template:Convert mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cvt mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Support, but see Template:Convert mu/doc#Notes; if closed as merge, all or part of this note should be ported to Template:Convert/doc, perhaps in § Area. Also, I would not like this to be closed rapidly or with little input, as this has been discussed several times before, most recently among @Stepho, Chrisahn, Artoria2e5, Johnuniq, Dondervogel 2, and Toadspike: in August 2025, and prior to that in 2023, 2022, and 2017. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ping Stepho-wrs. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Moo? I am in support of the merge after a short look at the issue. In practical use "mu" should be specific enough since it only remains legal in PR China, unlike the other traditional-turned-metric-based units… Artoria2e5 🌉 01:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I suspect so, but some sourcing needs to be cleaned up across all the East Asian unit articles. The 1959 reforms phased out all the non-metric units for non-agricultural use by 1990. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is possibly off-topic here but the issue has been discussed many times at convert, most recently at Template talk:Convert/Archive 3#Mu, or 'Chinese acres'. I commented: "As mentioned in these discussions and above, there is no standard definition for mu—it's value apparently varies with time and location. Adding a unit to convert gives it an official status and people will assume that convert magically works. That's unwise when a unit has no standard meaning. A problem with convert is that it is hard (apart from relying on dubious searches) to find where a unit is used to check if the usage is correct." Later in the same discussion, I showed how anyone can add the unit to convert and use it as a trial. If a unit is used and that usage has consensus, it will be retained. I haven't examined this template and don't know if convert would be an equivalent. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• My only comment then was that I do not have a feel for the size of a hectare, but (like 90 % of Wikipedia readers) I was taught SI units at school. Therefore, to ensure wide accessibility, the outputs of any conversion template should include an SI unit of area (say to square metres, square hectometres or square kilometres). My opinion has not changed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think whether a given term is an SI unit should be the decisive factor, or even a factor at all. Are you a scientist, or perhaps someone living in a non-metric country like the USA? Hectares may not be a standard SI unit (it used to be, but was delisted in June 2026), but it is a standard metric unit for land area consisting of 10,000m², that is, a square with 100 meter sides—about 2.47 acres. The hectare is used very nearly universally in metric countries for land areas from individual lots, to parks, farms, and forests (other than the very small which use m² or the very large, which use km²).

  The cutover appears to be roughly around 25,000 hectares; larger than that, and most use sq km. (A quick, unscientific check of Forest of Fontainebleau articles (22,000 ha) at ten European Wikipedias shows about half of them use hectares (fr, de, it, ru, ro, pl) and the others use sq km (pt, es, sv, da). 25,000 hectares is ~400,000 mu, so as a very rough approximation, that might be the point where we switch to using sq km, unless sources for a given parcel say otherwise, of course. Recall that {{convert}} supports conversion into multiple units, so both hectares and sq km could be used as the target units for a range of mu areas near the crossover.

  As far as using square hectometres, you're aware that they are equivalent to hectares, but the term is used far less frequently and is virtually incomprehensible to the average person. Using that term simply because it is an SI unit and hectare is not would be a disservice to our readers, per WP:JARGON. The term hectare is the most universally understood term for areas from suburban house plots to parks and middling-size forests, and should be the term of choice. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  • You have missed my point. To make things crystal clear, my argument for preferring a conversion to square kilometre is simply "nearly all WP readers know what a square kilometre is" (and not "the square kilometre is an SI unit"). By comparison, few readers would know that a hectare is 10000 square metres. (I had to look it up myself)
  • It also seems appropriate to push back on the false statement "[the hectare] used to be [a standard SI unit]". The only SI units of area are the square metre and certain decimal multiples and sub-multiples. Those multiples happen to include the square hectometre, but not the hectare.

  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The convert mu template uses hectares because it is easier to only program one target unit for it, and ha was chosen for the reasons discussed above. I have no dog in this ha vs km2 discussion. I just want to note that once it’s integrated into convert proper, any target area unit will be available. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  That would completely address my concern. I suggest choosing between what you call "convert proper" and leaving mu unconverted (with a link to an article explaining what it is). Thank you for explaining. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I have notified WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Hong Kong, and WikiProject Macau because this discussion. (WikiProject Measurement is defunct, so there is no one to notify.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I share the concern in Johnuniq's green quote above. It is simply not possible to have a single conversion rate for the "Chinese mu", which varied widely throughout history and still varies by region today. I don't think it's wise to add this to convert unless we also have a date parameter that warns the user if they're using the template anachronistically. Toadspike [Talk] 07:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  In modern usage "China" or "Chinese" colloquially refers to the mainland area of PR China (i.e. excluding the special administrative areas and parts not under their actual control). As far as that big chunk of land is concerned, there is a singular system of units, including a singular mu.

  "Varies by region today" is technically correct in the sense of "countries and regions". In other words the "regions" are country-level divisions (each with their two-letter "country code"), not divisions within a country, unlike the historical case. (I may have managed to offend both Great China unionists and "separatists" with this one. Welp.) Artoria2e5 🌉 02:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Notes

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship pool tables

• Template:2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship pool tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Please state the reason for deletion, Wontforgetaboutyou (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wontforgetaboutyou I think it is better that you click the link in the words "this discussion" then read and comprehend. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 11:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

When I clicked in the link in "this discussion" it only showed discussion on the finished 2026 AVC Men's Cup. The reason says "Single-use article content. 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup is over, so this table is stable," which is untrue for the upcoming 2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship. Still, the template of 2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship pool tables was deleted anyway, so all my opinions should not matter from now on. Wontforgetaboutyou (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Cup pool tables

• Template:2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Cup pool tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian government

• Template:Infobox Australian government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox incumbency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian government with Template:Infobox incumbency.
Per WP:INFOCOL. This template's purpose is identical to Template:Infobox incumbency, but it was needlessly made for Australia. The latter is used almost universally for different countries, such as:

• Premiership of Andy Burnham
• Premiership of Mark Carney
• Second presidency of Donald Trump
• Presidency of Emmanuel Macron

It is only transcluded on 33 pages, and I would be willing to manually convert any pages that need attention to facilitate the merge. Some of the fields are already the same in name and purpose, but there will be some that need to be renamed, and perhaps added to Template:Infobox incumbency. I will, however, propose removing the following fields, as they exist and are better suited for pages using Template:Infobox government cabinet:

• status
• startreason
• endreason

For example:

• Albanese government should use Template:Infobox incumbency
• First Albanese ministry already uses Template:Infobox government cabinet Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support, it should be noted as well that similar articles of Australian state premiers (Crisafulli, Finocchiaro, Rockliff, Carroll, Allan all use the generic incumbency/administration infoboxes rather than the Australian specific version. There is no need for an Australian-specific version. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Current prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda

• Template:Current prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Template:Current leader PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 03:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Entrepreneurship policies in the Arab world

• Template:WikiProject Entrepreneurship policies in the Arab world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused on article talk pages, since all the project's articles have been deleted after my deletion nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entrepreneurship policies in Egypt (which included all related articles about Arab countries) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arab entrepreneurship initiatives. I'd also previously deleted this template from a few draft talk and article talk pages to which it was added, the former on-purpose and the latter by accident. I'm not planning to nominate the project itself for MFD because I think that it was such an unusual idea that it'd be better to preserve it in the creator's userspace, along with its discussion page, so I'm planning to userfy it when this discussion is over. Graham87 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Real-time strategy gameplay

• Template:Real-time strategy gameplay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is an unused subset of Template:Game design. Template contents have also been added to the Template:Strategy video games, so there is little chance this template will ever be used again 13akoors (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

August 4

Template:Attached KML/Interstate 195 (Florida)

• Template:Attached KML/Interstate 195 (Florida) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused as Interstate 195 (Florida) was redirected. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Greensboro Groove roster

• Template:Greensboro Groove roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in Greensboro Groove and highly unlikely to be used anywhere else. Unexperienced editors wanting to update the roster might not understand that they need to edit the template so it's just simpler to substitute the current template on Greensboro Groove and then delete it. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Conpromises

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

Template newly created by a novice user (first registered July 2026) to serve a deeply unclear purpose. I have to assume this is a misspelling of "compromise", but it's not obvious what purpose would be served in a Wikipedia context by maintenance-tagging pages for "compromise" at all -- and the actual warning text that the template adds to a page is "Independent sources for this article don't exist at the moment", which isn't a "compromise" problem in the first place. It was, further, created solely to tag one single page (List of The NBC Mystery Movie episodes), which is already tagged as {{unreferenced}} and thus had no need of a second template to say the same thing.
I simply can't see what useful purpose this serves at all, since there's no obvious relationship between the template's name and its stated purpose, and we already have other templates to serve that purpose as it is. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This page should be Redirected to A New Page called "Template:Compromises". GlammySammy (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NOTE: The Template is New, so Not That Many Pages Have It. GlammySammy (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete If independent sources don't exist, then it fails WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep this Page Just In Case 🙄😣😅😄😦 GlammySammy (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete – it's a pretty confusing template (and would be just as confusing if it were correctly spelt). There are templates flagging a lack of sources, and as you say, "no independent sources" has nothing to do with compromises anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Honkai Impact 3rd

• Template:Honkai Impact 3rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Honkai: Star Rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Honkai Impact 3rd with Template:Honkai: Star Rail.
Lots of overlap between the two. Could easily be merged into a Honkai series navbox. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support As the creator of both, I suppose it makes sense. (For transparency, I was approached about this off-wiki and thought it may be necessary to generate consensus before merging.) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 15:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Support, the only thing that's unique about the HI3 template is the collab part. The HSR template can become standalone, but it would be for the best if the template is about the series as a whole. RPC7778 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hellblade

• Template:Hellblade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ninja Theory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Oppose. The Hellblade template should remain separate from the Ninja Theory template, as they serve different purposes. The franchise template covers a specific video game series, while the studio template covers the developer's broader works and history. Many video game franchises have their own templates alongside developer templates, even when there is some overlap. A merger would reduce navigation value for readers interested specifically in the Hellblade series. The template could be considered for merging only if the franchise becomes inactive or no longer has enough relevant articles to justify its own navigation template. Axios512 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is essentially 100% overlap here though. I would understand the need for a separate template if you have games made by studios other than NT, character articles/articles about other media (see something like Template:Until Dawn), but so far I do not see the need why this needs to exist. OceanHok (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Wl

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

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

The rationale is documentation, one can show how wikilinks work with this. BTW the title "Wikilink" is already taken, thus wl. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment The name is a little confusing; "Wl" (with a lowercase L) can be easily misread as "WI" (with a capital I). Perhaps, in the event it is kept, it should be renamed to "WL". In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 10:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the two letter version of whatever this template wants to be. I'm also not convinced we need a template for how wikilinks work (better to link someone to Help:Wikitext), so delete the concept as well. Izno (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

August 3

Template:Wildfires in the United States/2024–present

• Template:Wildfires in the United States/2024–present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This poorly designed sidebar is hiding as a subpage of a navbox. If it is to be kept (which I don't think it should) it should be renamed and not be a subpage of a completely different template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:2024 New Zealand Olympic team

• Template:2024 New Zealand Olympic team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. It also states: Good navboxes generally follow these guidelines: ... If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. This navbox contains links to nearly 200 members of New Zealand's 2024 Olympic team, which is certainly not a small set of articles. There is not a strong connection between all these topics besides making the Olympics in their sport for the same year. For a single sport there is a stronger connection between participants, especially in team sports, but just including a link for every member of the Olympic team in all sports is overkill (WP:TCREEP and WP:NENAN). The entire Olympic delegation can already be found at New Zealand at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is also akin to WP:PERFNAV by grouping together people by performance, which should be avoided. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:2025 Northern Super League champions

• Template:2025 Northern Super League champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past discussions (for example here and here, and TFDs here, here and here), there is a consensus to not have seasonal/championship-winning squad templates outside international football, as there are too many competitions for this to be viable. The squad information is already available at 2025 Vancouver Rise FC season, so no information is lost. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Regional heads in Bangka Belitung Islands

• Template:Regional heads in Bangka Belitung Islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only one blue link in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2

Template:Infobox museum/wikidata

• Template:Infobox museum/wikidata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• I would like to see us keep this template, at least for now. The aim of this version of the template is to demonstrate Wikidata integration within infoboxes, and it's served that role well over the years for the articles where people have deliberately opted into using this version of the template rather than the manual one (and that people have been using this in preference to the main version is impressive given that the main version doesn't even link to this one). It would be straightforward to update this version to use the latest base template version and, given the developments over the years, to expand it to use many more Wikidata properties (I'm happy to do this, but it probably doesn't make sense to do that until this discussion has concluded). This approach is particularly valuable for museums located in countries whose native language is not English, since there is often more data available for those on Wikidata than we have on enwiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  That information can easily be imported from Wikidata... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  • But not then easily kept in sync with Wikidata as other language communities expand/update it... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Note the precedent of both {{Infobox theatre/wikidata}} (deleted at this TFD) and {{Infobox library/wikidata}} (deleted at this TFD). Both were deleted after separate TFDs on 14 July 2026. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Both of those precedents are not great - no involvement of the template creator or the community that's active with Wikidata integration with Wikimedia projects. This template also has a lot more uses than those two did. I'm happy to update/improve this one in the near future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Mike Peel - or, better, merge the Wikidata capability into the main template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 PVL on Tour results table

• Template:2026 PVL on Tour results table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - No template is needed for this. Redundnant per nom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Antigua and Barbuda place

• Template:Infobox Antigua and Barbuda place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on 4 pages. Has no documentation indicating what it is used for why it should be used instead of {{Infobox settlement}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CROIX^talk 19:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:MBGPG College

• Template:MBGPG College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only for Draft:Motiram Baburam Government Post Graduate College and certainly not what a navbox of this kind is for - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Evangelical Protestantism sidebar

• Template:Evangelical Protestantism sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

• Delete — As I stated on the talk page of the template, Pentecostals and Lutherans are categorically not "Evangelical" in the modern usage of the term, and many Reformed individuals eschew it as well. The term today describes the modern Baptistic and early Methodist traditions, i.e, American Evangelicalism — which is different from the global or historic usage, generally referring to Lutheranism. The template is ugly and unnecessary, and the templates for Protestantism and Pentecostalism are sufficient for navigation. —Confession0791 ^talk 14:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:BNM

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

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

• Delete: Agreed, and if an album has been included in their "Best New Music" section then that can easily be referenced in the prose. Elephantranges (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. BNM is a branding distinction that is already becoming culturally insignificant ~2026-42628-65 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – I think just noting the rating for a Pitchfork review is sufficient, and I don't exactly understand what value 'best new music' brings to the encyclopedic understanding of the critical response at large of a given work. Thus this template is not of use. BarntToust 05:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that as long as pitchfork is the leading publication for music reviews, especially indie and alternative music reviews, denoting its highest distinction among the chart of other review scores is worth keeping. There are albums rated the same score as some BNM selections but not selected for BNM. ~2026-43131-35 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the designation is as trivial as it's being characterized. Unlike a simple review score, Pitchfork's Best New Music label has historically functioned as an editorial endorsement that often shaped critical conversation and public attention around a release. For much of the 2000s and 2010s and to this day, it was one of the most closely watched distinctions in online music criticism, particularly among Millennial and Gen Z audiences.

It's also not merely a branding exercise. Whether an album did or did not receive Best New Music frequently became part of the discourse surrounding its release, and the designation itself has been covered by reliable sources as an influential aspect of Pitchfork's editorial voice. That makes it qualitatively different from an ordinary review score.

As for why this distinction should be highlighted over others: Wikipedia already includes information about notable editorial accolades and recognitions when they are independently significant. Best New Music is arguably one of the few publication-specific designations that had a demonstrable influence on an album's critical reception and visibility. Even if editors ultimately decide not to include it in this template, dismissing it as "trivial" overlooks its well-documented role in music criticism over the past two decades. ~2026-42916-05 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Somebody run this response through an AI checker, please. BarntToust 02:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Does running my response through an AI checker diminish the point I'm trying to make here? The Best New Music label is easily one of the most prominent, well-respected, and distinguished endorsements from a music criticism publication that an album can receive in this day and age. Using AI to help articulate this point does not take away from my argument - unless that is some secret Wikipedia editing rule I'm not aware of.

Regardless, it feels like the other responders aren't really grasping the editorial weight that "Best New Music" carries. Another user made the good point that "There are albums rated the same score as some BNM selections but not selected for BNM." This is true - an 8.2 last year might have received a "BNM" distinction while another 8.2 this year does not. Separately, apart from the use of AI to generate my initial response, can you deny any of the points I made?

If my original response does not articulate the "value [that] 'best new music' brings to the encyclopedic understanding of the critical response at large of a given work," then I seriously question these editors' grasp of modern music criticism and popular culture. ~2026-42916-05 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like a manufactured soulless mechanical response. Can you back up the claim that "BNM one of the most closely watched distinctions in online music criticism" in the 2000s and 2010s? How exactly do you plan to support the assertion that such an "editorial endorsement often shaped critical conversation and public attention around a release"? Can you prove that other critical publications in the general public give a darn about the notion? Using WP:RS and not the output of an LLM?

As for the AI generated claim, "Wikipedia already includes information about notable editorial accolades and recognitions when they are independently significant", Wikipedia notes things like year-end best listings and actual proper accolades awarded in ceremonies, not whatever BNM isn't doing to actually convey the proper critical reception of a given work. BarntToust 14:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"Soulless and mechanical" does not equal incorrect.

As for backing up my claim, do a Google search for "Pitchfork criticism" or "Pitchfork paywall controversy," and you'll find extensive media coverage and public discourse surrounding the platform itself. They even introduced a new feature this year that lets users score themselves, simply because Pitchfork's scoring system is so iconic and its ratings and Best New Music distinctions are often polarizing and controversial - this itself generated media and public interest. You don't see this same level of community engagement or critical discourse surrounding Billboard, Rolling Stone, NME, or nearly any other major music publication. No other music criticism site is subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Pitchfork, and its ratings consistently generate more polarized reactions. That's partly because of its pretentious and "high-brow" reputation they have intentionally crafted over the years. (https://lithub.com/on-the-rise-of-pitchfork-and-21st-century-music-criticism/)

My point here is that if a music criticism site is itself the subject of extensive criticism (whether positive or negative) for its editorial approach and, by extension, its scoring system that serves as the base of the entire publication, then doesn't that make its Best New Music scoring designation notable enough to include here? It's not like when Rolling Stone gives an album 4.5 stars, it creates some big cultural moment or distinction on the Rolling Stone site, even though it is nearly a perfect rating. By contrast, a Best New Music designation is a cultural marker that signals a particular level of critical acclaim and frequently becomes a topic of discussion in its own right. That, in itself, is evidence that BNM has encyclopedic significance beyond being just another review score. (https://www.theringer.com/music/2020/5/11/21251822/pitchfork-perfect-review-history-10-fiona-apple-kanye-west-trail-of-dead)

To close things out, you can absolutely reject my claim that the BNM template belongs here (on the grounds of redundancy, inconsistency with other review site templates, etc). What you cannot reasonably reject is the fact that Pitchfork generates significantly more cultural criticism and public discourse than virtually any other music criticism site, or that the "Best New Music" designation is anything but meaningful. It can be a huge make-or-break moment for artists. ~2026-42916-05 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Another example: Both Roisin Murphy and Charli XCX received 8.2 ratings for their albums "Hit Parade" and "Music, Fashion, Film," respectively. (https://pitchfork.com/reviews/charli-xcx-music-fashion-film/, https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/roisin-murphy-hit-parade/). However, only Charli received the BNM distinction.

One could argue that this was simply a mistake by the publication, but I doubt that given the importance Pitchfork places on its scoring system and the role it serves within the site's broader editorial framework. I'd argue the difference in the BNM designation between Charli and Roisin here comes down to cultural impact. Music for Fashion Film generated significantly more attention and public discourse, whereas Roisin Murphy, by comparison, has a smaller fanbase and a more limited mainstream audience.

That said, if the publication is this intentional about which albums receive Best New Music and which do not, isn't that all the more reason to include the distinction here? ~2026-42916-05 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Pitchfork is not the only publication with something like "Best New Release" btw. Discussing Pitchfork's "Best New Music" distinction in prose makes sense, but I do not see the need to have a separate icon and include it in album ratings tables. ~2026-43299-69 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You're MAINLY proving that the disussion in RS is largely about Pitchfork itself, which is a particularly opinionated and sometimes controversial site of course it would draw general studies about the publication at large; you're not really making a case for specifically why BMM tag is particularly relevant. When you're talking about inconsistencies in the application of BNM in your contrasting examples, you're not really proving relevance of said inconsistencies because most of it is just your original thought and not anything lasting and relevance discussed in RS. I don't see any major controversies for any arguable scoring/rating inconsistencies between reviews in the actual press (not whatever AI generation large language model you're using to generate these continued walls of text), and the relevance of the BNM tag still remains without a comprehensive intelligent argument for its own relevance. BarntToust 01:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Using AI to help articulate certainly does take away from your point. You've basically stated that your own argument isn't worth the effort it takes to back it up with your own thoughts and words. Elephantranges (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Mentioning BNM in prose is sufficient enough, and there's no place for this template to be used other than {{Music ratings}}. ALittleButterfly15 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Elephantranges and BarntToust. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• i'll be in the minority here but, keep. when i saw it i was very glad someone was bold enough to do it. it's a distinction that is unique from the number rating that pitchfork gives. it's understood that you need at least an 8.0+, but not every 8.0+ is BNM (see examples by temporary account ~2026-42916-05). and i do think this piece of information is worth knowing for readers due to the cultural impact that pitchfork has; it's really the only relevant music review site that isn't a user-generated review site.
  in any case, if adding it to the prose is seen as the better option, then a template for pitchfork prose could be considered, akin to metacritic or rotten tomatoes. i won't doubt that wikipedians have the energy to go through every single article and weave a "awarded best new music by pitchfork" into the sections where they discuss the review, but it's worth having the reader know that pitchfork also awarded it this distinction on release at a quick glance @ the music ratings sidebar. altaire ★ (talk talk to me!) 07:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  i do think this piece of information is worth knowing for readers due to the cultural impact that pitchfork has; it's really the only relevant music review site that isn't a user-generated review site: So have you never heard of AllMusic, or Rolling Stone, or NME, or MusicOMH, or Beats Per Minute, or Mojo? And to try and make this point about user generated scoring specifically when Pitchfork has recently rolled out a user score rating as well? I still see no good argument for why a technical designation of Pitchfork is worth specifically pointing out. BarntToust 01:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Incumbent POTUS

• Template:Incumbent POTUS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete - Per nom., this is superseded and thus redundant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Current president of Slovenia

• Template:Current president of Slovenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete - Per nom., this is superseded and thus redundant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

August 1

Template:MSV Duisburg (women) squad

• Template:MSV Duisburg (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 07:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 07:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:En Avant Guingamp (women) squad

• Template:En Avant Guingamp (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 07:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 07:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Canoeing at the 2028 Summer Olympics

• Template:Canoeing at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete. This user's template contributions are a complete time-sink. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Stade de Reims Féminines squad

• Template:Stade de Reims Féminines squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Dijon FCO (women) squad

• Template:Dijon FCO (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 2009 Futsal Confederations Cup

• Template:Iran Squad 2009 Futsal Confederations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Brazil squad 2007 Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep – At least in the case of the Brazil national futsal team squad, given that the sport's inclusion in the competition was experimental and garnered significant attention at the time . Svartner (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's not relevant; there plenty of football/futsal competitions that garner significant coverage. If we created a navbox for every single one, we would have far too many templates on player articles (WP:NAVBOXCREEP). That's why consensus exists on WP:FOOTY to only create navboxes for major international competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Libya squad 2008 FIFA Futsal World Cup

• Template:Libya squad 2008 FIFA Futsal World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia squad 2026 ASEAN Championship

• Template:Indonesia squad 2026 ASEAN Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:FC Girondins de Bordeaux (women) squad

• Template:FC Girondins de Bordeaux (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Mazatlán F.C. (women) squad

• Template:Mazatlán F.C. (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Anthem Rugby Carolina squad

• Template:Anthem Rugby Carolina squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:UC Sampdoria (women) squad

• Template:UC Sampdoria (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Blackburn Rovers W.F.C. squad

• Template:Blackburn Rovers W.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Bashundhara Kings Women squad

• Template:Bashundhara Kings Women squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Fortuna Sittard (women) squad

• Template:Fortuna Sittard (women) squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

July 31

Template:Artistic swimming at the 2028 Summer Olympics

• Template:Artistic swimming at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Fencing at the 2028 Summer Olympics

• Template:Fencing at the 2028 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Keep: no value in deleting it since it will have to be recreated in less than two years' time anyway. WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 suggests deleting a template for being unused should only be done where it "has no likelihood of being used". J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:LLM prompt and response

• Template:LLM prompt and response (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Here is an example usage: Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models § Copyediting Personally I feel very dubious about this. Hence this discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How is it an "ad" for ChatGPT? You can indicate the model you asked the inquiry to. Is the similar "tweet" template an ad for Twitter? Why should this template be banned from any namespaces? I think such a template is useful even as LLM usage is discouraged across Wikipedia. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, So first off, no this isn't a ChatGPT advert. It's literally made so that you can plug in the name and reference any AI agent. Secondly, like it or not, we do talk about LLMs a fair bit, in our articles about them, on talk pages, in Wikipedia pages or on other discussion pages etc. This template just allows folks to have a format in which to show that a "chat" with the LLM, when discussing its behavior (regardless of whether they are discussing the interaction in a negative light or a positive light). The original purpose of the template was to illustrate vibe-coding, prompt injection attacks, and similar to the readers, however, I see that folks are using it in more places, and that seems fine. The aim here is not to encourage usage in violation of policy, obviously, but to use it similarly to the image/tweet/gallery, as an illustration of an effect/(in)famous interaction etc. -- Sohom (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – Should be avoided in article space, but I don't see any problem with this formatting template in general. If people don't want to include LLM conversations on particular Help or Wikipedia pages, they can do so. The advertisement argument is unconvincing to me. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:World Radio Network

• Template:World Radio Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not rename "WRN affiliate stations" or similar? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Featured article editnotice

• Template:Featured article editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

I felt sorry to be notified. Template_talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Main#Edit_request_30_May_2026 Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 04:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep this could be used on a case by case basis for featured articles on topics which garner controversy. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Searchmenu

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

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

Premature, there is an open edit request that would add this template to system messages. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox United States presidential transition

• Template:Infobox United States presidential transition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

It is not "basically" a duplicate of inbox organization. Many unique parameters, which are the MOST important pieces information to have in the infobox for a presidential transition. The parameters that render "Date of election", "transition start", "inauguration date", "president-elect", "Vice president-elect", "outgoing president" "outgoing vice president", "chairman of the transition" are examples unique parameters that only need to be utilized in articles for presidential transitions.

This template is in use in nineteen articles. SecretName101 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong Keep per the rationale of SecretName101 which makes great arguments that I agree with. Especially considering that President of the United States is basically both the most powerful and most famous office in the world. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect templates for WikiProjects

• Template:R ME with possibilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME from alternative name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME from alternative spelling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME from duplicated article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME from former name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME to list entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME to section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R ME without diacritics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R scouting from merge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Comment I realize that I am saying "merge", but in this case "delete" might be more appropriate, since the "merge" would simply involve tagging all the relevant pages with the equivalent non-WikiProject template and then removing them. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Pages like DeagolDeagol use the regular {{R without diacritics}} and instead include Category:Middle-earth redirects from titles without diacritics directly. In those case, you only need to remove the category without changing the rcat template.

Also, I think just saying that the redirects can be tagged with WikiProject banner shell should not be enough. The templates should only be deleted if this tagging is actually done. Warudo (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

An automated mass edit of the talk pages of these redirects to add Template:WikiProject Middle-earth is probably not a particularly big obstacle, but it is not something that I should do or request preemptively in any case. While I see your point, I also do not believe it is the responsibility of the community at large to do maintenance that is only for the sake of specific WikiProjects. So while this can be a consideration regarding the how, I do not think it should affect the why of the proposal. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, presumably the WikiProject editors thought that keeping track of these redirects was important enough to make dedicated rcats for them. I just don't like the idea of us coming along and breaking that functionality without providing an alternative. Warudo (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The functionality for these redirects and their tagging was set up a long time ago. I don't have time to check right now, but I don't think anything major would break if those commenting here were wanting to update things to the current consensus on how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:National men's basketball team under 2

• Template:National men's basketball team under 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:National women's basketball team under 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:National men's volleyball team under 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:National women's volleyball team under 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Listed buildings in Reading

• Template:Listed buildings in Reading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Won't these templates end up getting too large as there are over 4000 listed buildings in Berkshire and while not all will probably have articles many more probably will. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so; the vast majority of listed buildings are Grade II buildings of some architectural interest but where there is not really very much that anyone would want to write a Wikipedia article about (many of them are just old houses). My impression from looking through all these articles and comparing them with the official listings is that we probably have articles on most of the buildings that we would want to have articles on, and that we might reasonably expect to get a few more articles on some of the more interesting buildings in future but probably no drastic increase any time soon.

Of course if this did become a problem we could always consider dividing templates later, but for the time being I think it's best to have navboxes that allow the user to see a whole county at once, rather than just the small area consisting of a single district. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I should also have said: since the local districts in the UK are in the process of being substantially reorganised, it is not really possible to create listed building templates district by district, as a general rule. I mean, Reading is not about to be abolished, but it would not work to produce a listed building template (say) for West Oxfordshire or South Cambridgeshire, since those districts will not exist in a few years. By contrast, there is no prospect of any changes being made to the ceremonial counties, and so if templates are created at this level it is possible to do so consistently and without them being likely to become obsolete (even if the resulting templates are in some cases rather large). Dionysodorus (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Template:Rfd-NPF

• Template:Rfd-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Glamorgan hundreds

• Template:Glamorgan hundreds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–2025)

• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–2025) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Ontario PC leaders

• Template:Ontario PC leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ontario PC leaders with Template:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
{{Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario}} concisely includes all the articles included on {{Ontario PC leaders}}, and more. No need for a second template with slightly different formatting. RedBlueGreen93 18:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Old discussions

July 30

Template:Lang-mrh-name

• Template:Lang-mrh-name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Delete - per nom. Not used and not needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

July 26

Template:Lithuanian wars and conflicts

• Template:Lithuanian wars and conflicts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Strong keep. It matches the WP:NAVBOX requirements of a good navbox: there is a single article and there is a single, coherent subject - the List of wars involving Lithuania. As the creator of this template, I just overhauled it to be more coherent, succinct (as much as over seven centuries of military history can be), and pleasing to the eye, compared to other similar templates, such as Template:Hungarian conflicts, Template:Czech wars and conflicts, Template:Polish wars and conflicts, Template:Russian conflicts, and more. The subject of the template is Lithuanian military history and that also includes the two uprisings of the 19th century that sought to re-establish the state of Lithuania, so it seems rather relevant to include them in the template, as they're also mentioned in the article.

Considering that many more such military history templates exist, I see no reason for the Lithuanian one to be singled out and deleted. — 𝓓 𝓮𝓽 𝓟 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this works that way - make a list and then immediately reformat it into a navbox. That sounds like a cheap excuse :)

Thank you for adding to the list of more of these templates that should be reviewed. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NAVBOX as much too busy and not useful for navigation. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW I nominated all the others and some more last week, and nobody came to speak up for them yet. --Joy (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

July 25

Template:Lead letter in the Latin script

• Template:Lead letter in the Latin script (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Hello, I'm the creator of the template. I'm not familiar with the deletion process for templates. Why is it being discussed?  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 15:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Templates that are not used are typically deleted. This template has no uses, and no indication of why and how it might be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This template is used but it's always substituted. The documentation is lacking but it says what it's for. Of course, one could argue a template for something like this is not necessarily useful, but I look forward to discussions on this.  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 17:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete as undocumented and unused. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to check, Zackmann08, that you saw the comment above about its "non-use" as well as the documentation issue. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: no I missed that... That being said, it is still not clear to me what purpose this template serves? Baring some clear use case here I still support deletion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template appears to have a (minimal) documentation and an explanation or non-use has been given. Looking for further opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello to everyone. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the whole discussion. I forgot about this and got no notifications until you pinged me.

The template is used to create the lead sentence in pages on letters of the Latin script. You can find examples in here: Œ, Æ, Ł, Eth, Latin gamma, Ø, Ë, Turned v, Á; as well as in the testcases.

The template came from a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics and subsequently on the Wikimedia discord server about inconsistency in these Latin-script letter pages.

I'm completely new to templates so if something is unclear or inappropriate feel free to let me know!  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 17:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tfm notice

• Template:Tfm notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tfr notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tfd notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Template for merging (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Template for discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

So meta :D

But in seriousness no objection to such a merge. I see one template easier to maintain than four. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge along the lines suggested in the nomination, this consolidation makes sense to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per above. I will note, shouldn't AfD be renamed to Articles for Discussion? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 12:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Axolitl You should read WP:RENAMEAFD, and especially the April 2026 discussion. FaviFake (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

July 17

Infoboxes for individual elements

List of templates nominated

• Template:Infobox hydrogen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox helium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox lithium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox beryllium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox boron (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox carbon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox nitrogen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox oxygen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox fluorine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox neon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox sodium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox magnesium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox aluminium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox silicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox phosphorus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox sulfur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox chlorine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox argon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox potassium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox calcium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox scandium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox titanium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox vanadium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox chromium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox manganese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox iron (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox cobalt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox nickel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox copper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox zinc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox gallium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox germanium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox arsenic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox selenium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox bromine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox krypton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox rubidium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox strontium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox yttrium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox zirconium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox niobium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox molybdenum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox technetium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ruthenium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox rhodium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox palladium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox silver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox cadmium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox indium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox antimony (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tellurium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox iodine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox xenon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox caesium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox barium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox lanthanum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox cerium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox praseodymium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox neodymium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox promethium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox samarium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox europium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox gadolinium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox terbium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox dysprosium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox holmium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox erbium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox thulium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ytterbium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox lutetium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox hafnium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tantalum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tungsten (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox rhenium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox osmium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox iridium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox platinum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox gold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox mercury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox thallium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox lead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox bismuth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox polonium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox astatine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox radon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox francium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox radium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox actinium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox thorium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox protactinium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox uranium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox neptunium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox plutonium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox americium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox curium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox berkelium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox californium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox einsteinium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox fermium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox mendelevium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox nobelium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox lawrencium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox rutherfordium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox dubnium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox seaborgium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox bohrium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox hassium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox meitnerium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox darmstadtium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox roentgenium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox copernicium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox nihonium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox flerovium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox moscovium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox livermorium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tennessine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox oganesson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ununennium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox unbinilium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox unbiunium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox unbibium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox unbiquadium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox unbihexium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The individual element infoboxes listed above are just wrappers of Template:Infobox element with nothing special added to them. Although there has been an initiative to merge infoboxes with similar parameters, these should not even be merged, but instead should just be substituted onto each relevant article. The current situation is like having "Infobox Canada", "Infobox Russia", "Infobox Sweden", and so on as wrappers of "Infobox country". SVG-image-maker (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There is at least one similar example of template consolidation. At one point, we had hundreds of different IPA templates, one for each language. However, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_27#IPA-xx_templates, those were replaced with a single template with a parameter for language. Using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, substituting all of them. No need to have a separate template for each one. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; shouldn't be individual templates. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Ugh, have you considered what it would be like to edit the resulting article? There are about 100 parameters in these infoboxes, and a dozen refs. You'd open the article to fix something in the lead, and the first thing you'd have to do is scroll down through 125 lines of wikitext, just so you can find the first sentence. That's bad enough on my laptop, where it's four screenfuls, but this would be actively hostile to someone editing on a smartphone. We might as well put a sign on the article that says "Thanks, but no thanks: we don't need anyone editing the lead of this article ever again." We should keep these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, now that VisualEditor is default for most editors. It's 2026 and we have the visual editor separate from the wikitext editor, which easily allows one to switch between the two modes. For the "many parameters" argument, there are plenty of counterexamples to this, including compounds such as p-Xylene, military conflicts such as Russo-Ukrainian war, countries like Georgia (country), politicians such as Keir Starmer, and many others. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  What is this "visual editor"? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  The OP has used the visual editor for only 15% of his mainspace edits, and he's never used the mw:Mobile visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok thanks, so it's an opt in editor, not a default. It's WYSIWYG, except templates are form fill-in. But if the template is not documented, full fail. Thus Visual Editor fails to edit the Boron infobox because {{infobox boron}} is not documented, but it works on Hydrogen infobox because of the subst change.

  One unfortunate side effect of unpacking the {{infobox hydrogen}} into hydrogen is the edit of the introduction now starts with a bunch of template. Or maybe this is a benefit, may scare off some editors... Johnjbarton (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as they are a good way to package a chunk of code to make editing easier. Visual editor is already slow enough without having to load a large template call. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Would the nominator SVG-image-maker please subst one of these to show the result. That can be reverted later if the result here is keep. Take, say, the first item {{Infobox hydrogen}} and subst it at Hydrogen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Done. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the previous TfD's in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, what Double sharp said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think that using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can't we just redirect each doc page to tm:infobox element/doc? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I get what you mean, but the rationales for having separate template infoboxes for each element could theoretically be applied to every BLP, every country, every chemical compound, and so on. The principle of infobox consolidation is that infoboxes with similar parameters are best merged into one. As for the argument "it would take some scrolling", the template {{Infobox country}} as used on Armenia has 109 lines of wikitext. Whereas {{Infobox beryllium}}, for instance, has only 92 lines of wikitext. SVG-image-maker (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• If the templates are substituted, they should be redirected to preserve attribution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It does not seem like there actually is any maintenance across the overwhelming majority of them...the content of each is essentially static. Spending time documenting each seems like a waste (though no prejudice against someone wanting to spend their time that way). Further, each is just the specific details against a central template, so the way to help maintenance is to make sure that {{Infobox element}} is documented, in line with Johnjbarton's comment. That would be equally true if all the element-specific templates were subst'ed or not.
  This static nature of the content, unlike many details in many other infoboxes, is an overlapping but specific reason to keep these infoboxes out of the main article. It avoids cluttering up the editor with things that nobody is going to be editing. Contrast that with the Armenia infobox, where my quick glance is that about a third of the fields, which are spread throughout the source lines, are likely to be edited periodically forever. The first general guideline of WP:Template is "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." but this is not content that is likely to be edited, and guideline beats the essay on consolidation. But if we're talking consolidation, that suggests you' like a single template that is passed an element and generates the infobox for the requested element. So that single template would have all the data for every element, which is a lot harder to manage and edit correctly. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they're primarily edited in bulk, wouldn't having them all in one place make that easier?

  One approach could be to create a wrapper template that has one big {{#switch}} parser function invocation that maps the number, symbol, or name to the whole hard-coded template call for each one. Editing any individual element's information is just a matter of using Ctrl+F (or equivalent) to find the target element, and then editing the template usage as usual.

  Alternatively, we could create a Lua module that has a "table" (mapping) for each property, then uses them to fill in each of the parameters. This would have the benefit of allowing us to easily repurpose the data for display in other ways, such as creating sortable Wiki-tables of their properties.

  If someone puts all of the template invocations in one file, I'll be happy to make regexes to convert into and between these formats as desired.

  Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per DMacks who provided a lucid and convincing explanation of why these infoboxes are helpful—they contain complex yet static information that would only obfuscate the article wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note that none of these were tagged. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Infobox element after subst to preserve attribution. Information at the infobox for Jupiter is unlikely to require frequent update, but dedicating an wrapper to it would require one for every article that uses Template:Infobox planet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per previous TfDs. The argument that "it would reduce maintenance" doesn't seem particularly compelling when the editors who are performing said maintenance all oppose this change. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per what Double sharp and others have said. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete these are all single use templates and there is no reason to keep them as they currently are. Doesn't help anything or anyone. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all, per all previous discussions about the same thing. These greatly facilitate management, reduce vandalism, cleanup the lead, and many, many more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all, per Headbomb and DMacks. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and merge, per other keeps, merge cause there are way too many for each specific element. – KaijuEditor (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  There's one infobox per element. There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, the benefits of substituting these infoboxes into their respective articles (easier reference re-use, potentially being able to update parameters) are outweighed by the downside of all this information that is highly unlikely to change being frontloaded into a set of highly visible articles, making editing potentially harder. As already stated the transclusion of "infobox country" and the like makes sense because this information is likely to change. Element infoboxes are mainly edited to change the header image in current times. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all. This is a unique case. I find the keep arguments here and in the three (!) prior discussions convincing. The essay Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation makes good points that surely apply in many seemingly similar scenarios but many editors have how the maintenance burden and other typical considerations either do not apply or are actually better handled by the current setup. Deleting these does not represent a material improvement and is likely to create more problems than it solves. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

June 12

Drainage basin succession templates

• Category:Drainage basin succession templates and subpages

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

I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are two functionalities that will be lost by replacing the R- and P-templates with this new template. First, the R-templates categorize the articles that use them into a tributaries category, for instance {{RMeurthe}} into Category:Tributaries of the Moselle. Second, the system of interlinked P-templates implies that only one P-template ({{PWeser}}) has to be modified if the Weser article is moved to for instance Weser (river). In the {{Drainage}} template it would have to be changed in 55 places. Markussep ^Talk 07:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still working on a recursive version to deal with that; will likely be a module, but if not, the new syntax editor allows for really quick find/replace for something like Weser → Weser (river). As far as the Rs go, we have moved away from templates adding content categories to articles, so the R-names should be deprecated anyway. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why? --Joy (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  About moving away from templates adding content categories to articles, could you point me to that guideline? Markussep ^Talk 12:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:TEMPLATECAT. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  That guideline recommendation lists many reasons, but it's not clear which of them apply here. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  All of them? The sortkeys one does seem to be handled by the use of PAGENAME though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  For example it says editors can't see it in wikitext. Do we need them to see it, how likely is it that this sort of a thing needs to be edited? Or that we can't remove or restructure the categories - how likely is it that these categories need that to be done? --Joy (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  OK, that's clear, thanks. Markussep ^Talk 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?

I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I... did? I made {{drainage}} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous}} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place {{drainage|Achelous}} inside of {{PAchelous}} just to show that they give exactly the same output:

{{PAchelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea

{{drainage|Achelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea

I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've used claude.ai to see if Lua can handle the issue that Markussep raised better. The result is at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage (again, this is AI-written). Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparently there is an error in the module. When I tried {{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage|chain|Fulda}} (or any other river), I got "Lua error in Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage at line 436: attempt to concatenate field 'Lake Baikal' (a nil value)." It's a nice idea, but I guess it needs good documentation for anluabetes like me. Markussep ^Talk 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But I need to emphasis this, this was done with AI so if anything from this is used, the data needs to be verified. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep ^Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the proposed template works for all current cases, so while I am fine with using a module (which I agree will allow for easier creation of new links) the replacement doesn't have to use the module from the get-go (assuming the replacement proposal is accepted). Primefac (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, but they're not unused (at least the ones I checked, like RLoire, REms, RPo, RAngara), they'll have to be substituted. Markussep ^Talk 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, those weren't in the unused reports so they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A month later and no additional opposing input, so fully support proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Support replacement, this looks like sensible consolidation to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: 300+ river templates starting with "R" appear to have been replaced with something else as part of this as-yet-to-be-concluded TFD, in edits like this. They are appearing at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates, a report of unused pages in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That is only vaguely inspired by this TFD; I'm independently following WP:TEMPLATECAT to add categories directly to the page; the fact that the R templates have the category already and I can just subst to get them makes it a lot easier to add them. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

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.