Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Page for discussing mergers and deletions of templates From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information V, Dec ...
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 126 156 282
TfD 0 1 0 14 15
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 3 5 27 35
RfD 0 0 7 68 75
AfD 0 0 0 4 4
Close

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, with a few exceptions, is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

Shortcut

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

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
Template redirects
List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming a template
Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

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

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

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

Listing a template

Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW , and then select "XFD".)

More information Step, Instructions ...
Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

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

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
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_March_17#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|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without 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/merger nomination of [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |). Use the same meaningful title that you chose in Step 1.
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful title|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=.
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|category name}}
Step 3

Notify users

 Notify the creator of the template, the main contributors, and (if you're proposing a merger) the creator of the other template. (To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd notice|template name}} ~~~~
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
  • Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination. In these cases, write a personal message.

If you see any WikiProjects banners (they look like this) at the top of the template's talk page, you can let them know about the discussion. Most WikiProjects are subscribed to Article alerts, which means they are automatically notified. If you think they have not been notified, you can paste the same message in the projects' talk pages, or use Deletion sorting lists. Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects.

Close

Consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination notice is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD, 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, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

  • Notifying 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. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this. Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they are subscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
  • Notifying main contributors: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template and its talk page that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, no further action is necessary on your part. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone other than you will either close the discussion or, if needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. If the nomination is successful, it will be moved to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Discussion

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

People will sometimes also 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 WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

March 17

Template:Yellowbirds

Two notable albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Forgive Durden

Two notable albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 08:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Flickerstick

Two notable albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 08:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tubelnk

Simple link template, only used at London Overground. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 16

Template:LPL

Propose merging Template:LPL with Template:FMXL.
Regardless of the fact that these two templates have non-obvious naming strategies, the only difference between these two templates is that LPL appends an "-LP" to the parameter provided in the URL. With only 115 transclusions it's probably easy enough to just change the existing template calls and add that LP tag to the template parameter instead of having the template do it. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Both Good Mythical Morning and Looking for Ms. Locklear redirect to Rhett & Link's article, meaning this only connects three articles and fails WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:JRE Line Symbol and similar

These Japan-rail-line-symbol-related templates become inappropriate because Module:Adjacent stations/JR East, etc. provide icons. Thus, they should be replaced by {{ric}}. See also: 1 and 2. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 13:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed to deleting these individual templates and merging them into {{ric}}. おーい魚 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
delete after replacing with {{ric}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
All of the above exist in {{ric}}, so yeah I don't see the need to keep them. Delete. MacDoesWiki/Predinova (he/him, talk) 21:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Referendum results

Propose merging Template:Referendum results with Template:Referendum.
These two templates appear to perform the same function (display a referendum result table) and share most of their parameters, with the main differences being that {{Referendum results}} displays as a two-part table and has more customized options, while {{Referendum}} has more options regarding passing conditions. Should they be harmonized into a single template with access to all of their parameters, and a display choice between a single table and a two-part table? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  • I would suggest just deleting {{Referendum}} and having a bot replace all the uses of it with {{Referendum results}}, which is a wrapper for {{Election results}} that autocalculates percentages etc and helps avoid / spot transcription errors. I'm not sure the description of the latter being a 'two-part table' and the other not is fully accurate – they just have a different way of dividing the table between the main votes for/against and the valid/invalid/registered figures. Perhaps this was more obvious before the colouring was removed from the latter. Cheers, Number 57 20:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:ABC Radio and Regional Content

I think this is a redundant navbox - all its content has been moved into Template:ABC Local Radio. Marcostev8 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 15

Module:SongContestData

Userify this module since all of the templates that used it were moved to the creator's userspace at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_22#SongContest_templates. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • move to the module sandbox space. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Silver W Award Nomination

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep as creator, meant for WP:W Awards as a nomination process. No transclusions or incoming links because no one has been nominated for it yet. I am not as active onwiki as I want to be because of life and work but I do let others take control of that project where they see fit. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This process never started and as the creator above noted they are not really active, no one else will use it. Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
delete, since it is unlikely that it will be used. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Chunom and Template:Chuhan

Template:Chunom and Template:Chuhan are redundant to Template:Viet.

See:
{{Chunom|越南}} → ‹The template Chunom is being considered for deletion.›  chữ Nôm: 越南
{{Chuhan|越南}} → ‹The template Chuhan is being considered for deletion.›  chữ Hán: 越南
{{Viet|越南|context=nom}} → chữ Nôm: 越南
{{Viet|越南|context=han}} → chữ Hán: 越南


Template:Viet can also show literal translations and the Vietnamese alphabet, which Template:Chunom and Template:Chuhan.

{{Viet|越南|lit=Viet South}} → Vietnamese: 越南; lit. 'Viet South'
{{Viet|越南|cqn=Việt Nam}} → Vietnamese: 越南; chữ Quốc ngữ: Việt Nam
S Y T · 三葉草 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: ideally all 3 should not exist and {{Langx}} should be able to support this. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados medical cases chart

All are used on one article. All templates except for medical cases chart are a graph but are no longer displayed making it useless and no longer necessary. The vast majority of covid data templates like these have been deleted. Six years later there is no longer a need for these and Wikipedia is not a machine to crunch numbers for information like this. Other sites are still keeping track of such data and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. All should be deleted. --~2026-14463-52 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados new cases chart, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados new deaths chart, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados daily active chart, and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados deaths by age and gender chart as they use the disabled Graph extension. No comment on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados medical cases chart. Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 14

Year-end charts table layout templates

Unnecessary templates that display a header, middle section, and footer of a table consisting of just a couple of words or characters. Used on a dozen pages. In the single/album charts, all of this is formatted naturally, so it's even less needed here. It seems like there's even a rule somewhere against such trivial templates? Solidest (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Really need a speedy delete category for "complete waste of time" but alas... I would hope this one could get a speedy close as WP:SNOW... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There is a previous consensus at a couple of TFDs that templates containing only /div or table ending code should be redirected to {{end}} or one of its siblings, depending on the specific wikitext in the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Degrassi character

No need for a custom Infobox for 4 characters. Just use {{Infobox character}} like every other fictional character does... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete without redirect. We replaced almost all the various infobox character templates for a reason. Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Current iOS and iPadOS versions

Propose merging Template:Current iOS 12, Template:Current iOS 15, Template:Current iOS 16 and Template:Current iOS 18 with Template:Current iOS.

Propose merging Template:Current iPadOS 15, Template:Current iPadOS 16, Template:Current iPadOS 17 and Template:Current iPadOS 18 with Template:Current iPadOS.
Redundant separate version templates that can easily be merged and a module can be created with each version EvanTech10 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Green tickYSupport: Agree, i don't know how to describe my thoughts ~2026-16179-68 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Do not delete until the module is functional, unless I am thinking this through the wrong way. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 02:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I think that’s standard procedure…? EvanTech10 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Last edit

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 15:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't work... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 13:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing it used at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022, and it successfully links to the editor's most recent edit. Given that it has no documentation, how do you know that it "doesn't work"? It could use some documentation, or it could at least be marked as historical, since it hasn't been used since 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bids for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

This is a template with mostly redlinks, and it's likely to stay that way. Just proposed Athens bid for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics for deletion. The only remaining article is Singapore bid for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, which might make sense to merge into Bids for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics anyway. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

March 13

Japanese deity genealogies

These templates contain two primary issues that concern me:

1. It is not possible to separate myth from history in a template like this. The only way to do that would be if it were made into an article, but I don't believe these are notable concepts qualifying for a page.

2. There is no single agreed upon genealogy as there are multiple conflicting mythological accounts (contained within the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki which are inherently political documents), as well as several alterations done throughout the years for political purposes. This means a Wikipedia editor would have had synthesize sources and decide which of those is "correct", which I feel violates WP:OR.

I propose deleting these templates and handling these mythological genealogies as they are in Ōyamatsumi by simply discussing them in the article. Erynamrod (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm fine either way but I just want to add, if this tree does stay we need to decide on what genealogy the page will follow. Both the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki list different parents, children and siblings for different people. Maybe we can merge the two templates together if they stay? Camillz (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree we would have to choose to stick to one if we kept them, but then doesn't that mean we have as editors chosen to present that single genealogy as the primary one? And how to we make it very clear what is myth and what is history?
A slightly different view, but the Genealogy Wikiproject states: "Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." But wouldn't having one single genealogy in this case actually lead readers to understand the topic less as it will imply there is one primary genealogy? Erynamrod (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: if this is a content issue, then this is less TfD territory. Decide on the relevant talk page what to use, and place it on the relevant pages. If there are conflicting myth lists and you want the trees, then maybe both are valid, while indicating the sources for each tree and explaining in prose the differences. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
My argument is that there are too many possible trees to even have any, and therefore we should have none, because having just one, even if it sticks to one source, implies that is the correct genealogy, and it would be biased to present any of them as the correct genealogy. So I am suggesting deletion.
Also, these two specific trees aren't notable concepts that deserve their own trees as far as I can find. There is Template:Three generations of Hyuga which is a specific concept that has been the subject of academic research (it's done incorrectly in this template and I intend to fix it, which is why I haven't nominated that one for deletion).
The creator of these two trees has been been banned for several reasons, but they've recreated Template:Eight generations of Izumo here on Simple English[] but have decided it's an entirely different concept (it's also not that concept, I don't know why they are trying to claim it is), which only adds to my belief that this particular template doesn't present a specific notable concept but rather muddies the waters around the fact that these genealogies are varied and political. Erynamrod (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox song contest country/CanadaOTI

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Unused as Canada in the OTI Festival was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trialpears (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete, unused and contains no links. BLAIXX 22:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox song contest country/Equatorial GuineaOTI

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Unused as Equatorial Guinea in the OTI Festival was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete, unused and contains no links. BLAIXX 22:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sports governing bodies in Chad

Template containing only a single link to an existing article on a governing body and listing many that don't exist such as pelota vasca. AusLondonder (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Two links isn't enough for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Asian of the Century

A list of people in a single issue of a magazine in 1999 is not a suitable topic for a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, topics are not related enough to require a navbox with their membership. BLAIXX 22:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:NWSL x Liga MX Femenil Summer Cup

Only two unique links ("Final" is a redirect to the parent article). BLAIXX 03:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Two links isn't enough for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 12

Template:AcademicSearch

The Microsoft Academic Research site was shut down on December 31, 2021. Any invocation of this template results in a confusing redirect. I think invocations of the template should be globally replaced with {{citation needed}} templates. Back in 2017, the IDs were renumbered and AFAICT nothing was done to address that. Seems like this template is not maintained, and it would be best just to start over. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete if can't be fixed. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ozone aircraft

The articles listed on this template are all redirects except two. The template isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:6arelyhuman

Following a recent AfD, this template now lists only the artist and one song in which they are featured. In its current form it serves little navigational purpose and appears unnecessary; therefore deletion is proposed. Sricsi (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, not enough links to be useful for navigation. BLAIXX 03:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cr-IPL/home

Unnecessary template; could be replaced with plain wikitext. Vestrian24Bio 13:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm looking at the usage as 2007–08 Sheffield Shield season and I don't see any space issues where "Home team" can't be written fully. Why do we need an ambiguous abbreviation here? Unless there is an actual valid usage here, I'm leaning replace with full text and delelte. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cr-IND

Template only produces plain wikilinks; No need to use a template to do that. Vestrian24Bio 13:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep With 30+ teams in Indian domestic cricket and 4/5 tournaments yearly, this is very useful for editors like us, which makes it easy to create league fixtures where it generates team names with just code.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as clearly useful. No different from {{Australian Football League team}} and many other similar templates that provide a central place to link all teams in a league, keeping wikitext tidy on pages with tables, tournament brackets, and similar constructions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 11

Template:Milica Majstorović

only used in two articles, which can be connected by simple in-article linking or see also linking Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Nina Petković

only used in one article Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand

All links are in the navbox for the topic of the pandemic in New Zealand at Template:COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. All it needs is to add the navbox to these pages for each year. --~2026-13909-16 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

U2 album navboxes

Nothing here other than track listings, not really an appropriate use of a navbox, better left for normal navigation through articles, etc. There's also {{U2 songs}} with all the songs in chronological order. --woodensuperman 16:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Seems fine to me; these list the songs on the album for navigation, while {{U2 songs}} lists all songs in chronological order ... which isn't so convenient sometimes. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. As long as Template:U2 songs exists, these are completely redundant. Either we have one navigation template for all songs, or separate ones for albums. We don't need both. The full list one can be reformatted to be split by albums and not years. Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:GECF

Navbox with no transclusions. The links in the navbox body to not point to articles about the topic of the navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The scope is fine but the links are generic and not specifically about GECF. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)


Template:Abraham

Another linkspam sidebar... Per WP:SIDEBAR, this is far from a group of articles with a single, coherent subject. It will never be fully transcluded and is useless for navigation, serving instead as decoration. Let's not take away so much space from images and real educational content. MediaKyle (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Weak delete per nom. (If anyone thinks the content should be kept, then they can convert it into a footer template.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Downgrading my previous "delete". That had been based on the excessive amount of screen real-estate it had been swallowing and its consequent over-dominance of the main subject matter. Since then, the change by Wikieditor662 (to whom thanks!) has largely addressed that aspect. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this is far from a group of articles with a single, coherent subject. this is simply incorrect. Abraham is the main subject, and every other article on there is related to him. These are a group of articles that all center around the main page and help guide readers towards other similar and related pages and understand the topic better. There's no reason for this to be deleted.
Also, sidebars just like this are used in multiple WP:FA articles, such as Jesus and Genghis Khan. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
PS I just collapsed the list, so it should be much shorter now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Being vaguely related is not enough for inclusion in a sidebar... The Genghis Khan sidebar is actually not too bad, as it's constrained to articles such as Wives of Genghis Khan and Burial place of Genghis Khan... Such articles don't exist for Abraham. Instead, this sidebar includes everything under the sun, like Ancient Egypt. This is not useful for navigation and takes away space from educational materials. See also WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- this sidebar doesn't belong on most of these articles, so most of these articles shouldn't be on the sidebar. We really just don't need any more of these. MediaKyle (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
But WP:ATD says If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. So if removing certain articles you don't think fit could be an alternative, shouldn't that be done instead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that is an alternative. If you removed all of the articles that don't belong, you'd have nothing left. This is not useful to our readers and should be deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Second update: I've removed some lesser significant/relevant articles. Let me know if you want me to remove even more, I can do that.
But there are definitely articles that are very much related to Abraham and are about him. In fact, I'd say he has just as many (if not more!) relevant articles to him than Genghis Khan. For example Abraham's family tree, Abraham and Lot's conflict, Abraham and the Idol Shop, and many others. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:He or she

Propose merging Template:He or she with Template:they.
I think that these templates should be redirected (so that old usages do not break/need replacement). Per WP:EDPRONOUNS basically. The whole point of these templates is to be gender-inclusive but if someone goes by "they" then this template will just call them "he or she". It defeats its own purpose because it does this. This may also be considered WP:INCIVIL as a microaggression. Redirect/merge proposals as follows:

These templates seem pointless. Why not just type out his/her instead of using a template to do that? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
A deletion of all these templates would be more controversial, so I am only advocating for redirecting right now Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to four "they" templates. I agree with the list of four mergers in the second section. The nomination is a bit confusing, but I see why the nominations are grouped. The output of "he or she" is incorrect in the modern era for someone whose pronoun is not specified in their preferences; "they" is the appropriate pronoun to use in 2026 for a singular person of unknown gender. The same goes for the other three his/her pronoun templates. This merge should not be technically difficult: we should be able to simply redirect the four sets of "he/she" templates to the four equivalent "they" templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Replying to the "oppose" votes: It is unclear to me whether anything has changed in Wikipedia's software, but the templates that are recommended for merging no longer match the English Wikipedia's default language and are exclusionary with the potential to be hurtful. What I see when I go to Preferences and look at the gender choices is this:

Gender used in messages:

  • Unspecified: Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor") (default)
  • Use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "her contributions")
  • Use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "his contributions")
If we look at Wikipedia's default output when the GENDER magic word is called, we see {GENDER|Jonesey95} outputting "they" because I have the first choice selected (I have chosen not to specify my gender in my preferences, so "they" is the proper, inclusive way to refer to me). The "he/she" and "he or she" style of templates force the "no gender selected" option to output "he or she" instead of the correct, neutral output "they". Forcing this binary output excludes editors who do not identify as one of the two genders, and goes against MOS:GNL and the very helpful explanation about addressing other editors respectfully at Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns. I'm not interested in righting great wrongs here; it's a matter of making template output match the output of Wikipedia's magic word, our MOS, and basic respect for other editors. If people want to subst all of the he/she template instances to preserve what is written on talk pages before redirecting them for future use, I can see value in that, since preserving editors' original words in discussions is also something we value on Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
In most cases the output will be exactly identical. In the cases where it will not be, the editor who is being referred to was misgendered. I don't think its a big deal and "preservation" can be ignored Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per the previous time this was tried - nothing has changed since. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per last TfD. Talk pages are records of what was said and shouldn't be tampered with retroactively. Nardog (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    they don't need to be, the template can be replaced with what was said and then deleted. Right now its duplication. If this is kept, then it wshould be marked as archived or the like. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not everyone uses the "singular" they. Leave the options open. Masterhatch (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Singular they is a common pronoun for when the pronouns of someone else is unknown.
    This template also... literally doesn't work like that! The {{they}} template checks a certain user's preferences to see what pronouns/gender they have set in settings. I have "masculine" set in settings, so using the "they" template with my username produces "he".
    The merge just means that the templates would be renamed and the default changed to be inclusive of people who choose to use they. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: The merger note is currently rendered by every invoking of these templates, making any text where they are already used essentially unreadable. This should supposedly be reverted immediately. If the templates are finally merged, fine, but completely breaking all their usages in the meanwhile seems unacceptable. Gawaon who goes by ‹The template He or she is being considered for merging.› he (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    This is how TFD is designed to work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 10

Template:Welcome needed/sort

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

The result of the discussion was Userfied. already userfied. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Unused sub templates. Couldn't find usages with an insource search either. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Template:Fair use candidate from Commons notice

User notice template that doesn't seem to have been used based on the bot request. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:BibTeX

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created just over one month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep I have to say it's hard to AGF when you list something I was working on yesterday. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC).
Especially given this edit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC).
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to have found that edit. The template and the module had zero edits since they were created over a month ago, and the template outputs a big red error message. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but I did find it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC).
Keep as Rich Farmbrough is clearly using it. I'm reminded of the term "hostile collaboration", I forget who said that last time. Lots of ways this could've went without coming here. MediaKyle (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Userfy this template, as no changes have been made to improve it since the TFD nomination was posted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Userfy module and template. A single hour of edits was made when this was created and has since not been touched. Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • move to userspace, not ready for general use. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Module has been recently edited, relisting for more feedback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Functors

Propose merging Template:Functors with Template:Category theory.
This should just be a group of the {{Category theory}} navbox, since a number of these are quite fundamental and topics from that navbox are often closely related to ones from this one. If there can be a large section for higher category theory topics, there can be one for functors too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still nothing besides the nom and re listers here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Old discussions

March 9

Template:Igen/LibreOffice

[edit]

Unused banner template that indicate in what program an image was created. Serious question, does it even matter to the wiki? Gonnym (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

My take is that it might matter to files in wikipedia. this matters for non-free SVGs, where the tool really matters to let graphists know what tool to edit with (some tools really dump a lot of junk, exploding the file sizes), of what DPI the file is in (this matters for proportions or dimensions. Different SVG tools might have different standards, like 96 DPI for Inkscape, 70+ for Adobe I) RAPTOR7762Whats up? 00:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused more than a month after their creation. Please do not create templates speculatively, thinking that they might be used someday. Create them only when there is a need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep if you are going to have this on the info page anyway, who is actually going to see it other than if they decided to go to the image page? Strong keep here. Robloxguest3 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    The point is that these templates are not used on any pages on Wikipedia. We generally do not keep templates around unless they are shown to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:ClockBlock/doc

[edit]

Humor pages should not interfere with the rest of the wiki procedures, yet User:Hex is intentionally doing so. They've reverted adding the /doc page here causing the /doc page to be unused and orphaned, and reverted deleting the /doc page here which what happens per T5. Either the /doc page is needed and should be restored, or it is not needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep and include in {{ClockBlock}}, per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines: "Templates should be clearly documented as to their usage and scope." – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm fine with that also. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and trout both the person who thought it was a good use of anyone's time, let alone their own, to add a totally unnecessary and pointless documentation template to a humorous template in the first place and the nominator for their hyperbolic claim of "interfering with wiki procedures". Both of you need to go outside once in a while.  — Hex • talk 08:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Feel free to cite a guideline or policy. And I went outside three days ago! That should be enough. I can see outside through the bars on my cell window. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Freedom of panorama

[edit]

No transclusions or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • delete, unused copy of an image tag used on commons. probably unused because images using it should be located on commons instead. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Sébastien Vaniček

[edit]

Has only directed two films. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 12:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom.
Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:YYYY in Australian soccer category header

[edit]

Unused after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 23#Australian soccer by year categories. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. FastCube (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Maybe speedy under a certain criteria? Does anyone know?
Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Franconia Members Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter Map

[edit]

Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please delete. Grimes2 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Turkey case fatality rate chart

[edit]

Unused Graph-based COVID templates. Since they are using the disabled Graph extension, I also oppose moving these instead of deleting. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • delete, unused and non-functional. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete not used and not working anyway. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March 6

T20 World Cup templates

[edit]

Everything in these edition-wise navboxes are covered by the two main navboxes ({{Men's T20 World Cup}} and {{Men's T20 World Cup qualification}}) making them redundant. So, I'm proposing they be replaced with the two main templates wherever necessary and be deleted.. Vestrian24Bio 13:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also nominating,
for the same reasoning. Vestrian24Bio 13:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the officials pages (such as 2007 World Twenty20 officials) are missing from the general template. Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Only the 2007 edition has an officials page, no other editions has it. Also, the 2007 navbox only has 2 distinct links. Vestrian24Bio 14:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The two main navboxes don't contain enough detail for specific fixtures in the tournaments to suitably replace the edition-specific templates. woaharang (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
@Batorang: what do you mean.. All the related articles are included in the main two navboxes. Vestrian24Bio 13:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep — these templates are to redirect the readers to the pages specific to that particular edition. Besides the general templates already exists. We should make it easier for general/casual readers to access these pages rather than trying to make it difficult and unnecessarily hard. If I were visiting the page as a first time reader, one shouldn't assume I have all the time and patience in the world to search through edition, sub regional edition year-wise and then click on a link to the specific edition of qualifiers or even the tournament pages. Cric editor (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Cric editor: each edition only has 4 distinct articles including the main article - WP:NENAN. Vestrian24Bio 13:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Bhupesh Baghel series

[edit]

Unused. Creator is now blocked. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Analysis:
Verdict: Undecided, 3–6 relevant non-main links –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/Pennsylvania medical cases chart

[edit]

Unused COVID template. Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:False version

[edit]

This template is nonsense on its own merits. Generally vandals can edit articles just as easy as they could fake their text; the screenshots that result will have exactly the same impact, but only one gets a template. Mach61 06:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Revised rationale: This template is certainly unique among article message templates (confirmed by its placement in the index). Nearly all are cleanup messages meant for editors, and the current event templates note periods of rapid editing. Only this template is placed on an article based on outside interest (and not on the talk like {{high traffic}}) with the only removal guideline being the passage of some indefinite amount of time.
This was noted in previous AfDs. Its unique status is justified as fighting misinformation and downplayed with need to adapt to the information ecosystem we now live in, and the template is a step in that direction. ~6 years on I don't think Wikipedia's done much of anything to "adapt", and the strict separation of "encyclopedia" content and anything else (see also the rejection of suicide hotline links in articles).
More directly, I disagree with the principle this templates fights "misinformation" on. It would obviously be ridiculous to put a tag at the top of every article that gets a boost in views related to misinformation (e.g. putting a banner on top of John F. Kennedy Jr. saying that he definitely is not secretly alive). Mach61 16:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per prior TFDs, which the nominator should have consulted before creating this one. Suggest withdrawing. Sdkb talk 09:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Sdkb I did check out the previous TfD's, nobody made my argument. Mach61 20:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I overlooked that the template mentions outdated versions. Still want it deleted and have other reasons (that I left out of the nom statement); certainly WP:CCC applies for the 5 year old TfDs. Mach61 20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I find the argument raised by Sdkb in the old TfD compelling. It is unusual but it has clearly had legitimate uses. I don't think it should ever be a permanent notice however but that doesn't seem to be a problem right now. Trialpears (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I've read the discussion above and the previous Tfds and am simply not convinced. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:CF/GAR

[edit]

Unused template. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

March 3

Template:Coats of arms of Polish families

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Coats of arms of Polish families with Template:Polish heraldry.
Duplicate scope. Karnemir (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose a merge. One's pretty clearly a list of coats and the other is not, and so merging the two is likely to lead to one single very large navbox. Izno (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Aviation Safety Network accident history

[edit]

This template generates a citation to the Aviation Safety Network wikibase, which as a wiki is not a reliable source. It was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 491#Is ASN (Aviation Safety Network) a reliable source? where it was pretty unanimous that the source isn’t reliable. We shouldn’t have templates generating links to unreliable sources. Danners430 tweaks made 09:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The "Aviation Safety Network accident history" links don't work anymore and do not have replacements, so this template could just be entirely deleted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I didn't read from the linked discussion that it said the source isn't reliable. It would seem that the /database/ is one that they themselves are maintaining while /wikibase is the user generated one which shouldn't be cited. Regarding the links not working, User:GreenC, is this fixable? Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It is fixable: Example. In this snapshot from 2006, there is no indication it is a wiki and wikibase didn't exist until 2012. From the About Us page it has a section on sources: Most of the information contained in the Aviation Safety Network site is based on information from official sources (authorities, safety boards). Sources used as a basis for the accident database are aircraft production lists, ICAO Aircraft Accident Digests since 1952, and NTSB, TSB etc. For a specific list of publications used, check out the references list. Maybe later editions went UGC? But earlier versions look OK. Just need to use the earlier timestamps on the archives. -- GreenC 17:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

January 25

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Afghanistan medical cases chart

[edit]

Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.

These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:

1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.

If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.

Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.

Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been receiving a lot of these notifications in my talk page as of late, but once again, my stance is also delete per nom. I think making them up to date into 2025 is impossible. A cleanup is a necessity. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete any graph based template such as Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bangladesh-daily-positivity-rates if it can't be converted. I strongly oppose moving graph base templates to any namespace, user or otherwise. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Move the rest to Commons' Data namespace per Yug. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep, of time-truncated copies. I maintain that Covid is an event of historic and not merely historical significance, so data is warranted to be kept.
Perfect shan't be the enemy of good. It is perfectly reasonable to keep a chart copy of the first year or few years or so, up until a cutoff point (e.g. for China, shortly after the announcement of the end of zero-covid).
Sure, perhaps nobody cares how many cases China or South Korea or Italy has on this present day. But to say virtually nobody cares about how many cases China or South Korea or Italy had by the day in February 2020 is a severe understatement that I'm willing to bet significant fortune against. Rethliopuks (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Agree and I wish to be able to eventually apply this understanding to all previously deleted templates. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's rationale, page usage is not a reason to keep! That’s not what templates are for FaviFake (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though I disagree with constantly updating these in 2026, I’m sure these templates will still be valuable for the historical record, especially 20 to 50 years from now. Somerset999 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, but no objection to migration to Template:Chart or moving "medical cases"-based templates to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Userfy as safety net. I agree with other users that all raw data should be moved to commons and that we should only keep the visualization templates (e.g. medical cases charts) truncated up to a certain point. However, I'm unwilling to do this migration now or anytime soon. Therefore, I would like to userfy such templates with raw data as a safety net so that I or any other user has the chance migrate and 'properly fix' the charts in the (long) meantime.
I took a look at a graph-based template, and it doesn't seem to contain raw data (case, death counts...), only x and y values. Since you talk about them more Gonnym, could you confirm if other graph-based templates also only have graphic data/floats? If yes, then I support deleting graph-based templates without userfication. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy per the suggestions above for this discussion. Many or all of these are outdated and simply left alone and not being used by users for information purposes. If the user above wants to keep in their userspace, then they can. There should be no objection to it since these are not really kept up to date and Wikipedia is not a machine to crunch numbers into a system to keep things updated. Plenty of websites are keeping daily tabs on Covid for six years now and all of that information is just fluff and really no longer relevant to public affairs or daily events anymore. And there is no place for these templates now as there was once six years ago. --~2026-13909-16 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete No longer useful anymore. Userfication can take place as long as templates are no longer in template space anymore. --~2026-15946-40 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Templates are no longer needed. --~2026-16635-23 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI