Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 26
December 28 >

December 27

Template:Marvel characters

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The scope of this template is far too wide to implement it fully, it isn't included in most of the pages it features, and doesn't just include characters (objects, locations etc.). It also has subjective categorisation such as heroes, villains and supporting, when the nature of Marvel Comics allows for characters to fit into multiple categories. Emcgonigle (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually believe that having dozens of navigation templates for Marvel characters based on a character IP is worse. Look at Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) for example, 12 navboxes which could have been replaced with one. Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
If there really are too many characters, then maybe no Marvel (and DC) character navbox is the answer. Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Replacing them with one takes a lot of nuance out of them and having 12 can easily be tidied up into related sections. These templates may not be fully effective, but this unimplemented, incorrent, unuanced template is worse. If you'd like to address that there should be no templates for these topics, go ahead, but let this template be the first to go. Emcgonigle (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
@Emcgonigle I 100% think that this template should at the very least be divided by sub-franchises, with auto-collapsed sub-sections for each franchises non-primary characters (lesser rogues and supporting characters).
Comic book series tend to have main characters, villains and side-characters that are largely exclusive to the series. That's a somewhat easy division. Obviously the line gets a little blurry with some characters, but there are many that are obvious. Characters like Spidergirl, Peter Parker, Green Goblin, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Olsen, and Gwen Stacy (for instance) are all Spider Man characters. SecretName101 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
From your examples
  • Spider-Girl: 2
  • Peter Parker (redirect to Spider-Man): 18
  • Green Goblin: 6
  • Mary Jane Watson: 3
  • Harry Osborn: 2
  • Gwen Stacy: 6
None of these have only a single character navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
@Gonnym I am confused what the numbers in your reply indicate SecretName101 (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
You stated Comic book series tend to have main characters, villains and side-characters that are largely exclusive to the series. That's a somewhat easy division., I've shown the amount of character navigation templates that currently exist in the page. So largely exclusive isn't how it looks. Gonnym (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2025 (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) 23:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete As far too broad and underused. The nom says it isn't included in most of the pages it features, but that's an understatement: The template is transcluded in only two places: Marvel Universe and (nonsensically) Adamantium. As the transclusion report shows, the other 564(!) links in the template are unreciprocated. So the template fails in its basic purpose as an inter-article navigational tool. FeRDNYC (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: per FeRDNYC. Vestrian24Bio 07:18, 29 December 2025 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only page that used this was U.S. Route 62 in Oklahoma, and I've converted that to use the nearly-identical {{Maplink-road}} which is used on thousands of pages. Keeping this one-off template around just adds an extra bit of confusion to the insanely confusing morass of map templates. RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete no need for such a confusing duplicate. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 27 December 2025 (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 motorsport season

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 merge to Template:Infobox motorsport season and rebuild. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox motorsport season with Template:Motorsport season.
{{Motorsport season}} has 5,500 transclusions. This infobox-based version, with many more fields, has 67 and is in a worse state of repair. We don't need both of them. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Completely rebuild and merge - This should be an infobox. Neither one of these templates is in a good state right now.
  1. {{Infobox motorsport season}} is lacking proper documentation and has way too many parameters for what it does.
  2. {{Motorsport season}} has the necessary info, but is very poorly written and should use the modern {{Infobox}} base.
To be clear, support merging (and if it goes that way, I'm happy to do it), but make it a proper Infobox and merge to a final destination of {{Infobox motorsport season}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi, coming here as a motorsport editor who has almost no idea about the inner working of templates or TfD. WikiProject Motorsport is HEAVILY reliant on {{Motorsport season}} for our season articles. I agree that both are not necessary, but I feel that it would be a lot more straightforward to phase out the use of {{Infobox motorsport season}} and replace it's transclusions with {{Motorsport season}} instead.
Further, what are the concerns with {{Motorsport season}}? It is not the same style of infobox as the rest of Wikipedia, but is that a bad thing? It does it's job as being a simple way to navigate between different seasons of a motorsport championship. I feel like the term "if it's not broken then don't fix it" would apply here. I will reiterate that I have absolutely zero experience with how templates work internally, so I do apologize if I am misunderstanding. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
@GalacticVelocity08 Zackmann's idea is to rewrite the motorsport season template in the infobox format to reduce technical debt. Being able to leverage {{Infobox}} means that the template could rely on and be part of a much larger ecosystem of updates. As someone who has done large-scale template updates, once done they are incredibly beneficial. We'll be able to spot errors with unknown parameter tracking, add a generic short description, etc. The other benefit is that other types of sports seasons use infobox-based templates, so presentation of information will be more similar.
How a template overhaul might look:
  • The new template is designed and put into place.
  • If parameter names are changed (for best practice reasons), both old and new parameters are temporarily supported until a run of User:PrimeBOT Task 30 phases out the former names. Then they can be removed.
There are some wrappers of {{Motorsport season}} that would still be wrappers but might need code adjustments of their own, e.g. {{F1 season}}. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that does make more sense; I appreciate the explanation. I'll recuse myself from further discussion then since CIR (and I am very much not competent in this area). You should probably leave a link to this discussion at WT:MOTOR so it gets more traction from motorsport editors. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge and rebuild. Two templates seems complete unnecessary since they both do the same thing. SSSB (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Merge and rebuild as an Infobox per Zackmann. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Could renaming be an alternative to merging? {{Infobox motorsport season}} only has 67 transclusions, but those include a major series like WEC. It's actually very well-suited for multi-class series with multiple champions. My suggestion would be to move that to something like {{World Endurance season}}, similar to how IndyCar has {{American Championship Car season}}.
{{Motorsport season}} has a different style that suits your FE, F2, NASCAR, etc. And actually some nice features like the parent/feeder series that could be carried over. Also gives more leeway with the previous/next parameters.
For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to making improvements—but I feel like both templates can coexist and have different uses. MSport1005 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Equally, that functionality can be merged into the existing template so it remains appropriate for multi-class series. MB2437 22:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment – Could the rebuild keep both styles, like detailed and simple? — MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2025 (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:Hertsa Raion

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

These raions have been abolished, according to Ternavka, Chernivtsi Oblast, Rukhotyn, and Velykyi Kuchuriv, so the navboxes are no longer usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep until the articles they are used in are deleted. The early Roman provinces have also been abolished but we still have {{Roman provinces AD 117}} and it seem as appropriate as many other navboxes. Thincat (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    Other templates could probably be used. Horbova for example, can be added to Template:Chernivtsi Oblast. Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
    There are no such articles. None of the templates are transcluded anywhere. I nominated them after they appeared on a report of unused templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    I've deleted these and some other templates from the articles as they are outdated. They show a list settlements (that still exist) belonging to the raions (that no longer exist), which differs from Template:Roman provinces AD 117 that shows a list of former subdivisions. In my opinion this could be extended to other former raion templates, including Template:Hlyboka Raion, Template:Novoselytsia Raion, Template:Zastavna Raion, and others. Some of these templates are technically not unused as they appear on the corresponding articles (such as Novoselytsia Raion), but I think they are not necessary even in these cases and can't practically be used elsewhere. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 23:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete and replace with navboxes with the current Raion. Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete - note all 3 are currently unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:54, 3 January 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.

Xviews

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. I will go through and G7 the various /pageview talk pages out there based on comments made by the creators in this discussion, but if anything gets improperly deleted please feel free to ask for a REFUND either there or on my talk. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

These templates are supposed to display a graph of page views. To properly set them up, a bot needs to update the page views data for each page with this template. There would be a delay between setting up the template and it functioning. You would also need to maintain the bot indefinitely. All of that effort... or you can visit WP:PAGEVIEWS to see all of the page view data you please, including comparing the views of different pages, viewing arbitrary time frames, filtering by views on mobile/desktop, and other additional functionality which would not be easily replicated by a template.
Even if we get it working, these templates are a massive source of banner bloat. We need fewer banners so that editors actually read the important ones, like {{contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Frequently asked questions}}. We could include a link to the appropriate WP:PAGEVIEWS graph in {{talk header}} if people feel that the link already provided by the MoreMenu gadget, in the page information link on each page, and of course at WP:PAGEVIEWS are insufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved to user space. There is a void placeholder there now to prevent Talk pages from complaining about missing templates, so it can be deleted whenever. A lot of people (even senior editors) either don't know about the page views link, or don't always remember how to find it again, so the idea about adding something to the Talk header page is an interesting one; maybe a discreet icon somewhere with tooltip help would be enough, and save having to have a text link. Here's one from Commons, and there are no doubt others. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: The above premature and incomplete action has resulted in unfortunate side effects, including creation of two blank templates, and transclusions of nonexistent templates like Template:Xviews/gSTALE. It would be nice to get those sorted, regardless of the outcome of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
I looked at links to Template:Xviews/gSTALE and all are species of template discussions, like this one, where red links are normal, so I don't see anything needed here. I could go edit the five discussions or database reports to point them into the page in my userspace, but that hardly seems like a good outcome; seems to me showing them as red links is what we want. Or am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Module:Xreadership and Module:Xviews should also be added. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
@Mathglot: would you be willing to userfy (moving to Module:Sandbox/Mathglot/*) these as well? I'm happy if you want to save the code for further projects. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes, willing, but I would like to give Ahecht first refusal, before taking them on if they are not interested. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
@Mathglot Go ahead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Two module pages moved; Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Sandbox/Mathglot (along with two created redlinks?) Mathglot (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 07:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment as nominator: I am fine with these being userfy'd, but the remaining transclusions should be removed and the stubs in templatespace deleted. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    The stubs are only there, as I hope was evident, to prevent errors on Talk pages that transclude the templates, until a bot can be run removing the transclusions. Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment if this gains consensus there are going to be a number of pageviews pages (the pages which contain the data which the Xreadership module works off) which are going to be orphaned. E.g. Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting/pageviews. I hope someone has a plan for cleaning these up? TarnishedPathtalk 07:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks for the reminder; there are 110 of them. Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    If someone wants to give me temp delete authority for around ten days, I will take care of the */pageviews files. Mathglot (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think that is possible in the software, but with your permission I can WP:G7 all the ones you created (which I think is almost all of them?). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    That would be great, thank you. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    HouseBlaster, no hurry, just a reminder in case it got overlooked. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    Ack, my apologies. Doing that now :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    @TarnishedPath: A bunch of the remaining ones were created by you; are you alright with WP:G7? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    @HouseBlaster, if consensus is that the templates are deleted then I have no problem with G7 of the related pages I've created. TarnishedPathtalk 23:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone take care of Module:Sandbox/Mathglot/Xviews/sandbox and Module:Sandbox/Mathglot/Xreadership/sandbox? They show up on a Quarry query as broken redirects but don't appear to be so I'm not sure what the problem with them is. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
     Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep If people care enough to put in this effort then more power to them, even if you or I see it as useless. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fine with userfy. Izno (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything was already userfied and I've fixed all (hopefully) incoming links. --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't useful at all. --—paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 04:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment everyone is in agreement, and there doesn't seem to be any doubt about the outcome. Thanks to Gonnym for taking on the in-links clean-up. Is there anything else outstanding I can help with, or can this be closed as delete? Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 18 January 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:Nimitz class aircraft carrier armour

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably the most useless template I've ever come across; the sole purpose is to insert "Unknown" into an infobox field. No clue why that requires a template (and more importantly, why that even needs to be done - if we don't know, then leave the freaking field blank). Please kill this abomination with fire. Parsecboy (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete To be polite: unused. The Banner talk 20:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete. It's unused but I want this to be emphasized, if a piece of data is not known (to an editor), then leave empty. I'm sure that to the designer of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier, the armour information was known, so saying it is unknown is factually incorrect. Gonnym (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Facepalm Facepalm wowwww. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete it's literally just a string of text saying "Unknown". HurricaneZetaC 16:31, 3 January 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI