Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 27
Template:Governing Mayor of Berlin
- 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. ✗plicit 00:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Governing Mayor of Berlin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Contains nothing which was not already in Template:Mayors of Berlin created 15 years earlier. Crowsus (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete per nomination. Worth noting that was created by a blocked user... -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 27 October 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:Kathy Bates
- 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 the sidebar, no consensus for the navbox. Feel free to start a new discussion for the navbox if you still feel it should be deleted! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Kathy Bates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Kathy Bates sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Both templates fail basic requirements for what they are supposed to do. Four links in the navbox. Too few for a navbox for sufficent navigation. And the sidebar mostly links article on characters and adds clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not everyone needs a sidebar or navbox. There isn't enough for both templates to exist. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing here that is helpful or warrants a sidebar OR a navbox. WP:NENAN. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete sidebar, keep navbox. The navbox has 6 valid links so more than enough. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Navbox not needed per WP:NENAN. Only 4 valid links outside of subject. --woodensuperman 11:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete the sidebar as redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 5 November 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:PoeTopics
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:PoeTopics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Poe's navbox is sufficient. Not needed. Not everyone needs a sidebar template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and the fact that Template:Edgar Allan Poe already exists and does a much better job of this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason to delete a nearly 20 year old Topics template for one of the most prominent American authors in history. Lightcrowd (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Lightcrowd the fact that this is a prominent American author is irrelevant. The sidebar violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR, as clearly stated by the nominator. Your response is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --woodensuperman 11:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:34, 5 November 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:I smallsup
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:I smallsup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions in article space. Renders text too small to comply with MOS:SMALLFONT. If the small tags are removed, and if it actually applied italic formatting, it will be redundant to {{I sup}}. Since it does not apply italic formatting, despite the name, it will be redundant to {{sup}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as violates the MOS. Also lets remove these from Template:Sup and sub-related templates since that encourages users to use bad templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:33, 27 October 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:Gene Sharp
- 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 convert to a footer template. Please feel free to renominate this template if you still wish to see it deleted! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Gene Sharp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Too few links for a sidebar for a political scientist. All links can be found through the main article. This is just clutter and a WP:LEADSIDEBAR issue. Seven links but still a small sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - clutter and unhelpful. Not everything needs a sidebar either. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - meets the "rule of five" threshold given in Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox ("are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?"), and there is no higher threshold set for political scientists. Without the sidebar, it would be difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles, which are in diverse categories (books, films, institutions), and not listed in a single place in the primary article. This is not clutter, it is helpful. --Presearch (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- All links are present on his article. You're gonna have to prove "difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles" without this sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the main Gene Sharp article you can see that apart from the sidebar, the links to the articles are scattered in different sections, and they are often not easily distinguishable from the many links to topics that do not directly pertain to Sharp himself and are not included in the sidebar. And there is no single section or part of the Sharp article that contains links to all sidebarred articles. For example, some sidebarred articles are only linked from a single section (e.g., Making Europe Unconquerable from Works/1980s; Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle... from Works/1980), whereas others are not linked from that section (e.g., Albert Einstein Institution is not linked from that subsection, nor would it be clear from anything within the Works section that the Albert Einstein Institution was any more Sharp-related than other publishers of Sharp's work, such as Princeton University Press). I think a key here is to put oneself in the position of a reader who is new to learning about Sharp, and wants to know "Within Wikipedia, how can I learn more about Sharp and his work?" The sidebar, and nothing else to anywhere near the same degree, gives a convenient answer to that question. The sidebar is not clutter, it is uniquely helpful. --Presearch (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's implying readers can't find it own their own. I was able to find all links from his article. outside of the navbox. It requires very little effort to find them. This doesn't make it easier in the same sense. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Your statement that "it requires very little effort to find" the links, however much it may apply to you, seems to me to lack understanding of the average reader. The average reader will not know what they are looking for. The sidebar shows them what there is to look for. Wikipedia should be built for readers, not for editors. --Presearch (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- The average reader is not an idiot. And your statement implies as such as well intended your template was created to be. "The average reader will not know what they are looking for." Not true at all and you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what your view of the average reader is. People do know what they are looking for and if they don't know, they can try Google searching it and see if what they are looking for is also on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for readers. Our responsibility as editors to build things for their benefit. Same is applied for templates for navigation purposes. Not everyone needs a template just because one can create one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree that Wikipedia is for readers. I agree with you that the average reader is not an idiot, but I disagree that my statement implies such. In my work IRL I am constantly learning about new topics and new issues, and it is much more convenient to see available coverage displayed in a single sidebar than only retrievable through a Google Search or through painstakingly sifting through a large number of links embedded in diverse article sections. I think such a benefit is relevant to a substantial portion of the Gene Sharp article's readers though not all. From that perspective, what appears to be your persistent interest in eliminating this useful sidebar strikes me as misguided. --Presearch (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- The average reader is not an idiot. And your statement implies as such as well intended your template was created to be. "The average reader will not know what they are looking for." Not true at all and you don't have any evidence to back it up other than what your view of the average reader is. People do know what they are looking for and if they don't know, they can try Google searching it and see if what they are looking for is also on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for readers. Our responsibility as editors to build things for their benefit. Same is applied for templates for navigation purposes. Not everyone needs a template just because one can create one. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Your statement that "it requires very little effort to find" the links, however much it may apply to you, seems to me to lack understanding of the average reader. The average reader will not know what they are looking for. The sidebar shows them what there is to look for. Wikipedia should be built for readers, not for editors. --Presearch (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's implying readers can't find it own their own. I was able to find all links from his article. outside of the navbox. It requires very little effort to find them. This doesn't make it easier in the same sense. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the main Gene Sharp article you can see that apart from the sidebar, the links to the articles are scattered in different sections, and they are often not easily distinguishable from the many links to topics that do not directly pertain to Sharp himself and are not included in the sidebar. And there is no single section or part of the Sharp article that contains links to all sidebarred articles. For example, some sidebarred articles are only linked from a single section (e.g., Making Europe Unconquerable from Works/1980s; Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle... from Works/1980), whereas others are not linked from that section (e.g., Albert Einstein Institution is not linked from that subsection, nor would it be clear from anything within the Works section that the Albert Einstein Institution was any more Sharp-related than other publishers of Sharp's work, such as Princeton University Press). I think a key here is to put oneself in the position of a reader who is new to learning about Sharp, and wants to know "Within Wikipedia, how can I learn more about Sharp and his work?" The sidebar, and nothing else to anywhere near the same degree, gives a convenient answer to that question. The sidebar is not clutter, it is uniquely helpful. --Presearch (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- All links are present on his article. You're gonna have to prove "difficult to obtain an overview of all the relevant articles" without this sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Convert to horizontal navbox. Seems better suited that way. --woodensuperman 11:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- convert to a navbox which would be more standard and a better format for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 5 November 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:Thoreauviana
- 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Thoreauviana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sidebar is better served by navbox Template:Henry David Thoreau. This is not a typical sidebar of individuals like US presidents or UK prime ministers. Normally, for writers, a navbox is sufficient for articles on the subject. Not to mention that the related section in this sidebar has mostly unrelated articles to Thoreau. On the articles it is used on, it clutters them up. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete this isn't even used in the parent article Henry David Thoreau and has a collection of loosely related topics at best. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 27 October 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:Steve Jobs sidebar
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Steve Jobs sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
We have a navbox for Jobs. This sidebar is just clutter and violates WP:LEADSIDEBAR. Not every person needs a sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete This just duplicates information found at {{Steve Jobs}}. Nothing helpful here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 5 November 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:100 greatest Bears
- 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⚡ 21:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:100 greatest Bears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This navbox is a list of players which is based on a snapshot from 2019 by two journalists. See Chicago Bears#100 greatest Bears list. The template contains no attribution, and there is no objective way to make changes for future players. The existing section in the Chicago Bears article is sufficient (WP:NENAN). -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - nominator is totally correct. This is a nightmare of a template. 100 greatest according to who? That is not made clear in the template and even if it was the fact that a couple of random journalist said these are the 100 best does not make it worthy of a navbox. This is a case of pandora's box. Do we really want to open the door to random lists like this? What happens when John Smith of the New York times comes up with his list of the top 25 players for the Yankees? Do we start making navboxes for every such list? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Mentioned in my replay bellow, this is a list compiled by the team itself. StanleyKey (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Having the list in the Chicago Bears article is fine, but a navbox is unnecessary. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and I thought this template would be referring to actual bears when I first saw the section title. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - Although the reference lead to a chicagobears.com article, this list was commissioned by the Chicago Bears themselves, as part of their 100 years of existing celebrations, and appeared in the official book they published that year (i do agree this is terribly named, but that was their choosing). This is not a random list and it's similar to Template:Washington Commanders greatest players, Template:New England Patriots Hall of Fame and Template:Minnesota Vikings Ring of Honor Templates (among others). BabyBOY789 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. These should be deleted too for the same reasons. --woodensuperman 15:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is TEXTBOOK WP:OTHERSTUFF. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I generally with that, but in this case is the common practice when talking about NFL teams Hall of Fames (which is it essentially what all of those templates are). Again, you do you, I'm just want to stick to the facts (this is not a random list and this is common practice in the Wikipedia world). StanleyKey (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is TEXTBOOK WP:OTHERSTUFF. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. These should be deleted too for the same reasons. --woodensuperman 15:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, subjective list, no article on the subject. --woodensuperman 14:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is not subjective list, as mentioned by me bellow, this was compiled by the team itself StanleyKey (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- "As voted on by Hall of Fame writers Don Pierson and Dan Pompei, two prominent journalists who covered the club" is definitely subjective. --woodensuperman 15:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this was commissioned by the team, you can write "two teams historians" (as the team didn't had a "in house" team to do it, like what happened with the other teams) and it would be accepted by most (just to clarify, I'm not trying to push to a decision, I'm just want to get the facts straight). StanleyKey (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- "As voted on by Hall of Fame writers Don Pierson and Dan Pompei, two prominent journalists who covered the club" is definitely subjective. --woodensuperman 15:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is not subjective list, as mentioned by me bellow, this was compiled by the team itself StanleyKey (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - for all intents and purposes, this list was compiled by the Chicago Bears themselves as their "centennial list of players", and it appeared in the official book they published in 2019.[1] As mentioned above, this is similar to other NFL templates, and I see no reason to delete it. StanleyKey (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
References
- Mayer, Larry (20 May 2019). "Centennial Scrapbook chronicles Bears history". ChicagoBears.com. Chicago Bears. Retrieved 28 October 2025.
- 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 London station
- 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 plan refactoring and hold community discussion about details before final implementation. There's general support for consolidating the London-specific template infrastructure with the worldwide template, to make things visually consistent and easier to maintain. The main concern was about data getting lost in this process. It sounds like there's technical means to avoid that, but some trimming of bloat might be beneficial or some harmonization with international presentation might be needed. Participants on both sides would like the ability to comment on a field-by-field explanation of what will happen to existing data. -- Beland (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox London station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox London station with Template:Infobox station.
The main reason for this proposal is that Infobox London station should not be separate from the generic Infobox station. Having a dedicated London‑only template makes it harder to compare stations in London with those elsewhere in the UK or worldwide, and it creates unnecessary duplication by requiring two infoboxes that effectively cover the same subject. A unified template ensures consistency across articles, simplifies maintenance, and allows readers to make direct comparisons between stations globally.
As per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: “The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.” In contrast, the current London station template has grown into a rich data container, including extended historical passenger statistics, which goes beyond the intended scope of an infobox. Such detailed data belongs in the article body rather than in the sidebar.
TL;DR
- Comparability: A single template makes it easier to compare London stations with stations worldwide.
- Consistency: Aligns London articles with the same standards used across Wikipedia.
- Maintenance: Reduces duplication of code and avoids maintaining two parallel systems.
- Inline with Wiki policy: Keeps infoboxes concise, in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
Smithr32 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Various WikiProjects have now been notified. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Lean support(see updated comment below) - generally I am in favor of this type of merge. We should not have custom templates for different localities that do the same thing for consistencies sake. This is why {{Infobox Cambodian district}} and {{Infobox US metropolitan area}} both redirect to {{Infobox settlement}} for example. HOWEVER, {{Infobox London station}} is widely used with over 850+ transclusions. At first glance, there are a number of parameters in it that are NOT present in {{infobox station}} so a straight merge could result in a significant loss of data. The real question there is are there too many params in {{Infobox London station}}? Could it use with some trimming down to be consistent with station articles around the world? I would say yes, but that needs to be part of this discussion.
- @Smithr32: it might be helpful to do a param comparison chart (here is an example) of what data would be lost in this process. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, potential data loss needs to be addressed first. -MJ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the data loss may be necessary, may be an improvement, may be good overall... But right now it isn't clear WHAT will be lost and that is what needs to be addressed.
- @Smithr32: here is my 2 cents... I would withdraw the nomination for now. I would do a detailed analysis of what would be removed and start that discussion on Template talk:Infobox London station. Once there is a detailed breakdown of exactly what changes are being proposed, come back and renominate the templates for merger. Then you will have more information and people like myself, MJ and all the others who patrol TFDs will be in a position to make informed comments.
- The problem is that right now we have no idea what will be changing and most of us are unwilling to dive into the research to figure it out so will likely just vote to keep it as is since there are too many unknowns...
- If you decide to go this route, feel free to
{{ping|Zackmann08}}me and I can help you close the TFD. Again, withdrawing the TFD does not preclude you from renominating it at a future time! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)- Thanks @Zackmann08, I'll work on a comparison list betweens params in London station and Infobox station. Passenger count for previous years can be featured in the main article as a section instead of a long infobox. Smithr32 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, potential data loss needs to be addressed first. -MJ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Can we please remove "‹ The template Infobox station is being considered for merging. ›" which is shown at the top of every page using Infobox station? Its completely irrelevant for most articles like Węgliniec railway station which has nothing to do with London. I think it should only be shown above pages that use Infobox London station. Fortek67 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Displaying a merger notice is standard practice for all infobox templates, plus it allows interested parties who frequently edit Infobox station to add input on this merger proposal. Cards84664 21:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is relevant for every article that uses either template. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: Please revert your edit hiding the notice from Infobox station. Cards84664 06:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, at least for now. I can't support a merger that would result in data loss with no indication of what data will be lost and no justification for losing that data. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now until a proposal can be put forward that addresses the data loss issue. — The Anome (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, Template:Infobox London station works perfectly well as it is. Nominations containing phrases like "modern up-to-date" and "hasn't been updated in years" are a red flag. We are not some advertising agency in the business of persuading the client to part with thousands of pounds for the agency to "update" the website in the expectation that they will return eighteen months later with another wad of cash for another pointless "update". There is no issue with Infobox London station that could be fixed by merging, and it would bring about a whole bunch of hassle. Have any perceived shortfalls in Infobox London station been raised at Template talk:Infobox London station, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? Answer: no. Has a potential merger been suggested at those same pages? Answer: no, again. How often does Smithr32 (talk · contribs) work on London station articles? Answer: never. How often does Smithr32 work on station articles of any kind? Answer: extremely rarely. In fact, I can find only two articles about railway stations with edits by Smithr32: Reading Green Park railway station and West Malling railway station, neither of which use Template:Infobox London station; and between them, they have no more than five edits by Smithr32, none of which involved the infobox. In short: Smithr32, what does this have to do with you? Why do you want us to go through all this grief again? Five years on, I am still waiting for answers to some of the questions that I asked during that debacle. I say again: Oppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t have to edit London transport articles to know it makes more sense to use the main station template. 👀 Smithr32 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- The WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality does not help progress the discussion. Focus your criticism on the edits being proposed here, and not the editor. Cards84664 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will second what User:Cards84664 said. I too find User:Redrose64's overwhelming WP:OWN mentality troubling. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal not on attacking the nominator for not discussing with the right people. WP:TFD is the proper avenue for this discussion and the notices atop tens of thousands of articles are meant to draw people to the discussion. If you object that others weren't notified, FIXIT and notify them. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - this Infobox has been tailored for its specific needs and if merged into the generic Infobox station, would lose the parameters and information it gives the general public about. Saying that it "has not been updated for many years" is wrong as it is updated yearly with the latest data when possible. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I'm going to restate what I said in 2020: it's not all obvious why London, and only London, needs its own infobox. This is what I said then: "
There are fewer than a dozen station infoboxes at this point. One for the Manchester light rail system, one for the Tyne and Wear, one for stations in London, one for active British stations, one for heritage British stations, one for disused British stations, one for the New York City Subway system, and then one for the entire rest of the planet.
" The attitude of certain members of the UKRAIL project hasn't changed. If the idea didn't originate there, from one of their own, they're not interested. The outcome of that 2020 TfD included a senior editor maintaining a years-long public grudge against the nominator, which is unprofessional at best. Template consolidation is an accepted principle. Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate hidden minefields for the unwary. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)- A note for uninvolved editors, there are only three templates remaining: Template:Infobox station, Template:Infobox London station, and Template:Infobox New York City Subway station. The New York City template is now 90% redundant to Infobox station, it will also be receiving a merge proposal in the coming weeks. Cards84664 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Mackensen. There is no need to have a special template with completely different formatting and parameters for one city with <1.5% of total station articles. If there are more than a handful of London-specific parameters that are somehow essential (which I doubt), then this template should be turned into a wrapper for {{infobox station}} with those extra parameters. Certainly, the parameters for decades of ridership data are superfluous and do not need to be transferred - they violate the principle from WP:INFOBOX that
The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC) - Support That being said, I do think there should be some more discussion on which parameters make their way into {{Infobox station}}. I see no reason why we can't merge parameters unique to the London station infobox into the main one. However, I agree with Pi.1415926535 that some parameters might be better off omitted from the infobox – personally I'd rather they be included in the article body, if at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Long overdue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Changing my initial lean support to support. This is a good faith effort by the nominator to merge a template that is long overdue for a merge. There are certainly concerns about what will be removed and what will not, but those discussions can take place in the holding cell. There is MUCH precedent for this such as the recently created {{Infobox social media personality}} and {{Infobox gridiron football biography}}. Both were EXTENSIVE merges of multiple templates. The TFD agreed to merge, then numerous editors discussed how and what to merge vs what to remove. The only objections thus far have been 100%, pure WP:OWNERSHIP complaints. This is a definite yes in my book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Zackmann. Parameter omissions and additions can be hashed out in the merger process. There is no reason why we need an infobox for specific locations, and ten other Infobox templates have already been merged into Infobox station since 2014. Cards84664 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. Couple of suggestions above that the infobox contains decades of passenger data. This is not the case with only the last five years shown on each station article. MRSC (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely nothing special about London stations that justifies this template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- More inclined to Oppose. I think there are plenty of parameters of the current infobox that cannot just be displayed in the newer infobox.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning support for now, per Mackensen, on the condition that we can discuss exactly which parameters can be merged (rather than just redirecting the template and calling it a day). For example, a couple things I noticed:
- The London template uses a lot of historical ridership data. Should these be kept or deleted when the infoboxes are merged?
- The London template has some London-specific parameters like original, pregroup, and postgroup, along with some London-specific external links. Should these be retained?
- London stations have specific accessibility categories; how should these be handled?
- Overall though, in the long run, merging these templates will increase the ease of maintenance, as it means that we don't have to maintain one infobox for most of the world and ten other templates for very specific locales. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what improvement would be achieved by merging the London station template with the generic version. There are specific features of the London station template that are not present in the generic version that would need to be added; for example the London station templates use of a set of subtemplates (i.e. {{Tubeexits2023}}) that add the usage data automatically so that individual articles don't need to be amended when new data becomes available. My biggest concern is that the the generic version is completely locked off from editing except by a Template editor. DavidCane (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Any infobox parameters that exist only in Infobox London station (but not in Infobox station) can always be 'transferred' to Infobox station. Chongkian (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Merging would inevitably lead to loss of important information, if not now, then at some point in the future. No objection to a carefully thought out modular solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC).
- Agreed @Rich Farmbrough, a small group of us are working on Greek railway stations, and we have only now got the coding up to the standard one would expect, this would mean a lot of work for the 3-4 members that work on that unrepresented corner of Wikipedia... I too Oppose ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- @The Emperor of Byzantium: Can you clarify your comment on coding, I'm not sure what the correlation between railway stations in Greece and railway stations in London is, you are already using Infobox station and can always suggest parameter adjustments. Cards84664 15:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Cards84664, it’s in response to both ‘Infobox station’ templates possible losing data (if merged to create one signal Infobox?) its impact on other railway Inboxes (Greece in this case), and the fact with 2500+ railway stations in the UK… it will be a lot of work correcting the errors created by this decision… I only mention Greek railway stations because, of the work involved in creating less than 300 stations, and updating the Infoboxs of 2500+ worries me of the amount of work involved… it’s not a criticism of standardised of the Infoboxs, it’s the worry more articles will need to be ‘fixed’ ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @The Emperor of Byzantium: Nothing's being removed from Infobox station, we are going to be determining which features from Infobox London station are being carried over to Infobox station. Cards84664 01:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Cards84664, thank you for your quick response! Appreciate you put my concerns to rest! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @The Emperor of Byzantium: Nothing's being removed from Infobox station, we are going to be determining which features from Infobox London station are being carried over to Infobox station. Cards84664 01:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Cards84664, it’s in response to both ‘Infobox station’ templates possible losing data (if merged to create one signal Infobox?) its impact on other railway Inboxes (Greece in this case), and the fact with 2500+ railway stations in the UK… it will be a lot of work correcting the errors created by this decision… I only mention Greek railway stations because, of the work involved in creating less than 300 stations, and updating the Infoboxs of 2500+ worries me of the amount of work involved… it’s not a criticism of standardised of the Infoboxs, it’s the worry more articles will need to be ‘fixed’ ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @The Emperor of Byzantium: Can you clarify your comment on coding, I'm not sure what the correlation between railway stations in Greece and railway stations in London is, you are already using Infobox station and can always suggest parameter adjustments. Cards84664 15:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed @Rich Farmbrough, a small group of us are working on Greek railway stations, and we have only now got the coding up to the standard one would expect, this would mean a lot of work for the 3-4 members that work on that unrepresented corner of Wikipedia... I too Oppose ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Mackensen. There's no reason to keep these separate. FaviFake (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Zackmann. "Infobox London station" seems to be a legacy of a time when templates had lower capabilities compared to now (in 2005, there was no Lua and ParserFunctions was less powerful). However, we should not rush the merging process, due to understandable concerns about passenger numbers and UK-specific data: this is why we have holding cells. --Minoa (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment @Minoa it’s appreciated! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Metro140 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Mackensen (with particular reference to their discerning analysis of WP:UKRAIL). —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support – zero justification for a separate infobox for London stations specifically at this point. Clearly opposition is mainly about inertia. Any information that for some reason cannot be maintained in Infobox station can be added to articles (no opposition to considering parameters for porting, just that we shouldn't be requiring a one-to-one parameter parity situation). An infobox should summarize articles, not thoughtlessly replicate them or present information not in the article itself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The London Station template has some unique features only relevant to London. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to spell out what those are, and why you think Infobox station could not accommodate them. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- The burden is on those who wish to change the status quo to demonstrate that a change would be beneficial. In this case that means doing the research to identify the unique features and show that they can be accommodated in the merged template and/or that there is a consensus that they should not be accommodated. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to spell out what those are, and why you think Infobox station could not accommodate them. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Alternative - I suggest that we add one or more module parameters to {{Infobox station}}, and fork {{Infobox London station}} to a version (eg {{Infobox station (London)}} that has all of the London-specific parameters, and no duplicate parameters from Infobox station. Then, as they need updating, any Infobox London station can be replaced by Infobox station with Infobox station (London) embedded in it. That way, there is only one main infobox to maintain, and London can have all its own parameters without needing any duplication. The same could apply to other special classes of station (?New York).-- Verbarson talkedits 08:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I have just realised that {{Infobox station}} already has an |embedded parameter; I am not sure how/whether this differs from |modulen. However, I think more should be added, as they may be used for listed building designations (or other stuff). -- Verbarson talkedits 12:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning support providing that the "embedding" mechanism can be used to preserve any information that would otherwise be lost. — The Anome (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support, mainly based on points expressed by Mackensen. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support providing submodules can preserve entry/exit data and listed status. Might need to add
localeandtoiletsto Infobox Station to avoid data loss, maybe more that I missed. I don't see anything else different that justifies keeping the templates seperate. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 12:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC) - Conditional Support. Having one station infobox for all of Wikipedia makes sense, provides for consistency (important in an encyclopedia) and makes maintenance and support easier. However, there are some data in the London station infobox that would be lost if it was simply replaced with the station infobox. I'm in favor of a merger if the station infobox is expanded to include the data that would otherwise be lost, so long as that would not make the station infobox too large and difficult to use and maintain. Truthanado (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- This has been going on for a month and there has been little serious discussion. I don't think anyone actually objects to infobox consolidation on principle, and most of the proponents of the merge don't seem to object to retaining the London-specific parameters; the arguments are all about details. I suggest this TfD be closed and discussion take place on a talk page to determine which London-specific parameters are desirable and can be maintained in the generic infobox. The merger can then proceed without a formal TfD, or, if there's disagreement, everyone can come back here to thrash out a consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, this requires a formal closure from an uninvolved party. Cards84664 22:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is required and formal closures serve to identify consensus. There is none here, and if I had any experience with TfD I'd close it as such myself, but what would that achieve? I don't think people here disagree on as much as they think they do, but they're not going to stop talking past each other in this venue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell has a point. Over at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Conversion to use Infobox settlement as a wrapper they're discussing a very similar situation (whether and how to merge Template:Infobox UK place into Template:Infobox settlement), but without throwing it straight to TfD. They're doing it the other way around: feasibility and practicalities first, whether to actually go ahead last. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, this requires a formal closure from an uninvolved party. Cards84664 22:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've requested closure of this discussion at WP:ANRFC as it's been over a week since the last comment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies for not commenting sooner - I believe historical data for each station could be retained on either a template or article page for all stations instead of individually posted on each page or a template that populates the data using a parameter such as station ID. There is some strong support for this change. Smithr32 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment will also just note that {{Infobox UK station}} already redirects to {{Infobox station}}.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note with this edit at 14:03, 5 December 2025 the nomination statement was substantially rewritten and expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 5 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:Jirard Khalil
- 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:Jirard Khalil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
G4, Xplay, Attack the Show, and Sea of Stars have connections to Khalil, but not very major ones; they're either just him being a host for two years, or being a now-removed cameo. The only two articles mainly about Khalil here are his main article and IndieLand. The category section also strangely links to a category of games Sakurai directed, for some reason. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - I didn't agree with this template's creation, but couldn't bring myself to discuss this until now. Two articles aren't enough to justify his own template, and since Open Hand Foundation doesn't have its own article (it's a redirect that doesn't quite meet GNG yet), there's little to navigate about him. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This is little more than WP:PERFNAV. The only valid link is IndieLand. --woodensuperman 11:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 5 November 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:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox
- 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) 23:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Template:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
single use template. no reason to have this in the Template namespace. subst into the single article that uses it. Perform this edit to place the infobox directly into the article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This template is derived from Template:Infobox military conflict, which has a longstanding consensus about limitations on the numbers of combatants/participants/commanders included that have not been followed on this iteration of the template and completely ignore MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is *grossly* oversize and this will still be a problem even if it were to be substed into the article. I have no opinion one way or another about whether to keep this or refactor it back to the parent template (I'm not a fan of substing an infobox into an article directly, particularly in this case where the parent template is *not* single-use); but any such solution must address that issue. See further discussion here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Swatjester: to be clear, I'm not proposing ANY changes to {{Infobox military conflict}}. I actually came across this template while cleaning up errors in Category:Pages using infobox military conflict with unknown parameters (0). What I am saying is that the code for this version of the infobox should live on War against the Islamic State (the ONLY page that transcludes the template) just like nearly every other Infobox lives on the page that it belongs to. You don't create a custom one off template for the Infobox on Brad Pitt's page.
- As for the issue about this Infobox being grossly oversized and ignoring MOS, while I do not disagree with you, that is not my area of expertise and I would not really know where to start with what info to remove and what should stay. That sounds like a separate discussion to whether this single use infobox needs its own template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand; I'm not suggesting any changes to {{Infobox military conflict}} either, just noting the history. But your rationale for deleting *this* template is that it's a one-off; while I agree that you're correct in that assessment, I disagree in your suggestion that if deleted it be substed into the article. See, e.g. World War I, World War II, etc. Most conflict infoboxes on major articles, particularly those of any significant length, are not subst'd, they're transcluded; they do not "live" on the same page as the article text. In the event that this template is deleted, it would be better to start from a clean slate in full compliance with the MOS; this will not harm the article because per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the article must be complete even without the existence of the infobox. And I disagree that the extreme size and ignoring of the MOS are a separate discussion -- this is a formal deletion discussion and two of the explicitly valid reasons for deleting a template are
The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
andThe template is redundant to a better-designed template
. One could reasonably conclude either of those to be the case here.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)- @Swatjester: I'm confused.. Both World War I and World War II call {{Infobox military conflict}} directly in their article... There is no {{World War I infobox}} or {{World War II infobox}} in the code... What am I missing?
- What I am saying is that War against the Islamic State should call {{Infobox military conflict}} directly... Not call a single use template that in turn calls {{Infobox military conflict}}... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- A terminology mismatch I think. I agree with you that that War against the Islamic State should call {{Infobox military conflict}} directly... Not call a single use template that in turn calls {{Infobox military conflict}}. I do not agree that it should be substing that template instead of translcuding it. I'm not a template expert so take this with a grain of salt in case I explain some part of this wrong. When Page A (e.g. World War I) calls Template B (e.g. {{Infobox military conflict}}) using the twin curly braces, that is a transclusion, not a subst. It is calling a template that exists in a separate location, and transcluding it into this article. That template never actually lives on Page A. In contrast, a subst would require one to include {{subst:TemplateB}} somewhere on Page A. Instead of calling that template from TemplateB each time at runtime and displaying it within Page A, a subst is a one-time only operation that adds the content of TemplateB as text into Page A at the location it is located; i.e. instead of transcluding in the template, it substitutes it permanently into the article. See, e.g. User_talk:Stateside_Steve_Happy#Blocked for an example of a subst: of {{Checkuserblock-account}} (we commonly subst user warnings and talk page notices because of the sheer number of them across thousands of pages). Note how much unnecessary formatting and how much longer the subst'd version includes. Now for comparison, see User:Swatjester/sandbox/Templatesubst and look at the source. That's {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} when subst'd. All of that text would be on the article page itself *before* the lede of the article. That would make the article effectively unreadable for an source editor who has no idea what any of that means and just wants to add some content. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Swatjester: I think we are saying the same thing, just using different verbiage. To make it clear, what I am suggesting doing is this edit right here. Then deleting {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} as it will then be unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. I was interpreting what you said in the nom, as taking that edit you just made, and putting subst: in front of it, which it sounds like wasn't what you meant. Based on what you just showed, I would support deleting {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}}; but I'm not in favor of just replacing it with the same size and MOS problems on a different template. I would rather see it simply deleted outright and a new infobox (which would use {{Infobox military conflict}} just like your version does) can be rebuilt in a more slimmed down and MOS-compliant fashion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't clear. Glad we are on the same page.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't clear. Glad we are on the same page.
- Got it. I was interpreting what you said in the nom, as taking that edit you just made, and putting subst: in front of it, which it sounds like wasn't what you meant. Based on what you just showed, I would support deleting {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}}; but I'm not in favor of just replacing it with the same size and MOS problems on a different template. I would rather see it simply deleted outright and a new infobox (which would use {{Infobox military conflict}} just like your version does) can be rebuilt in a more slimmed down and MOS-compliant fashion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Swatjester: I think we are saying the same thing, just using different verbiage. To make it clear, what I am suggesting doing is this edit right here. Then deleting {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} as it will then be unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- A terminology mismatch I think. I agree with you that that War against the Islamic State should call {{Infobox military conflict}} directly... Not call a single use template that in turn calls {{Infobox military conflict}}. I do not agree that it should be substing that template instead of translcuding it. I'm not a template expert so take this with a grain of salt in case I explain some part of this wrong. When Page A (e.g. World War I) calls Template B (e.g. {{Infobox military conflict}}) using the twin curly braces, that is a transclusion, not a subst. It is calling a template that exists in a separate location, and transcluding it into this article. That template never actually lives on Page A. In contrast, a subst would require one to include {{subst:TemplateB}} somewhere on Page A. Instead of calling that template from TemplateB each time at runtime and displaying it within Page A, a subst is a one-time only operation that adds the content of TemplateB as text into Page A at the location it is located; i.e. instead of transcluding in the template, it substitutes it permanently into the article. See, e.g. User_talk:Stateside_Steve_Happy#Blocked for an example of a subst: of {{Checkuserblock-account}} (we commonly subst user warnings and talk page notices because of the sheer number of them across thousands of pages). Note how much unnecessary formatting and how much longer the subst'd version includes. Now for comparison, see User:Swatjester/sandbox/Templatesubst and look at the source. That's {{International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox}} when subst'd. All of that text would be on the article page itself *before* the lede of the article. That would make the article effectively unreadable for an source editor who has no idea what any of that means and just wants to add some content. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand; I'm not suggesting any changes to {{Infobox military conflict}} either, just noting the history. But your rationale for deleting *this* template is that it's a one-off; while I agree that you're correct in that assessment, I disagree in your suggestion that if deleted it be substed into the article. See, e.g. World War I, World War II, etc. Most conflict infoboxes on major articles, particularly those of any significant length, are not subst'd, they're transcluded; they do not "live" on the same page as the article text. In the event that this template is deleted, it would be better to start from a clean slate in full compliance with the MOS; this will not harm the article because per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the article must be complete even without the existence of the infobox. And I disagree that the extreme size and ignoring of the MOS are a separate discussion -- this is a formal deletion discussion and two of the explicitly valid reasons for deleting a template are
- Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think that the best option is to sobstitute it with the conflict infobox and we should add the Philippines due to the country ongoin conflict with IS Wikitalovin1 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 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.