Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 25

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) 06:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox NCAA athlete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 83 uses. Those should use a more specific infobox or {{infobox sportsperson}}. Now unused. Should be replaced with {{Infobox sportsperson}}Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I will be open to change my vote, but we should replace the templates in all of the articles before destroying infoboxes. NotJamestack (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

That's always part of the process at TfD; there's no outcome where an infobox would be removed without replacement. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@NotJamestack: the template is not being used any more, will you change your vote? Rikster2 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete but inform article creators of the 82 remaining articles so they can convert the infoboxes. I say 82 because I just converted one that I created. Rikster2 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. 43 are in a subcategory of Category:College football players in the United States and should use {{Infobox college football player}}. 17 are in a subcategory of Category:College basketball players in the United States and should use {{Infobox basketball biography}}. 3 are in a subcategory of Category:College softball players in the United States and should use {{Infobox baseball biography}}. 9 are in a subcategory of Category:College men's track and field athletes in the United States and should use {{Infobox sportsperson}}. 3 are in a subcategory of Category:College lacrosse players in the United States and should use {{Infobox lacrosse player}}. 1 is in a subcategory of Category:College swimmers in the United States and should use {{Infobox swimmer}}. The remaining 9 will need to be looked at individually, but at least some of them are basketball or football players with insufficient categorization. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The 17 basketball player articles have all been converted. Rikster2 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The uncategorized articles that are about college basketball players have been converted as well. There are some articles included on that list about basketball players who did not play college basketball but played the game outside the United States. It's puzzling why they used this template in the first place. Those still need to be addressed. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

All uses have been converted. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:03, 2 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.

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. New TFD forthcoming (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Substack writer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 7 articles. I don’t think Substack is notable enough to warrant and infobox for related persons. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. It puts too much emphasis on a person's social media, violating the spirit of WP:ELMIN. This is a minor blogging website, the person is usually notable for other things than posting on there. Historyexpert2 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 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 relisted on 2025 October 4. Izno (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:2025_in_Uzbekistani_football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2025 October 13. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Module:Arguments_with_aliases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2025 October 13. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Abyat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Abyat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 no consensus. Discussion about what to include in the navbox can happen on the template talk page. If there are still legitimate concerns about the existence of these templates after such discussions occur I see no issue with renominating. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:History of the Third Polish Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:History of the Polish People's Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both navboxes have too large of a scope for there to be reliable and defined navigation for a topic like this. Both cover almost every event in Poland for the respective periods and contain links to articles that are covered by other navboxes. Such as elections, protests, and matters of international relations. If a subject does not have a respective navbox like for protests, then one should be created. And for some articles, its best to be just covered by a respective Poland subject category if a templates does not suffice. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep: PPR not going to change, and TPR is also not to long and contains essentials for recent history Bildete (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the nomination. Its not about the existence of the respective republics. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I've seen the III RP template before and it's quite arbitrary - based on presidencies (in a parliamentary republic?), which events should be included seems arbitrary and a single template for literally every event in the history of the Third Republic is obviously a bit ridiculous. @Bildete @WikiCleanerMan Polish kurd (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete both. This is the result of Wikipedians making up as they go along what the reader should find interesting to read about a country's history. Any number of events could theoretically be included or excluded. In this case, there is a heavy focus on political, electoral and military short-term events, which is a classic but narrow view of history as the story of Great Men doing Great Things. As a historian, it is frustrating, but no surprise to me that this is even literally the case: Template:History of the Polish People's Republic has a periodisation entirely based on the names of 4 Great Men: "Bierut's rule"; "Gomułka's autarchic communism"; "Gierek's international opening"; "Jaruzelski's autocratic rule and demise". I don't think it's hard to see how these periodisations and names for them are somewhat arbitrary, subjective, and reductionist. As if anything any other man, let alone any woman, has done during those times is automatically less important than that period's supposed namesake. And apart from Collectivization in the Polish People's Republic and Socialist realism in Poland, there is virtually no mention of long-term, socio-economic or cultural/mentality developments. As if there weren't any worth mentioning (quod non). I think this situation is very similar to the recent deletion of Template:History of Tatarstan, and others. If a grouping of articles is an arbitrary collection of things that does not have a definite membership, we should reaaaally be careful about making a navigation template for it, because the contents will easily become an arbitrary mess. NLeeuw (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  PS: Again, frustrating but not surprising, the Template:History of the Third Polish Republic makes no mention of the 2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland, the biggest protest in the country since the end of the People's Republic during the revolutions of 1989. What do we get? A redirect to an article section about some 2021 border crisis that is not just about Poland, but also Lithuania, Latvia etc. I fail to see why that is supposedly more 'important' in the history of the Third Polish Republic. The abortion issue arguably split the country more than anything else. In other words, whoever made this selection of articles, the criteria appear to be somewhat arbitrary, and reflect a classic Great Men doing Great Things story, again based on the presidential terms in office of men, and women are often missing, even when they take to the streets with about half a million supporters, plus almost 2k counter-protesters. This whole template is arbitrary, and needs to go. NLeeuw (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as matching the outlines of WP:RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  RS is not relevant to Tfd. Especially this nomination. Please cite a valid keep reason. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, come on, it's obvious what AirshipJungleman29 means here - he means something like, in more words "this navboxes matches how reliable sources describe the history". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  Still does not address the subject at hand. RS still don't have any relation to navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:53, 11 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.

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 23:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Transparent text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why this template exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I actually tried to be quite descriptive in the template documentation precisely to explain why the template exists and in which cases it's meant to be used. (The reason it is not used yet is due of technical limitations which I also described in the documentation and in the talk page, with a reference to possible solution that I haven't yet had time to implement). Maybe I should have included a concrete example to make the motivation clearer. FWIW, the specific case that led me to create this template was the article Pe̍h-ōe-jī, which I was searching for in the text of another article using the "asciified" "Pe'h-oe-ji", and was unable to find it. My goal with this template was to provide invisible searchable text matching what one might search for, as an alternative to the proper string — not too dissimilar to the behavior of the {{anchor}} template, by way of analogy. Waldyrious (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be able to add a comment in the text for that? Gonnym (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Tudobem 201.20.171.237 (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, this isn't fundamentally accessible in the sense that it will make sense to users looking for content, as described in the use case above and on the template page. If an alternative spelling is necessary, it should be placed (potentially in bold) somewhere in the article so that people understand the alternative spelling. And/or consider creating redirects if necessary. Izno (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:01, 2 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.

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 23:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Nahua officeholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 7 uses in articles. Seems like those could easily be covered by {{infobox officeholder}}. Unclear what makes this special/necessary. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:01, 2 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.

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 23:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox musical artist - with founding members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Only difference from {{Infobox musical artist}} seems to be that it includes |founding_members=. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:01, 2 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.

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 23:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox firefighter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has only 16 uses. Adds very little useful information that cannot be gotten from simply using {{Infobox person}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No doc for me is a clear indication of the maintenance burden of this template. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 2 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.

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⚡ 01:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox checkers biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Grand total of TWO uses. Seems like those could just use {{Infobox person}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Wonder if there is some scope to have a Template:Infobox board game biography. But maybe chess masters don't have the same scope as people who might play chess. Izno (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, as a test, I converted Walter Hellman and Marion Tinsley to use {{infobox sportsperson}} and there seems to be no issues. Obviously, feel free to revert if this closes as keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 6 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.

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 23:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox pelotari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is for a rather obscure (IMHO) sport. Only has 15 transclusions. Seems like those could easily be covered by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 2 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.

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. Genuinely did not realize that Real Tennis was a different sport than Tennis… (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox real tennis player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox tennis biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox real tennis player with Template:Infobox tennis biography.
This template has zero documentation or any indication of why it is needed over {{Infobox tennis biography}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The two sports are very different and there has been zero overlap between the two ever since modern tennis developed over 100 years ago. Iffy★Chat -- 10:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose it's the same reason we aren't merging Template:Infobox speed skater and Template:Infobox figure skater, it's two different sports. YellowStahh (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  @YellowStahh and Iffy: I’ll be honest, I didn’t understand that Real Tennis was a different sport… I genuinely thought this was someone’s sarcastic attempt to separate Tennis from Table Tennis… I think I failed to do some WP:BEFORE. Can one of you take on updating {{Infobox real tennis player}} and giving it some actual documentation? — Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Two different sports with different parameters. If we did this we might as well merge all racket sports together like Squash and Pickleball. It would just make a mess out of the Infobox tennis biography. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 26 September 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 keep. There is a strong consensus to keep the templates separate. (non-admin closure) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox former subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox former subdivision with Template:Infobox country.

A former subdivision just has a couple extra parameters that a current country doesn't have. No need to have them as separate templates, per this discussion. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Merge - Given that {{Infobox former country}} has been merged to {{Infobox country}} I think this makes sense. Not 100% sure that {{Infobox country}} is the correct target though. Maybe it should be {{Infobox settlement}}?? Should be investigated further. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge and comment – I do agree with merging it with {{Infobox settlement}} instead of {{Infobox country}}. A section could be added to the former for a disestablished administrative division in the same way that {{Infobox country}} has one, thus keeping the relevant parameters (|date_start, |date_end, and so on) in place and making the move smoother IMO. AlejandroFC (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This has failed twice before. Nothing fundamental has changed since. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: What has changed since the previous two TFDs? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed ....no....simply a nightmare for content editors ....we already have a problem with too many parameters that cause many edit wars. We have been going in the opposite direction to avoid problems like with Template:Infobox micronation. Direct quote from last attempt of this nature Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_19#Settlement infobox templates Let those that edit the articles deal with parameters..... took us years to drop driving side.Moxy🍁 21:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussions, since nothing seems to have changed since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  Question: Will this merge do anything to existing country infoboxes? JaxsonR (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  No effect that we wouldn't monitor..we would make sure that nothing odd happens. The proposal.would add a whole slew of new parameters to the country box that aren't used by countries and we'd have to deal with on a daily basis.... For example "Historical era", "Preceded by", "Today part of", "Part of subdivision", "Lost and gain territory", "Territorial lifespan" etc. Last thing we want is what's happened to the template for settlements.... Massive over parameters that cause many pages that use it to be way too big. A few decades ago we had different templates for all different types of settlements.... these were merged long ago to the detriment of most content editors. Now most pages that use the settlement template deals with info box parameter issues thousands of times a day over thousands of articles..... it has causes a waste of time having to deal with small technical edits over improving prose in articles. Moxy🍁 23:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  thank you! JaxsonR (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed: As Moxy said. Dasomm (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This template is used for many articles that aren't countries (counties and other subdivisions etc.). ThundorLord (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, all these templates are already doing too much. Fields are already regularly used for things they are not meant to be used for, usability is not improved by merges. CMD (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Subdivisions aren't countries. Seriously. Wtf. Also, remove the tag header now appearing above every country or former country in the world. — LlywelynII 06:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

What has changed since the previous two TFDs?

• Also, why isn't this an automatic fail? MooOOoooOOoooodz! — LlywelynII 06:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. I've got nothing else of value to add here, so I'm just going to throw in my two cents and say that we shouldn't merge the template; we should just leave it as-is. AzureSaturn 06:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Per arguments previously expressed by other users. -- Pofka (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - this is going to create one huge mess 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree I agree with AlejandroFC. Country is a vague term that applies to many geopolitical entities, including Indigenous homelands. These Indigenous countries are not nation-states, but they exist in parallel to (and are often subjugated by) nation-states. Merging these templates would avoid aggressive editors who take the stance that these are 'former subdivisions' when the reality is that they and their institutions continue to exist (erasure is a tool for colonialism). Several parameters could be useful to nation-states (e.g., "Preceded by" in the case of the Canada and British North America/New France; "Today part of" in the case of England, Scotland, and Wales in the United Kingdom), and the bloating of parameters could be reigned in on the template's page, giving guidelines for nation-states. Danachos (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Why not use "infobox country" for Indigenous homelands?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, "today part of" used to be used for the Former countries infobox - first the parameter was deprecated, then the entire template was merged. If anything, what you've shown is why these mergers cause problems.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This is asking to create a mess and as stated has been proposed twice before with no change Phoeromones (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This nomination has a rationale that was copy/pasted from a 2021 discussion that ended with no consensus. Nothing has changed since that time. See also: WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Soft oppose I see no benefit in merging them. As many have said, it seems unnecessary. But I wouldn't mind too much either way. NLeeuw (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Soft Oppose Per Moxy, eg that this would add MORE backlog work to be done and break numerous scripts if done poorly. if it werent for this single issue i would generally give a soft support for merging instead AssanEcho (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Redundant and per my last post. – KaijuEditor (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I fully agree with Moxy, the cons of this merge occurring far outweigh the pros. Not to mention, this would just make the formatting process much more tedious. TJ Kreen (talk)

Strongly Oppose As per Moxy. Miraitowa (talk)

Strongly Oppose In concurring with Moxy, this is a completely unnecessary merge; the formats of these two templates are so vastly different that it would mess up a large swath of pages; on top of that, the logistics of deciding how to format this new template would be a monstrous waste of time. ISUtahraptor (talk)

• oppose waste of editors' time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Omnigrade (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason to have these as separate templates given the strong overlap in parameters. Yeoutie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per others. A subdivision doesn't equal a country. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Opposed - it's used on some Mexican land grant articles, such as Rancho Tujunga, which are basically archaic pieces of real estate that we don't seem to have a better infobox for jengod (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems like it could lead to a lot of time-consuming conversion if I'm understanding correctly. Even if it could be done seamlessly and instantly, without inconvenience, I'd still be Soft Oppose as it just feels unnecessary. AvRand (talk) 18:49, 2 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.