Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 29
October 1 >

September 30

Template:Uw-3rr-alt

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 7. Izno (talk) 19:12, 7 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:Vanuatuan president elections

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Vanuatuan elections. Izno (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Vanuatuan president elections with Template:Vanuatuan elections.
No need to have a discrete template for two links --woodensuperman 10:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom; while the presidential election template represents indirect elections, it fails WP:NENAN due to having insufficient links. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 08:29, 3 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:Infobox uncontested presidential election small

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) 19:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Only 3 uses. Extremely rare occurrence that doesn’t warrant its own infobox. Just use {{Infobox election}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:44, 30 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.

Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox election campaign. Izno (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign with Template:Infobox election campaign.
This is nearly identical to {{Infobox election campaign}} with only a few additional params that can easily be added. Ironically this actually has nearly 3 times as many transclusions, but I still think we don’t want to start down the road of custom campaign infoboxes for every country that holds elections. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomination. Not much I could really add here. CharlieEdited (talk) 00:58, 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.

Template:Infobox Philippine election campaign

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) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on the documentation and the sample infobox, this is an exact duplicate of {{Infobox election campaign}}. No need to make a custom one for each country, particularly when the infobox is identical… Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:36, 30 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.

Template:Infobox Indian elections

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 8. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 8 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:Infobox general election

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 Withdraw. The template in question is still very much a WIP. TFD is premature at this time. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Remains unused and not clear what the purpose of this is. We have {{Infobox election}}. We do not need another election infobox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep as template creator. Infobox is unused as it is still undergoing development. Development of a new election Infobox template was previously discussed at WT:E&R. It's worth also noting that the template was previously nominated at this entry and closed 4 days ago as no consensus without prejudice to re-nomination. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: perhaps you can shed some light on why a new election template is needed? What makes this different from {{Infobox election}}? Why is it an improvement to have a second template? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
You can find the rationale for a new template with a purely vertical structure (instead of row of 3 and new row) but that which can still contain additional elements and images at the E&R discussion DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: there is no discussion at the link you provided… can you please link to the discussion? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 30#Looking for infobox reviews! and Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Making it aesthetically pleasing DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: ah there it is! Much appreciated! —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a work in progress; it has been discussed for several years that the layout of {{Infobox election}} is quite poor and that the layout used by French/Spanish Wikipedias may be better. This template is a trial of how that might look on en.wiki. Number 57 13:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Number 57: see my comments here. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 1 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:Infobox New Zealand local election

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) 19:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a very slipper slope. Do we really need election infoboxes for every nations LOCAL (not even national) elections? Would result in literally hundreds of infoboxes. We have a wonderful {{Infobox election}}. The 9 occurrences of this template should be replaced with that. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As the guy who made it, I was actually planning on changing it, just been busy lately. Thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@TheLoyalOrder: is there something that makes New Zealand local elections unique from other elections? I.E. some reason that {{Infobox election}} cannot function for these elections? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
i dont think Infobox Election worked that well since they are not really leader centric elections. even if they were, like looking at 2025 United Kingdom local elections which uses it I just think its cluttered and ugly the way they've used it.
I've switched all uses of this template to use the legislative election template. I hadn't used it because I didn't realise you can hide the leader and percentage columns (if you dont there's just tons of white space in this example, but you can toggle it hidden so I've done that). Feel free to delete Infobox New Zealand local election TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:56, 30 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.

Template:Birth based on age as of dates

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Birth based on age as of date. I am not really sure what the best name for the template is (pick one when the one supports the other), but supporting the functionality in Lua rather than having multiple templates is a clear consensus. Izno (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Birth based on age as of dates with Template:Birth based on age as of date.
The Dates template functions just like the Date template except with an extra set of age and date parameters. I don't see why they can't be merged. Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Support Lua Who will do the merge? Because one template is Lua (dates, made in 2024), the other is wikitext (date, made in 2009). I would support retaining/expanding the Lua code to support all features now, and in the future. I do not support an in-effect deletion of the newer Lua code by way of a merger into the old wikitext. -- GreenC 15:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak support Lua, oppose wikitext. I specifically created the "dates" template as the original "date" template (that didn't use Lua) couldn't handle multiple dates – which I still don't think is feasible with only wikitext. Expanding the Lua code to handle the old template's features could definitely be feasible (and might make maintenance easier in the future), although, given its wider range of use, extra care should be given to make sure there aren't errors with edge cases when merging. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Lua definitely should be done in LUA. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:24, 1 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.

Social media personality infoboxes

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox social media personality. Izno (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Propose merging the above listed tempaltes to a unified Template:Infobox social media personality. All of these templates essentially display the same information and are forks of each other. Would require minimal work to unify them to one template and leave the originals as redirects. How long before we have a custom infobox for Pinterest stars? Or a famous Reddit users infobox? Or Bluesky influencers? Social media isn’t going away anytime soon, we don’t need a separate infobox for each platform.

This reminds me of the MANY templates that have been merged to {{Infobox person}}. Above I have included the current transclusions count of each template (with the link for most up to date stats). —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge Unfortunately, I think this is going to be more complicated to consolidate than it may appear. There are many articles that chain at least two of these templates together, typically YouTube and Twitch, which have overlapping parameters. Despite that, this is absolutely worth pursuing. There are already far too many forked social media infoboxes and this problem would only get worse as time goes on. Also, we should use this opportunity to review the parameters in these templates and cleanup the bloat (remove YouTube Awards, remove Associated acts, remove colored headers or at least disable them by default, etc.) Prefall 07:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
100% support the removing of the color. To quote from MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE, A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. As for the complication of the merge, I’m happy to take that on if this goes through. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
To add to this, I also think we need to remove subscriber and total views counts. They do not serve much purpose, and get outdated pretty easily. I'm fine with achievements and events related to milestones from those being added to the infobox if it's too significant to just remain in the body text, but the subscribers and views count in general both have no encyclopedic purpose in the article. GrafiXal (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't have much to add on the specifics, but I recently expressed concern over the name of a company being used in the title of a bio article to denote the subject's career (see Talk:Michael Stevens (YouTuber)#(YouTuber)). There, I suggested terms like "content creator", "influencer" or "vlogger" could be preferable, though "social media personality" as you've proposed here might cover even more bases. I feel like if we were to move away from infoboxes that are specific to the company/website through which the person happened to initially gain notability, and towards a consolidated infobox template for people whose careers and pathways to fame are functionally very similar, that would be a step in the right direction towards addressing my concern. Neegzistuoja (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge they are the same thing. But there will need to be parameters for each platform because combining all the platform data into one parameter would be SYNTH. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Earth605talk 19:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge - I share concerns with Prefall over its complications, but in the long run it would be easier to manage assuming it's implemented in a feasible manner. Namewise, I'd prefer "Internet" personality over "Social media" personality considering the proposed inclusions of YouTube, Twitch and Kick. Between those platforms it's still fairly debatable whether they would count as either social media in the traditional sense (as in, a platform focused on user connectivity through direct networking) or content platforms (mediums for video streaming or uploading). Some may say the distinction no longer matters because of their recent hybrid approaches, but to me it's the difference between a convention for the former and a theater or concert for the latter. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge: It's less redundant and more practical to have one infobox for it. Removing colors also seems reasonable to me, especially since people often merge infoboxes with color to a colorless {{Infobox person}} anyway (though, I think removing colors from only the subject name ["|title=" or "|name="] in the infobox would be okay as well!). —GrafiXal (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @ViperSnake151, any comment for these problem?! 158.140.164.28 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge - Agree with Prefall's sentiments. Many of these parameters should be removed (especially associated acts... who decides that? There's almost never sources to support it) and fully support the removal of color. – Pbrks (t·c) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I know nothing of this proposal, but I say merge per nom. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 03:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomination - Jjpachano (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Substack writer, X account, and YouTubers or streamers should not be treated the same. They have different purviews, with different impact metrics, and merging parameters for platforms may result in loss of important information.
Separately, does the merging warning need to appear in the infobox for now? All articles using those infoboxes have this warning and I don't see how it helps the non-editor users of Wikipedia.
Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The merged infobox would ideally support all of the necessary parameters for each individual platform or occupation. They would just be under the same umbrella. Being split by platform makes them harder to maintain and to even keep track of. Prefall 11:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge - I also concur with Prefall. However, I prefer PantheonRadiance's suggestion of using "Internet personality" over "Social media personality". Getting this merge underway is crucial. As an evolving template, once the merge is completed, any needed revisions to certain parameters will be easier to gauge. MinWat247 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge. This distinction is unnecessary, and I think can be confusing, especially if a person has accounts on multiple platforms and is not known especially for any one of them in particular. Merge per nom otherwise. Cottagechez (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, like nominator said, more social media apps loom and to create more and more is unneeded. – Meena • 12:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge as there are too many social media platforms to deal with and there obviously will be more. harukaamaranth 13:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge because this could easily get out of hand (I can think of a few popular Tumblr blogs that might become notable one day, for example). Not only that, it arguably already is out of hand, and merging them would make things much simpler and easier for editors. We don't need a separate infobox for each platform. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, in disagreement with with Prefall, Zackmann. & GrafiXal, if these templates are to be merged, I believe that each of the template individual color should also be merged into the greater Social media personality infobox as they serve as decent dividers / separators for people that are multiple platforms and that statistical items such as subscriber & view count be kept as it's semi-supportive of a creator's notability and that items such as associated acts be merged into an "Others" section. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    While I disagree, that will certainly be part of the discussion if/when these are merged. Plus it can always been added later. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    Agree. While I understand the idea of wanting to avoid overstyling things, color helps things stand out and find information that most people care about (Example: Template:Infobox officeholder).
    I understand that numbers get quickly outdated regarding subscriber/follower counts and views, but it does help to know how popular someone is. Perhaps use some Lua logic so it styles things like: (11,354 -> Over 10,000, 123,000 -> Over 100,000, 1,233,400 -> Over 1,000,000, 6,123,000 -> Over 5 million, 11,223,444 -> over 10 million ) GeekInParadise (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, as most social media personalities are on multiple platforms. Some1 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. SpartanMazda (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, redundant, overlapping infoboxes when ideally, they should be as minimal as possible to aid navigation. jolielover♥talk 04:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge per nom, but also with the caveat that the individual platforms' respective colours also be retained per A.Classical-Futurist and GeekInParadise so that individual statistics are as accessible as they currently are. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 12:27, 7 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.
Postscript

The idea here is fine (as is show by the support above). However, the implementation of the change-over has been sub-optimal; we can read the slow build-up aftermath at Template talk:Infobox social media personality. Two weeks after closure, the proposed template still lacks feature parity. The proposed JWB bot-code samples are stated to silent delete multiple accounts—and yet, mass script/bot edits have taken place, with less-than-expected levels of review. Rather tellingly, there is the retrospective contemplation of whether an WP:RFC might have been appropriate.

One would sincerely hope that any should future proposals (eg. templates actively used on 1k+ articles) be made; the proposers will be strongly invited to demonstrate feature parity before closure; and ideally before proposal. And to seek the appropriate reviews (WP:RFC, WP:BRFA, …) beforehand, and not as an after-thought. In summary: great initial idea, but many learning opportunities. —Sladen (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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) 02:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No transclusions [edited to add: or a few remaining transclusions, for some of them; see the first comment below, and the linked discussion]. This discussion appears to have resulted in orphaning these templates. Pinging Prefall, McPhail, and Mann Mann from that discussion for comment. We can add more of those templates to this formal deletion discussion if you like. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete You beat me to it. Template:Dragongateusa profile no longer has any transclusions and can be deleted too. Template:Wrestlingtitlesperson has two transclusions, but they can either by converted to regular links or the functionality can be added to Module:Professional wrestling profiles. I'm also working my way through Template:WWE superstar, Template:Roh roster and Template:NJPW profile, but they still have a combined 500+ transclusions—most of those will be redundant or have link rot, and their functionality can be merged into the consolidated profiles module too. Prefall 02:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I have added all of those to this nomination. Please do not panic or worry that you need to suddenly get rid of all of the transclusions. This discussion is just a formal version of the project discussion that you had locally, to create a TFD record of these templates being discussed. If the TFD closes as "delete", you can eliminate the transclusions at your own pace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
That's good to know, thanks. All tranclusions have already been cleared. Template:Roh roster can be added to this nomination, as well. Prefall 19:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I missed that one, and now a few days have gone by. I had to create a new TFD to give it a full week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. They are already obsolete due to several reasons; e.g. link rot, defunct company or even an active company without permanent links (alumni, archive, or profile database), more useful as citation rather than being external link, and etc. {{Professional wrestling profiles}} includes the ones that are useful and it is enough. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. These templates are becoming obsolete anyway. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 03:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 5 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:Graph:Map with marks

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) 02:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Deprecated and effectively unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:47, 30 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.

Template:Graph:PageHistory

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) 02:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Deprecated and lightly used. Suggest deleting all instances without replacement as none amount to anything more than decoration even if they worked. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete by my read, it doesn’t even work anymore. No uses in articles either so no need to preserve. — Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:06, 30 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI