Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13

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 after subs'ing to preserve the wikilinks. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Military Exploit Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fatherland Defense Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Feat Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Gold Star Order (Vietnam) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Hero of Labor (Vietnam) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Hero of the People's Armed Forces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ho Chi Minh Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Independence Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Labor Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

now that the images have been removed, there is no advantage to using these over a standard wikilinks Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Subst and delete all of em. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 deprecate from mainspace. Izno (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Wikinews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to close down all Wikinews projects (see: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Board of Trustees Approves Closure of Wikinews in Meta-Wiki), so I'm unsure if we will need this for the forseeable future. Because of this, using this template on articles created after May 4 will be useless because you cannot create a Wikinews article about it.

At first glance it may seem like an easy decision, however I do obviously think this has an impact on around 3,278 pages, most of which will be affected if we delete it. We have to make a wise decision here. - SimpleObjects-9ei 🌸/🌻/🌞 21:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• At first I was convinced that I would be for deletion here given that this box only seems to be useful for external links sections in articles where we should not link a dead project but there are apparently 375 transclusions outsode of main space which is vastly more than I expected. Deletion with significant amounts of removals and substitutions may still be an option but so could making the template not display in mainspace. I'm torn and would like to hear the opinion of others. Trialpears (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think Ed said it well. Deprecate and remove all main space usses Trialpears (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to keep it. The Wikinews articles will still stay, right? It could provide further reading for a topic if someone wants to know more, that reflects the time period it happened in. We could just not use it after May 4th. Waylon (was) (here) 18:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Waylon111 yes the site will still be there but in a read only mode. I do however think the closure makes it significantly less suitable for inclusion in the external link. As a reminder WP:EL states that Links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum and we usually do not include links to other news sites in this short section. As a closed project I don't think it's suitable to give wikinews any preferential treatment anymore and an extra visible box definitely is that. As I'm writing this I do however realize that we don't have as hard a guideline against unsupported websites as external links as I remembered. Trialpears (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Deprecate and begin replacing. I would not presuppose that any current use is invalid because the site is closing down. However, a deprecation may be in order, and a transition of existing uses into normal external links where the template is in a normal External links section. Whether or not to include Wikinews as an EL can continue to be an editorial decision for the individual article. There may be a need to for a further discussion if unexpected uses emerge. CMD (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Deprecate per CMD, and treat Wikinews like other non-Wikimedia external links. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Deprecate and remove all mainspace uses of the template per my comments at WP:VPR#Removing Template:Wikinews and similar from articles?. With Wikinews no longer being a sister project, links to it fall under WP:EL and most won't meet the criteria laid out there. E.g. I'm not so sure Wikinews meets WP:ELNO #1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article") or WP:OPENWIKI, as arguably Wikinews does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (my italics). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting that if this template goes, {{Wikinews category}} and {{Wikinews inline}} should also be depreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate per Ed, and support deprecating Wikinews category and Wikinews inline too. Horsers (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Deprecate per CMD. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Affected by the transition (through parameters only, mostly) are {{Subject bar}}, {{Sister bar}}, {{Sister project links}}, {{Sister project auto}}, etc. Not sure if we can easily check how many total pages include a Wikinews link but with these it will be more than 3,278. –Chchowmein (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:VAR goal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created about two months ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:BarnstarNominee (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 Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:AFB game stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Unused and it's hard to imagine a potential use. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete as unused. Creator does not seem to have followed up — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Guatemalan diaspora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. One incoming link from a discussion requesting its creation, but with only two blue links, it is not useful for navigation. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Uw-notenglishedit-sr (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 Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:K-pop track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. This is normal for TfD. Please read the instructions. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Template for discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

When on templates in TfD it unnecessarily makes the back end of Wikipedia intrude into article content, which is not of interest to readers and simply looks strange. For example, just look at 2026 FIFA World Cup. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:2026 FIFA World Cup sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2022 FIFA World Cup sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sidebar duplicates the functionality of the existing navboxes, {{2026 FIFA World Cup}} and {{2026 FIFA World Cup qualification}}. We do not need two sets of navigational boxes covering the same set of articles, see WP:NAVBOX. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to the navbox. Navboxes are basically always better than sidebars anyways, as they don't take up valuable horizontal space (causing sandwiching) or valuable lead space (pushing article content down). Toadspike [Talk] 19:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - not needed when there is a navbox. GiantSnowman 19:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 13:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Catholic_saints (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 Delete; deleted as T5 by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Windows 11 versions/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused style template. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete - WP:T5, no need for a full TFD here... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 as T5 by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Windows 10 versions/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused style template. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete - WP:T5, no need for a full TFD here... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:World War II military casualties chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused chart. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:World War II civilian casualties chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused chart. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:World War II casualties bar chart thumb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused chart. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Wives of Hussein of Jordan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament qualifying teams navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template after all pages were deleted here. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:London_Overground_Lioness_Line_RDT (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 Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:GBLA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused political party seat number template. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Former Super Rugby teams maps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map template. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Essendon District Football League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages, let me know and I'll withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:El Paso Subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Curcent (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 2026 April 22. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Countdown2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Countdown2 (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 Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Africa Cup of Nations maps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. Images don't really need navigation templates and should use categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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. Izno (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:1985–86 in West German football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template. If added to all pages, let me know and I'll withdraw my nomination. Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Oops! I have added it to relevant pages now, so I would appreciate the nomination being withdrawn. Best wishes, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Great! Withdrawn. Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:1963 Northern Illinois Junior College Conference football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused standings template. 1963 junior college football season does not exist. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Now used in two articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Page does exist and is used in another article. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:! Broadcaster. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table of unclear subject. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see what purpose this actually serves Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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⚡ 21:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Diplomatic missions in Chad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template containing only a single existing English-language article, and that is on a non-resident mission. Not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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. Short version of points from this discussion and my analysis:

• NPOV and original synthesis concerns should be raised on Template talk:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar with respect to specific articles that are included. If reliable sources can be shown to relate the topic of the linked article to the topic of the template or the subtopic under which they are listed, they can be kept.
• "Democratic backsliding" may be read as more neutral than "Authoritarian drift", but I leave that up to a separate discussion as that was not the specific question being asked here.
• Second presidency of Donald Trump § Authoritarianism may be a better target for the header text link; I also leave that up to further discussion.
• A merge into Template:Second presidency of Donald Trump might be appropriate after further discussion.

Details:

More editors supporting keeping this template, with some suggesting "keep and improve". Arguments for deletion were met with convincing rebuttals.

WP:SIDEBAR was frequently cited as a relevant guideline, and I looked at the arguments as they related to the points in that guideline numbered 1-5.

This topic has been established in reliable academic sources as a coherent subject (1), and these articles would tend to be listed in "See also" sections (5).

(4) is a bit problematic. Democratic backsliding in the United States does not seem to fit the scope of the template as well as Second presidency of Donald Trump § Authoritarianism. Given the extensive complexity and coverage of the subject, that section might need to be expanded into an article like Trump and authoritarianism (similar to Donald Trump and fascism); that would make a logical main article. There was also a suggested to spin off a Trump-specific subarticle from Democratic backsliding in the United States, though coverage of Trump is spread throughout the "21st century" section of that article.

For the articles I spot-checked, the leaf articles do mention the larger context (2) and higher-level articles do link to at least some of the leaf articles (3).

WP:NPOV concerns were raised, though the implied claims being made seem to be relatively uncontroversial in academic circles - for example that targeting political enemies with prosecutions is authoritarian. Some people may be conflating that with the question of whether or not these developments are good or bad, though applying the label "authoritarian" might be considered negative, even by people who support an authoritarian approach. Original synthesis concerns were also raised. It was convincingly argued that if any linked articles cannot be connected to the topic of the template by a reliable source, they should be removed from the template. Most of the existing linked articles should have no problem doing that, if they don't already.

There was a question raised as to whether this template would be better as a horizontal navbox instead of a vertical sidebar, given the guidance on this in WP:SIDEBAR. By my reading, the linked articles do seem quite tightly related to the topic, though the display text does not always make that clear. In the process of checking to see if a horizontal navbar would logistically be a better fit, I found that Template:Second presidency of Donald Trump already has a "Democratic backsliding" section. Merging this template into that one would reduce the prominence of the collection of links that some people are objecting to, avoid the term "Authoritarian drift", reduce redundancy, and add some missing links to the existing navbar. Because no one noticed this during this discussion, I think a "merge" outcome would not be an appropriate close, so I will just say that if someone wants to propose such a merge, this close should not be read as prohibiting that (but please don't just immediately re-propose deletion of this template or both templates). -- Beland (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC) Beland (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has been created owing to the current political situation in the United States, but this creates WP:RECENCY bias, and notably the head article that the template links to is not just about the last 15 months of politics, but is about the long history of Democratic backsliding in the United States (and scholars note that Trump is merely reaping the returns of a long history of democratic backsliding. See, e.g., ). Thus there is no head article for this template subject, and the wider WP:SIDEBAR for democratic backsliding in the US would not look like this. The template as it stands contains POV in the curation (not so much in recognising the backsliding, which is well attested, but in positioning it as a recent phenomenon). A WP:SIDEBAR must be a small and closely related collation of articles, but if collation is carried out by template editors, there is also a curious synthesis here. We are defining a subject that is not so narrowly and specifically defined, and is not so partisan. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Might very well be possible to create a sidebar on this topic eventually but we need to make the article first for it to be appropriate. Trialpears (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Concurring with the Tfd request and first opinion. One or more theses already published outside Wikipedia forming the basis of an accepted Wikipedia article with the title Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration should be the starting point. Group29 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete There is no other template called "authoritarian drift/democratic backsliding of *one administration/country*" or similar. Could be maybe "Democratic backsliding by country". HudecEmil (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Infoboxes and nav templates like this should be kept to objective aspects, there is just too much subjective nature for this to be neutral. The type of information covered need article-body context space to be included, which is available elsewhere, just not in a navigation template. Masem (t) 15:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong keep, namely per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE which advocate fixing problems rather than deleting articles/templates in their entirety when the articles/templates in question can be salvaged. This template may be flawed, but that is not a reason to delete the template in its entirety. I am very open to radically restructuring the template which clearly corresponds to some sort of pattern in the Trump administration identified by WP:RS (whether democratic backsliding, authoritarian drift, or otherwise) and therefore should exist in some capacity.

• The template has been created owing to the current political situation in the United States, but this creates WP:RECENCY bias How? Creating a template about recent events is not inherently violating of WP:RECENCY so you need to explain why it allegedly does so rather than just saying it does with no evidence to back it up.
• there is no head article for this template subject If there are problems with it being called "authoritarian drift" rather than "democratic backsliding", that's a reason to rename the template back to "democratic backsliding", not to delete the template entirely.
• If there are problems with restricting the article's scope to Trump 2 because the democratic backsliding article details the entire history of democratic backsliding in the United States (rather than only Trump 2), that's a reason to A) expand the template's scope to be inclusive of the most notable democratic backsliding instances in U.S. history or B) create a Trump 2 democratic backsliding/authoritarian drift article that will correspond to this sidebar, not to delete the sidebar entirely.
• The template as it stands contains POV in the curation (not so much in recognising the backsliding, which is well attested, but in positioning it as a recent phenomenon) No it does not. Saying there is authoritarian drift/democratic backsliding during Trump 2 in no way implies there was no authoritarian drift/democratic backsliding before Trump 2.
• Another user saying there is just too much subjective nature for this to be neutral This is about articles related to Trump 2. An article being on the sidebar does not imply it is a clear-cut instance of democratic backsliding. All sidebars have a subjective element so this is not a criticism of this sidebar in particular as much as it is a criticism of all sidebars in general.
• Sirfurboy says this template engages in synthesis but does not explain how or why. It is implied this is because articles are not closely related enough to the topic, but that's again a reason to remove unrelated articles from the sidebar rather than delete it in its entirety. How unrelated must an article be for it not to be included? That's something we should discuss on the article talk page.
• Speaking more directly on the WP:SYNTH allegation: if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, but looking like a duck alone or walking like a duck alone are not sufficient to establish that it's a duck, but WP:RS say that it is in fact a duck, then using WP:COMMONSENSE to put the looking and walking like a duck under the umbrella of being related to the allegation of being a duck (as reported by WP:RS) is not WP:SYNTH because common sense is not synthesis. Also, synthesis does not apply to talk pages meaning, in the context of meta decisions like which articles we can include on sidebars, we can use some amount of SYNTH to determine what belongs where on the sidebar. This is what we did in Template:Gaza genocide sidebar by synthesizing information to include things that are not directly related like List of companies involved in the Gaza war, and WP:EDITCON on the Gaza genocide sidebar has determined that doing so is fully appropriate even though the article makes no explicit mention of the Gaza genocide.

Look... when I created this template, I knew there would be challenges and issues. I expected these issues and notified several talk pages as I was creating it to receive feedback. But rather than simply deleting it in its entirety, let's figure something out because clearly it has the potential to be beneficial to Wikipedia even if you don't believe it's perfect in its current form. I'm open to doing the bulk of the extra work radically restructuring it, e.g., to expand scope if that's what it will take to preserve the template. It just doesn't make sense to completely remove this template simply because a corollary article for Trump 2 demo backsliding/auth drift doesn't exist yet. We can rename or trim this sidebar in the meantime but deleting it feels extreme, especially when the demo backsliding article it links to is so closely related with the only difference being the time period examined. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I recognize that this is a difficult issue, and that we are early in the progression from recentism to established consensus in the source material, so I do not discount the arguments for deletion. But I see this as something that is sufficiently well backed up by secondary sourcing that we should not shrink from including it on the basis of it being contentious. The template subject is recognized by no less than a NATO-associated organization: , scholarly journals: and , and law professors: . Are we lacking a Wikipedia article on the subject, that we ought to have first, before having a template? No, we have Democratic backsliding in the United States, which specifically covers what has occurred in Trump's second term, so that argument is not based on facts. (You can blame me for having changed the template name and header from "Democratic backsliding", per these two talk discussions: 1 , 2, but please don't be confused by the terminology.) Is it important to also recognize the history of drift pre-Trump? Yes, of course, but the solution is to have another such template, covering earlier times, and use each template appropriately on pages where it applies. Is there a valid issue, that this template might need to have some insufficiently-sourced entries deleted, and might need to be removed from some pages where it was applied, in order to avoid original research? Yes, but that should be done through normal editing, rather than through deletion. So is there an unemotional and policy-based case to be made for deletion? Well, I accept that good-faith editors can disagree about that, but I think not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, inclusion of a lot of these entries is POV, and as a topic this doesn't meet point 1 at WP:SIDEBAR (All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.), nor point 2 (The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.), nor point 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:SIDEBAR is a guideline, and Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus and should generally be followed, though with occasional exceptions. I think this makes sense as an exception because so many multifaceted and often interchangeable terms are used in the sidebar and important context beneficial to the reader would be lost via a stricter interpretation. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, a concoction of OR and POV that, as explained above, does not fulfill the purpose of a sidebar. Optionally, we can delete all other sidebars along with this one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Tryptofish. And I agree with Alexandraaaacs1989 that any insufficiencies can be fixed or repaired, rather than resorting to an outright deletion of an otherwise very useful and helpful template. Support renaming the template to something more suitable, if that is what consensus decides here. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Alexandraaaacs. Unlike the recency questions around the Democratic Backsliding article, this sidebar has a very specific remit, relating to a well-defined period and range of activities. It's plainly notable - it's been extensively discussed in news media, specialist literature, and general current affairs books. To respond specifically to Thebiguglyalien's !vote: (1) Simply saying 'POV' when the item in question is about a contentious political topic cuts no ice with me. Editors must learn to distinguish between well-founded, reasonably balanced coverage of a topic which is itself the subject of intense politics, and coverage which actively pushes a specific political perspective. If we can write NPOV articles and supporting materials about the Paris Commune or Stalin's purges, we can do it here too. (2) No, we should not 'delete all other sidebars along with this one'. Firstly, because that's well beyond the scope of this discussion. Secondly, because such a proposal smacks of WP:NOSE. Let's try and do some good with the situation that is actually before us. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I found the "keep" positions in this poll more convincing. Dont have nothing to elaborate, just thought it would be important to take a stand. ~2026-17989-91 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep And synthesize! In the Portuguese Wikipedia we have some sidebars of this type and at least it's common to reach a balanced consensus using milder terms, since Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese from Portugal have enormous differences in semantics and tone! Seeing it from outside the United States, and being an academic in International Law, I suggest that you simply replace the terms in the title with something less polarizing in your language (English) and that remains easy to identify for those of us from other countries who don't have English as our native language. Brazilian Portuguese, for example, is a combination of more than 270 languages and dialects; we have to adjust as a nation to understand each other, especially on sensitive topics like this one! Luannabertholdominardi (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep—we are the frog in boiling water scenario. It helps to have a source where we can see past our noses to the larger perspective. A template like this is helpful. Facts matter. Domestic news organizations are under pressure not to give the whole story or to bury it. News articles from countries with more experience with authoritarian governments can help us see where we are, whether it is an authoritarian direction or drift or a backsliding of democratic governments. Put both titles or tone it down a little bit the template should be kept and tweaked. It helps us see disparate sources in one place. ~2026-20850-12 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep Especially Because of Trump's flood the zone strategy, a navigation aid is uniquely needed for reader that want to keep track of the different policies involved. There are definitely improvements to be made, but deletion is not the solution. If a sidebar is too intrusive or puts undue weight on this theme in the included articles, a conversion to a bottom navbox should be undertaken instead of deletion. Eigenbra (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I think that both the recency and POV problems can be ameliorated by reworking the template's singular focus on the Trump administration. This would also bring it in line with the conclusion of many scholars and Wikipedia's own content, which is clear that US democratic backsliding did not begin with Trump. This broader subject matter is more notable, less hyperpartisan and less inherently recentist. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep if template's name changed back to "democratic backsliding" because of extensive media coverage about it and almost every expert has been openly decrying Trump's actions as authoritarian; I don't think we're necessarily ready to call it an "authoritarian drift" because it's not ready yet and the language can be overtly negative. There are several reasons for this:

• • The recently released data in V-Dem's Democracy Report 2026 shows that the United States has lost its longstanding liberal democracy status, but it hasn't lost its overall democracy status just yet. Nevertheless, the report shows that the US is experiencing one of the fastest episodes of autocratization since Nazi Germany in 1933, and certainly the fastest in the country's history.
  • Freedom House only declined the US by 3 points instead of 30 (out of 100) in which they're supposed to because it has gotten so bad.
  • Lastly, we have yet to see The Economist's Democracy Index for 2025, but I'm certain it's going to be very ugly for the US.

• Also, there's a lot to go in the Trump presidency, only 14 months out of 48, and it's only going to get A LOT WORSE. Either way, the four years of chaos will put a permanent scar in American history. harukaamaranth 13:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The template was named "Democratic backsliding during the second Trump administration". Do you mean it should be changed to "Democratic backsliding" (a global reach), or perhaps "Democratic backsliding in the United States" (matching the head article) or that it should be kept as a narrow focus on the events of the last 14 months only? (For which we have no head article). Shouldn't the head article precede the editor collation of "tightly related" articles? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A quick note on I don't think we're necessarily ready to call it an "authoritarian drift" because it's not ready yet and the language can be overtly negative - authoritarian drift doesn't imply we are currently authoritarian; it merely implies that we are drifting in the direction of authoritarianism. Democratic backsliding is a type of authoritarian drift, and therefore if democratic backsliding is occurring, it necessarily follows that authoritarian drift is occurring. Not trying to die on the "authoritarian drift" hill right now, but I felt it was important to clarify! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete — Per Thebiguglyalien. I'm not compelled by arguments that specifically criticize the Trump administration. Rather, the sidebar itself is fundamentally broken. WP:SIDEBAR notes that sidebars are "prominently displayed to readers", and I'm inclined to believe that framing; the mention of any democratic backsliding in the second Trump presidency would certainly need several citations, so presenting it as if it were an uncontroversial claim is malpractice. The articles themselves seem tangentially related at times. In general, I can't see how this is a beneficial sidebar. Many of these are complex topics that either do not have sufficient coverage on Wikipedia—election investigations come to mind immediately—or would benefit from a separate sidebar, as there is already one for immigration. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per Elijah. Bremps... 13:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  the mention of any democratic backsliding in the second Trump presidency would certainly need several citations, so presenting it as if it were an uncontroversial claim is malpractice We have plenty of citations for this claim. There's an entire article about democratic backsliding, most of which focuses on Trump 2. Do you want me to list citations for this claim here? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Alexandraaaacs1989

  @ElijahPepe

  Yes, I think it would be helpful to include some citations to help bring Mr. Pepe up to speed, and to improve the discussion here with some qualitative proof, bolstering the arguments for keeping the template and etc. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  If it were a clear claim to make, it would be in the lede of Trump's article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's in the lede of Second presidency of Donald Trump, which is a very high-visibility and heavily-scrutinized article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  It should not be on there in the first place. There are only three references for Trump's actions against civil society have been described by legal experts and political scientists as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding, and one of them does not mention authoritarianism or democratic backsliding at all. Notifying BootsED, since the edit was attributed to them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  @ElijahPepe You are shifting the goalpost now. At first your argument was "this needs to be mentioned in the lead", but ahem, it IS in the lead. And now you are saying "oh well, umm, it ONLY has three citations!" and that somehow invalidates the inclusion of this information from being in the lead? Is there actually a policy that you can point to that says some piece of information requires a specific number of citations for that to be lead-worthy? I've never heard of such a thing, and am feeling somewhat confused by your train of thought here. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I never said it was a requirement. I said it was indicative that there is not a strong enough claim, and I haven't been disproven yet. To your point: It is about quality and quantity. I am not an expert on policy, but WP:CONTENTIOUS likely applies. There needs to be strong evidence beyond two of the same publication, of which one article doesn't mention authoritarianism at all and the other cites one expert's review. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Elijah. What edit/sentence are you referring to specifically? In regards to the sidebar I wasn’t involved in its creation. BootsED (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe ElijahPepe is referring to this sentence in the body of the article: "Trump's actions against civil society have been described by legal experts and political scientists as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding ..."

  If those three existing citations which follow that text aren't enough, then I've got some more which could be included to help bolster the "democratic backsliding" language here. Take your pick:

  • The Guardian: US democracy has settled into diminished state, experts find
  • Reuters: US democratic backsliding under Trump encourages autocrats globally, democracy watchdog says
  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective
  • El Pais: The United States loses its status as a liberal democracy: ‘Trump is aiming for a dictatorship’
  • El Pais: Trump’s authoritarian drift pushes the US towards a constitutional crisis
  • El Pais: Trump deepens authoritarian drift with deployment of 700 Marines and additional 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles
  • El Pais: Troops in Washington and Fed dismissals: Trump embraces authoritarian drift

  Hope that helps! ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Four of these are from the same publication, and the remainder discuss experts. What you are asking is if Bright Line Watch, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, V-Dem, and El País alone are enough to support the claim being made. Four indices and one newspaper, not seven sources. From that, only El País points to an "authoritarian drift"; the indices instead report democratic backsliding. It is an important distinction, because the claim in the infobox is that the United States is ensuring an autocratic rule, not that its democratic institutions are being dismantled.

  If you'll propose that the infobox be changed to reflect democratic backsliding, I would argue that is still a contentious point. MOS:LABEL offers the best guidance in broadly stating that contentious claims should be "widely used by reliable sources". The three news organizations and one institution—which likely should not be on here as a primary source—haven't embraced the label, are only reporting that democratic backsliding has occurred. It would be a firmer claim if there was scholarship or at least similar verbiage from reliable sources. If I search "democratic backsliding in Hungary" in Google Scholar, there are a few articles, and The New York Times has called Hungary a "soft autocracy". I'm not seeing that outright terminology in reliable sources past what you've provided in El País. The indices themselves might be useful indicators, but alone, it is the tail wagging the dog on whether the U.S. is actually veering away from a democracy. The article on democratic backsliding in the United States leans into those indices heavily. I am aware that much of the article is about specific actions, but the article is actually not weaving those points together. In other words, it's a patchwork of various claims. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Alexandraaaacs1989

  @BootsED

  @ElijahPepe

  Here are some more high-quality source links:

  • The Guardian: American democracy on the brink a year after Trump's inauguration, experts say
  • Le Monde: Donald Trump and the Putinization of American politics (in French)
  • Handelsblatt: How Donald Trump is building an autocratic system (in German)

  And two slightly less authoritative articles:

  • Financial Times: How steep is Trump's democratic backsliding? (an opinion piece, good infographics)
  • Handelsblatt: "Trump does not follow the traditional script for autocrats"] (in German, an interview with Harvard political scientist Daniel Ziblatt)

  Hope this helps, please include any of these relevant sources into the article as you see fit! ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  An opinion article is unacceptable for citing this claim, so let's start there. The second Handelsblatt article is only an interview, so it represents one person's view. I can read both of the international articles, and I'm not exactly sure that either support the conclusion that authoritarian drift is occurring. Le Monde compares Trump to Putin—Wikipedia mentions that Putin's regime is authoritarian, but the article seems to want to describe the United States as going down a "pente illibérale"; in other words, the United States is set to be an illiberal democracy, not an authoritarian regime, which is an important distinction that even critics of the term "illiberal democracy" want to denote with terms such as "electoral authoritarianism". The impression I had from the first Handelsblatt article is that Trump is consolidating his authority, but that doesn't mean authoritarianism is imminent. The only time that "Autoritarismus" is mentioned is with Ziblatt's claim. The Guardian mentions "authoritarian regimes" several times, but only makes the connection with the aforementioned Ziblatt.

  What I am getting at here is that the lack of a definitive statement on what Trump is doing is indicative that it isn't appropriate to make a judgment call yet. The Guardian says democracy is faltering—and even in its own article it explicitly says, "Some argue the US is a 'flawed' or 'illiberal' democracy, or a democracy facing substantial 'autocratization' – a process that began long before Trump came to power a decade ago but which his presidency has rapidly accelerated"; Le Monde describes it as "poutinisation", which is similar to an argument Peter Baker made a year ago; and Handelsblatt simultaneously says that Trump is establishing an "autokratisches System" but quotes Ziblatt. That has implications for this sidebar. How many sources explicitly say that authoritarian drift is occurring? Can that even be weighed against "democratic backsliding", which is frankly a term that likely appears more in sources? Do sources describe a difference between the two, or is the debate ambiguous? Those are questions that have to be asked before a sidebar can even be assembled on what is clearly a contentious label. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Elijah, I think the crux of this disagreement is that your understanding of the words "authoritarian drift" is different than ours. Democratic backsliding is a kind of authoritarian drift, meaning that since Wikipedia acknowledges democratic backsliding it therefore acknowledges authoritarian drift. It's only logical. The very beginning of the very first sentence in the democratic backsliding article says Democratic backsliding is a form of autocratization, a process of regime change toward authoritarianism. Towards authoritarianism, i.e., authoritarian drift. So what you are arguing is actually in the minority position with respect to editor consensus in the democratic backsliding article.

  But let's examine this closer. You mention us turning into other things like an "illiberal democracy", "electoral authoritarian" system, an "autocratic system", etc, but not specifically just an authoritarian system. But let's be clear: a liberal democracy becoming an illiberal democracy is authoritarian drift; a liberal democracy becoming an electoral authoritarian system is authoritarian drift; and a liberal democracy becoming an autocratic system is authoritarian drift. All of these things are different kinds of authoritarian drift. And as Wiki editors, we are often encouraged to use our own words to summarize what is going on so long as it accurately captures the essence of WP:RS consensus.

  I don't see how anyone can confidently look at the sources and not feel that it's appropriate to summarize what is going on as authoritarian drift — the broadest term yet that encompasses all of the other terms we have talked about regarding the direction of the US (electoral authoritarianism, autocracy, etc). Authoritarian drift is the least controversial claim to make out of all of terms and therefore it is the best term to use, since like you said there's no consensus on the specific type of authoritarian drift we're experiencing quite yet. When it comes to summarizing political topics, we don't need every phrase we use to be a ubiquitous slogan with meta analyses on whether we're specifically allowed to use that phrase because NPOV's making necessary assumptions section is a policy that specifically discourages us from setting such a high burden of proof for every statement. It says, When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. An assumption we can make is that whatever is going on, based on what we know from WP:RS, it's certainly some type of authoritarian drift because authoritarian drift is a very broad term that encompasses all of the different kinds of things that what Trump is doing could possibly be, as described by expert consensus. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, the disagreement has not much to do with how I understand the term "authoritarian drift". It has to do with how sources are describing the situation, and I see no consensus for any term. How can there be a sidebar if sources can't agree what is going on? Why is the judgment line being drawn by an editor and not the sources, which is where this claim needs to come from? "An assumption" cannot be made with a very serious claim. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  The number of citations in the lead is completely irrelevant. There are countless citations in the Authoritarianism section. Including all of these in the lead too would be WP:OVERCITE. Eigenbra (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can probably put a few more up there anyway. The page needs to be updated to 2026 as most edits occurred in late 2025 and I know there's much stronger sourcing out there today. BootsED (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I included a few sources just above. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. NPOV violation. We don't have sidebars like this for the Russian or Chinese governments. The fact that nearly all of its headings begin with "Targeting of..." is what cinches it for me. Newbzy (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a proper way of making your argument. The claim that "we don't have sidebars like this for Russian or Chinese governments" isn't really relevant. We could have similar sidebars, but that is neither here nor there in relation to the issue at hand. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. In response to the comment just above, we don't have similar sidebars for Russia or China because they're consistently authoritarian and 'unsurprisingly' so. A democracy index chart for Russia or China would be low about all the time; the noteworthy part of the US chart (V-Dem Institute) is the sharp slope down. The headings are the way they are because each is a valid article backed up by reliable sources. Zowayix001 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete of template, with suggestion for List article This masterful set of links was compiled with exhaustive WP:SYNTHESIS. Many links are to sections of articles rather than the entire articles, so that this template would occupy significant space, spam-like, in dozens of articles for which it is not truly appropriate. This valuable collection of links could be preserved in a new List of authoritarian trends promoted by Donald Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely not opposed to renaming the template, but I think List of authoritarian trends promoted by Donald Trump would be semantically identical to the current version but sound a little silly. As for section links, linking to sections is fine if the article is only included in the sidebar one time. Linking a section just makes it easier for the reader to access relevant information and in no way introduces spam. If you believe some of the sources were created via SYNTH, that's a reason to contest the inclusion of those sources, not to delete the template in its entirety.

  Come to the bright side. What would it take to convince you to keep this template? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious NPOV and SYNTH violation. Jtrainor (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Obvious"? How so? ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV cannot be used as an excuse to delete encyclopedically relevant and reliably sourced information (WP:POVDELETION). Zowayix001 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Deleting a SIDEBAR should not involve removing encyclopaedically relevant and reliably sourced information, since (a) nothing in the template will be independently sourced, and (b) the information remains in the relevant articles. The fact that you think something will be lost by the deletion of the collation suggests you find novel information in the collation. That is where the SYNTH lies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that you think something will be lost by the deletion of the collation suggests you find novel information in the collation.

  Well, on the flipside, I think it suggests that the collected articles are a helpful guide for users who are interested in exploring the topic. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Read the next sentence that you did not quote. The "helpful guide" is only "helpful" because it is a synthesis. Per RCraig09 above, you might want to preserve this synthesis in a list article, but be prepared to spend considerable effort hammering out inclusion criteria, and ensuring that you can demonstrate the collection meets WP:NLIST. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTABALLOT encourages you to explain your reasoning if you'd like to be taken seriously in the process of consensus-building. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for now per WP:SYNTH concerns (which, until the synthesis is corroborated by sources, reads to me as WP:RGW). The articles included should be verified as a coherent topic per WP:SIDEBAR (i.e. by having a basis in the main article and vice versa, cited to reliable sources). Much more work is needed on that article before something this comprehensive could be created. Given the interest in covering this topic in detail (and the prospect of further developments), I've suggested splitting the content on backsliding under Trump into its own article here. Editors' views welcome. Joko2468 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or Rename per Alexandraaaacs1989 and ~2026-16297-11. All of these could be fixed, no need to rid a helpful template. Rename the template to just simply "Authoritarian drift in the United States" and include all related to the topic. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 21:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete & create subcategory: despite several worthy reasons on both ends of this, it seems bound to add to navbox and/or sidebar bloat, if kept. Radically, or naively, perhaps; might I suggest that it be replaced by a simpler method of readily locating related articles, with a new subcategory under the top category of Authoritarianism, such as Category:Authoritarianism in the United States"? Lindenfall (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note. I realize that whoever closes this discussion might be tempted to relist it, but I want to suggest not doing that. This discussion has gotten a lot of participation for a TfD discussion, and it's unlikely that further discussion will trend one way or the other, so it would be best to come to an outcome and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that this is the most neutral way it has been to describe Trump's policies recently. Yes, there's issues with the wording, but it is what it is, face value. A somewhat majority (50% + 1 or 66% maybe?) consensus that the general direction of the United States is authoritarian, and a compilation of neutral articles. On a personal note, may the United States be free again. LS8 (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. absolute trainwreck. Violates every navigation template guideline we have and there is, as evidenced in this discussion, no desire to fix it. On an incredibly poor topic for a sidebar - none of these topics are part of a "series" together by being tightly related - this template adds nothing except visual cruft and confusion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and fix, especially per the reasons mentioned by User:Eigenbra. It's a useful navigation aid. It could also be changed into a {{navbox}} if it makes more sense that way per WP template guidelines. Casspedia (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Tryptofish. Lova Falk (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. There is not even a specific article for the sidebar. The sidebar has many issues, including the 'series' being a category that is specifically about immigration policy only, some of the articles don't have hyperlinks, and other smaller issues which all point to lack of NPOV and BALANCE.Cherrytxrt 📧 13:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Democratic backsliding in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - I am neutral on the name. This is a large and complex area, and a navigational aid is extremely helpful. There is indeed a well-cited article on the topic (under the 'Democratic backsliding...' title) which amply justifies that the topic is real and distinct. Claims of 'not NPOV' once again repeat the confused idea that because Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view, it should hold back from well-evidenced descriptions of things which are themselves heavily politically skewed. That is not how NPOV works; we aim for a rounded and unbiased account, as far as possible, but we can't change or hide the actual nature of the things we are describing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Democratic backsliding in the United States under Donald Trump or a more neutral title.--Funchier (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and fix the possible issues with it. Obviously, there's enough material here to create some kind of organizing tool. If a main article specifically referencing Trump's role here is needed, one could easily be split off from the "Democratic Backsliding" article.Captainbeetroots (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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).

This is a notification that in accordance with the closing notes of the above deletion discussion relating to Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar, I began a split discussion at Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism" which is a "next step" detailed in the closing notes above. In the proposal is the creation of Trump and authoritarianism, which will be the sidebar's new corollary article if consensus is created for the split. Editors are encouraged to contribute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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