Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 23
April 25 >

April 24

Template:At

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The script that uses this templateUser:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD is no longer in operation (having been redirected to WP:XFDC) so I don't think this template retains any particular use. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Substituted template that wraps only a selectable template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 28 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.

Template:Italian municipality

This recently created template produces a standardized paragraph from a simple invocation like {{Italian municipality|countryofbirth}} which expands into prose along the lines of:

"As of 2025, of the 83 residents by known countries of birth, residents' countries of birth include the following countries, in descending order of frequency: Italy (77 – 92.8%), Romania (3 – 3.6%), Bulgaria (2 – 2.4%) and Poland (1 – 1.2%).[11]"

Setting aside how clunky and hard-to-read that sentence is, there are a number of issues with this approach:

  • 1. Marginal relevance / over-detail: This is arguably borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It adds very granular statistical breakdowns that aren't especially meaningful for most municipality articles, and the level of detail is fixed by the template, so it can't be adjusted case-by-case.
  • 2. Not very editor-friendly: From an editing standpoint, it's pretty opaque. If someone tries to fix outdated or incorrect info, they're just met with: {{Italian municipality|countryofbirth}} (or similar), with no obvious way to actually update the underlying data.
  • 3. Data is hidden behind layers: The numbers come from Commons:Data:Italian municipality populations.tab on Commons (~270 KB), which most editors won't even know exists. On top of that, everything is routed through Module:Italian municipality, a Lua module that's not exactly easy to navigate and appears to hardcode 2025 data, making updates more cumbersome than they need to be.
  • 4. Verifiability concerns: The sourcing relies on a dynamic ISTAT query page. These links aren't stable - they can't be archived at all, and have broken in the past - several times. That's not great from a long-term verifiability standpoint.
  • 5. No clear plan for mergers/changes: There doesn't seem to be any built-in way to handle municipality mergers or future administrative changes. Presumably this would require patching the module or dataset in ad hoc ways, adding yet more unnecessary overhead.
  • 6. Questionable value overall: More broadly, this is generating cookie-cutter, machine-written paragraphs that don't add much context. If the goal is to include population data, there are simpler and more transparent ways to do it.

No knock on the template's creators, but it's currently only used on ~80 pages. It's probably better to deal with it now rather than let it spread to thousands of municipality articles, where cleanup would be a lot harder. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Underlying lk:
1. "It adds very granular statistical breakdowns that aren't especially meaningful for most municipality articles" - Not true. It lists some TOPs and not a complete list.
"the level of detail is fixed by the template, so it can't be adjusted case-by-case" - Nobody needed it. You need it. It can be added.
2. & 3. Documentation error. It can be added.
3. The year is not (anymore) fixed. | At the time of writing, a non-programmer added it hard.
4. Added a link directly to daset.
5. Nobody needed it. The dataset reflects +- the real state. ... In the article: Simple solution: Use this template for auto values, otherwise use inline values. ... If the status of the municipality changes, the page changes, so the statistics should be checked and adjusted (feel free to use inline values). ...
5./6. This is a tool for improving articles, not for making a perfect solution and thus completely relieving a person of "work". It makes some of the work easier for them, if possible.
6. It's nice to dream about what could be, but what isn't, isn't. We do it the way we know how. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Dušan Kreheľ
All of these "fixes" (documentation can be added, links can be changed, data can be tweaked, editors can override it manually, etc.) just underline how fundamentally overengineered and unnecessary this is. If the solution to every issue is "edit around the template" or "don’t use parts of it", then the obvious answer is simply not to have the template.
I also don't care for the dismissive tone in the responses so far, especially when the template is already being deployed across articles in a way that creates problems for others to clean up.
What we’re left with is a template that:
a) injects marginal, boilerplate content,
b) obscures what's actually in the article,
c) depends on a overcomplex and fragile backend,
d) and then requires editors to work around it when it inevitably doesn't fit.
If the goal is to "make some work easier", this is doing the opposite by obscuring content and centralizing fragile data. Deleting it returns control to editors and keeps articles readable and maintainable.
FYI, there is a specific guideline against what this template is doing, precisely for the reasons outlined above:
"Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." (WP:TG). No amount of additional documentation or patching around the edges will fix that underlying issue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: Someone is doing a project from the bottom up (a small part that gradually expands) and someone is doing it from the top down (analysis, plan and implementation).
In practice, your reasons are subjective and general (ideal versus reality; what if), you are not solving a specific problem (or someone's real problem), so you are just dissatisfied and you had it deleted. What right do you have, but if everyone could delete a user that they don't like, who would maybe just write here.
Facilitation? Ask User:GreenWolfyVillager, he demanded something about Italy and agreed with the current outcome.
This template is not against WP:TG, as it contains content that is taken from commons (I studied it before creating Template:Slovak municipality/geo). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
The template is generating full prose paragraphs and inserting them into articles via transclusion. That is exactly what WP:TG cautions against: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content". Saying the data comes from Commons doesn’t change that.
This also isn’t a "what if" concern. The problems are already there: readers get a clunky, boilerplate paragraph full of marginal stats, and editors clicking edit don't see text they can fix, just a template call tied to a backend most won't touch.
And to be clear, this isn’t about "deleting something I don’t like". Templates are routinely taken to TfD when they conflict with guidelines. Calling this "just dissatisfaction" or implying bad motives is off-base and avoids the actual issues.
If the goal is to improve articles, this isn’t doing that. Adding hard-to-read filler and hiding it behind a template isn't helping.
For reference - this kind of content has already been removed from articles multiple times over the years by unrelated editors because it wasn't considered useful. Even the example municipality you linked in that talk page above had historical population stats removed as far back as 2018.
Large data dumps and machine-generated filler about marginal stats aren't a substitute for actually improving articles. They've consistently been treated as clutter and removed as such. The only difference here is that the same clutter is now hardcoded and even less transparent to editors. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: Problem with the edit? Maybe it's easier to edit it "on request" if someone asks, than to create some kind of template system (and would that really be better?).
How many people, so many tastes. If someone "audits" it, it can be useful (choose a compromise for everyone, for different opinion templates).
That revert, updated the data (with that table first consistently, the last year of statistics was not in the table).
How many people, so many tastes. What is an encyclopedia for whom? Someone prefers a data database? Someone an article a lot more? Someone prefers tables, someone graphs, someone bullet points, someone sentences.
It is reasonable not to choose extremes. The current solution is, maybe change the percentage for immigration somehow, that it can be somehow. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
This feels a bit like what Abstract Wikipedia is trying to do. Might be worth checking that out. Ed [talk] [OMT] 13:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@The ed17: For now, it's the music of the future, because we don't have active Wikifunctions here either. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree. As I don't have coding knowledge, I can't help with rewriting/improving the template, however I support it and if there's anything I could help with, tell me and hopefully I could, but I don't guarantee it.
As for issue #5, I found a page on ISTAT that has a list of all municipal establishments/mergers/abolishments, continously updated, since 1991. "Estinzione" means "Disestablishment/Annexed into an existing municipality", "Costituzione" means "Establishment (usually because of a merger)", "Acquisizione per estinzione" means "annexation of municipality" - https://situas.istat.it/web/#/home/in-evidenza?id=129&dateFrom=1991-01-01 GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
GreenWolfyVillager: There it is earlier: https://www.istat.it/classificazione/codici-dei-comuni-delle-province-e-delle-regioni/ You have the last date of changes there.
The Template/Module only deals with the presence, so it is easier, it does not have to deal with the plus-minus history of changes. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC), --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per the cogent analysis of Underlying lk; in short, it is article text in a template that hides the actual values behind more layers than even I would be comfortable updating. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:RfA-thanks

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 May 3. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Template:Pakistan Television Corporation

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 rename per discussion. I see no prejudice against converting the old/original redirect into a dab to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Posibily made unused by User:Astro.nick20 with this edit incorrectly hijacking a redirect and creating Template:PTV. Unclear if this is the same topic or something else as the pages don't seem to have the same links. Pinging also User:HouseBlaster who was cleaning up 3 letter names (you should think of maybe salting them after you deal with them...) Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

SALTing wouldn't have helped in this instance because the page was not deleted. I think the correct procedure here is move {{PTV}} to {{People's Television Network}} and convert {{PTV}} into a disambiguation page, which solves problem of the hijacked redirect neatly. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support renaming of {{PTV}} to {{People's Television Network}}. Gonnym, the topics are only related by being television entities abbreviated to "PTV" (the People's one is in the Philippines). The transclusions need to be sorted too as right now Pakistan pages are transcluding the Philippine one. This probably shouldn't be left to rot for much longer... Can I go ahead and fix this? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:49, 25 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.

Template:RfC3

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 May 3. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 3 May 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) 10:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Created 22 years ago and is unused. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:45, 24 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.

Template:PD-Hungary

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) 10:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Created 21 years ago and is unused. Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:45, 24 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.

Template:Sydney Hurstville suburbs

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) 10:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:Sydney Georges River Council suburbs. Gonnym (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:44, 24 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.

Template:Infobox Native American leader

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 officeholder. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Native American leader with Template:Infobox officeholder.
Unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox officeholder}} with 2 unique parameters that can easily be implemented directly via officeholder. No need for a separate wrapper. See the lengthy list of 150+ infoboxes that already redirect to {{Infobox officeholder}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree There is basically no difference between them. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Agree per Wikitalovin1. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Agree We should wind down as many of these redundant wrappers as possible and incorporate any needed changes in the main template; avoid gradually diverging field labels and formatting. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom; uniformity under one template allows us to centralize resources there. --Engineerchange (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is significant difference between tribal leaders and non tribal ones with fields as tribe, family name and members all shown are very important details that would miss out in merging to the Template:Infobox officeholder as the resulting merged infobox would be long. --Sddarealone (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the pursuit of clarity, I think it is necessary to distinguish that [Native American] unique setting from the general "Infobox officeholder", we would be losing a lot of cultural and sociopolitical context by merging them together. Hence I oppose this motion in the light of academic and intellectual research. It is a necessary and unique case of particularism to address @Nutella lover, that added redundancy provides valuable context to address @Asdasdasdff Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment The scale of the proposed merge on the articles would be large hence I want more critical discussion on this big move before the discussion is closed. --Sddarealone (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 15:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
If done cleanly, not sure I would object. But not championing this either, especially since @Sddarealone does note there are important aspects of tribal leaders that do not correlate neatly to other offices. SecretName101 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support as it is unnecessary and can simply be incorporated into officeholder AML KING (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Fisceral (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Horsers (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, we don't need one for every type of officeholder/leader as locally defined, the arguments that it is unnecessary have not been clearly addressed by those that oppose. If User:Lothengrun de Spigel's way is taken, then Rename to Infobox_indigenous_leader so that we don't need to eventually create one for hypothetically every possible indigenous group, historically/currently nomadic group, etc. which would lead to a maintenance headache. Having one for Native Americans but not for the other kinds of groups reeks of bias. There would still be no clear reason why a special template exists for Native Americans but not for the countless other groupings of indigenous peoples in the world. 🔥Komonzia (message) 22:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Support A reasonable compromise, by changing "Infobox Native American leader" to "'Infobox_indigenous_leader" we essentially address the concerns over sociopolitical and cultural context, thus I change my vote from oppose to support. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not another completely superfluous infobox template discussion that fucks up all infoboxes for no reason. Stop this shit. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Maxwhollymoralground: this comment doesn't even make sense. What are you talking about? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment @Izno and Primefac: curious if either of you feel this warrants an early closure due to WP:SNOW? Just curious if this needs to run the full week with the notice on every page using {{Infobox officeholder}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    There is opposition, so no, and Izno has noincluded the officeholder "nomination". Primefac (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Seems to me that WP:SNOW applies but I 100% defer to your expertise. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding a reference in citation to Chief Seattle, famous Native American leader of the Suquamish and Duwamish people, think how native American leaders like them would be misrepresented if the current infobox couldn't distinguish them from leaders say for eg. US 7th President, Andrew Jackson who lived in the same time as Seattle. Please give it a thought. --Sddarealone (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Support per nom. R3pr3s3ntativ3f0rNab00! (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what you mean by this? From my point of view, Chief Seattle's infobox already closely resembles Andrew Jackson's: light-blue bar to denote an office (albeit with no fields below it), followed by another light-blue bar for personal details and then several fields to this. The wording for that bar is different, but the nom already proposes incorporating |tribe= and |lead= into Infobox officeholder. What am I missing here? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Closely resembles doesn't mean they are identical as differences do exist in no. and type of fields. It's like comparing the 1925 Ford Model T, economy car to a 1969 Ford Mustang, a coupe which has different class, layout, engines and other technologies that can't homogenize if you keep the same info box for both. For the WP:TFD, the above nom is mostly correct but they are not officeholders in modern sense. Provided a good merge eg. of the merged infobox, I can change my vote. Sddarealone (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Clarifying comment by nom @Sddarealone and Lothengrun de Spigel: as the sole oppose !votes, (Maxwhollymoralground's rant doesn't even make sense so not addressing that), I just want to clarify. This merge WOULD NOT remove any information. If you look at the actual source code of {{Infobox Native American leader}} all that it does is assign the values of |tribe= and |role= to that of |office=. That information can so easily be done by directly using {{Infobox officeholder}}, while also allowing for the use of all the other valuable parameters. If it would help, I am happy to convert a single page to show you how this can be done without any loss of information. Please {{ping|Zackmann08}} me if that would help you understand... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, the demonstration of such merged infobox of Template:Infobox officeholder would work in favor if it keeps all the necessary fields of Native American leaders. Sddarealone (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Sddarealone: please see Special:Permalink/1351136074 for a comparison. I have mostly only included the parameters that are unique to {{Infobox Native American leader}} so as to show that they can very easily be implemented in {{Infobox officeholder}}. If you have any further questions, please let me know! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    This looks a lot better than I expected. You need to add all the parameters and make sure that the Tribe example is listed separately in the contents of Template:Infobox officeholder. I'm satisfied so far. Also you might want to look at the Infobox_indigeneous_leader comment above. Thanks for your efforts Zack. Sddarealone (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Neutral per nom. Sddarealone (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Support: long overdue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 29 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.

Template:WWI and WWII Hungarian ships

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. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This template is problematical for a number of reasons. First, there was no Hungarian Navy distinct from the Austro-Hungarian Navy during World War I, so at best this framing is confusing, if not downright misleading. Second, it conflates the fleets of two distinct countries and periods, which again, is confusing and/or misleading. If the intention is to document the ships that were built in Hungary, we already have category:Ships built in Hungary (and relevant subcats). Lastly, the template appears to be a WP:CROSSCAT that, given the previous points, is invalid unlike similar templates such as {{Austro-Hungarian Navy classes}} that have clearly defined and rational scopes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

First point: yes there was no separate Hungarian Navy, but that's why there is no mention of "Hungarian Navy" anywhere in the title. It refers to Hungarian ships built in Hungary and often given Hungarian names, as opposed to ships of a distinct Navy organisation. It is meant to distinguish between the Austrian-built vessels of the empire (the majority) from the Hungarian built ones, as this was a significant political issue within the Austro-Hungarian Navy (they themselves did recognise Austrian-built and Hungarian-built ships as different and this impacted which companies were contracted to build which ships to ensure a roughly equal representation of Austrian and Hungarian ships. I do not believe this misleads.
Second point: In some sense, yes, but it can also be argued that it is the same country (Hungary), and if we want to be more specific, we can say both are the Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1946), now sure the territory of the country changed, and it is no longer tied to Austria by WW2, but the same Kingdom of Hungary can be argued to have existed throughout both WW1 and WW2. Also, while WW1 and WW2 are different, these periods are heavily tied together. If this template is still found to be problematic, I am willing to change it to be called Hungarian-built ships of WWI and WWII to make it more clear, or could change it to Hungarian-built ships of WWI and potentially create a separate one for WWII. If even that isn't enough, I can redefine it to be "WWI ships by Ganz-Danubius (Kingdom of Hungary)". Victory799 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
None of those meet the criteria laid out at WP:NAVBOX. You would be better off expanding and/or creating articles on the relevant shipyards and including links to the articles in lists of notable ships built at said yards (i.e., as has been done at Société Nouvelle des Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée, Kaiserliche Werft Wilhelmshaven, or Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete In light of the existence of TM:Austro-Hungarian Navy classes I also think the template's scope is confusing and more than a little arbitrary, and I see no point in keeping it. It is also apparently used on only two mainspace articles currently, SMS Leitha and NMS Basarabia. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 12:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Pointless since Hungary didn't have its own Navy--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 27 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.

Template:Krautrock and Kosmische Musik

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 13:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Majority of the entries either fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL or are just duplicate links back to the subject. I've removed some of the more incoherent and tangential entries already, and there's not really enough to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 11:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I still have to make pages for Dusseldorf and Berlin School of electronic music and other similar micro scenes from the movement. When all those pages get made would this mean I'd have to remake the template? Aradicus (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
See WP:WTAF. I think you need to take a step back from creating navboxes, most of the ones you have created are really not suitable. You may want to have a proper read of WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES and familiarise yourself with how they work a bit better. --woodensuperman 11:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Fair Aradicus (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
This template stuff is beyond confusing because I'm not sure if it was you but someone mentioned how every topic mentioned in the template has to have the template on the page but if you look at let's say Template:Alternative rock stuff like "Outsider music" don't have the template. Are you going to fix these as well or just the ones I make? Aradicus (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
I think if "this template stuff beyond confusing" for you, then you should be stepping away from editing navboxes. However, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the guideline you're looking for. This is a good example of why West German student movement does not belong in this navbox, or how loosely related genres such as Ambient music also don't belong, as it would clearly be inappropriate if you were to transclude this navbox onto those pages. You should only include articles which specifically and directly relate to Krautrock here. --woodensuperman 14:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why its okay for the other topics section of the alternative rock template to exist and what a condescending response lol for asking a question. When I made those templates I looked at other templates when making them. That's pretty much how I do most stuff on this site. See what most users are doing and learn from others. The alternative rock template is odd because it feels it would be more accurate as an "alternative music" template. Because why is alt hip-hop and r&b even on there? Then go on the Alternative R&B page and you don't even see the alt rock template at the bottom. You are literally the only person who has even cared to discuss this topic here besides someone else, barely anybody else has weighed in on their opinions on what to do about the Hyperpop and Krautrock template. I feel if others heard me out they would see the usefulness of those specific templates.Aradicus (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
There are also problems with {{Alternative rock}}, see the transclusion completeness check, and it seems like a number of inappropriate additions have been made since this version. But the issues with that navbox is not what we are discussing here. --woodensuperman 11:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Half of the links on this already small navbox are circular, close to circular, or very generic. That makes its use on much more than the only two mainspace pages it is currently on unlikely and probably not particularly useful either. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 12:53, 24 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.

Template:Lang-su-fonts

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:Script/Sundanese. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Lang-su-fonts with Template:Script/Sundanese.
The idea and basic output of both templates is the same: Sundanese text rendered in a Sundanese font. Template:Lang-su-fonts has 2 parameters: the text, as well as one for size. Template:Script/Sundanese only has one. Template:Script/Sundanese is also part of the Template:Script series, while Template:Lang-su-fonts is on its own. A merger of the two templates would allow for one template to produce Sundanese text in a Sundanese font with the advantages of both templates. S Y T · 三葉草 02:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete it seems a redundant template, i agree with you.~2026-23227-41 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge consolidation also makes sense to me here. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 13:00, 24 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.

Template:Carissa's Wierd

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. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Only one release with an article. --woodensuperman 08:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - links between the bank, 4 band members, and (currently) 1 album. Those are sufficient links. GiantSnowman 17:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    If it is kept then the sea of unlinked text needs to be removed per WP:EXISTING and WP:WTAF --woodensuperman 19:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep A perfectly fine little navbox with a well defined scope and which does its job. I do not think a navbox with two rows and some albums that do not currently have an article qualifies as a sea of unlinked text. Besides, at the end of WP:EXISTING it clearly says Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 13:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but the non notable albums should not be listed. --woodensuperman 17:58, 26 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.

Template:Sigilkore

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) 10:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Artists are not appropriate for a genre navbox, and per the transclusion checker - the majority of the rest of links redirect to two articles. --woodensuperman 11:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 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.

Template:Emo rap

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) 10:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Lists of artists per genre is not appropriate for a navbox. The rest of it is pretty incoherent. --woodensuperman 11:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 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.

Template:HexD

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) 10:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Only links three articles. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 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.

Template:Reptilian Club Boyz

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) 10:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Only one notable release. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 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.

Template:Dimes Square

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 13:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Incoherent navbox, barely transcluded, that seems to include a bizarre collection of tangential links, such as Catholicism, Millennials and COVID-19 lockdowns!!! --woodensuperman 11:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete It is indeed a weird aggregate of many different things with no clear inclusion criteria and very little possibility for use on other articles than its heading. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 13:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 27 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.

Template:Street Drum Corps

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) 10:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

No notable releases. Useless for navigation --woodensuperman 11:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:57, 24 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.

Template:ASN accident

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Following on from deletion of Template:ASN… I didn’t realise there was a sister template, which is my bad for not doing due diligence. Discovered this template while doing other editing.

Aviation Safety Network was discussed at WP:RSN and it was concluded that it may not be reliable due to user generated content in the database. All the database does is link to official accident reports, so they should just be linked instead. Danners430 tweaks made 09:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that nominating this template for deletion has broken many pages as it has dumped the tfd notification in the middle of references - can this be fixed. Also note that if the template is deleted, then an awful lot of cleanup will be needed. Also note that the RSN discussion didn't come to a firm conclusion and didn't depreciate the source - there is the long standing understanding that the user generated bits are clearly unsuitable, but the status of other articles written by ASN's staff appears less clear.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I initially chose keep but now I have decided to be neutral due to your argument. I am not voting on this topic for now. - N198UA (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes despair that editors do not read WP:UGC in full. Is ASN largely user-generated? No. Is it a personal website, a blog, an internet forum, or a social media site? No. Does it compare to Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, etc. Definitely not. These are clear cases to be avoided like the plague.
Yes, ASN allows for user-generated input, but unlike Wikipedia, it is not 100% driven by it; ASN staff initiate much of the input, and audit the rest. Is it 100% squeaky clean. No. But it's every bit the equal of many news sources, particularly on a specialist subject such as aviation. I've just come here after reading a supposedly WP:RS article casually mentioning that the Carvair was made out of old DC-3 Dakotas. That is somebody who doesn't know a C-54 from a C-47, and yet I could place that text in an article here if I didn't know better. In context, ASN is perfectly acceptable, and certainly wouldn't make such basic errors. Primarily it is not largely user-generated, and therefore not automatically WP:UGC. Editors should be allowed to use their discretion when citing ASN, knowing that other editors will also look at it closely. Trust the system. WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a very, very, very simple solution to this - instead of citing ASN, just cite the sources that ASN lists! That way there's zero chance of unreliable content sneaking in. As it is, without careful scrutiny of every single source, there is a very real chance that an ASN cite is unreliable due to it being UGC. Are we really willing to allow such a potentially unreliable source to remain? Regardless, we're now straying into WP:RSN territory, which is rather unrelated to the discussion at hand. Danners430 tweaks made 11:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not convinced that we're at a stage that needs a total wipeout if, as Nigel Ish puts it, the RSN discussion didn't come to a firm conclusion and didn't depreciate the source. I feel like what we have here is similar to the distinction between WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. If we're not removing all Forbes links because of the pure existence of Forbes Contributors articles, we don't need to remove all ASN links (and hence this template) too. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 10:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:53, 24 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI