Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 4

Template:Add-languages

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 by Pppery. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Add-languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template whose main content is a dead link to Commons. Pichpich (talk) 23:00, 4 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.

American Factfinder

The result of the discussion was delete. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:American Factfinder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite American Factfinder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Factfinder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite American Factfinder2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Factfinder3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite American Factfinder3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template (and its buddies) have generated dead links since January 31, 2017, when CenStats was deprecated by the US Census Bureau (source, notification 1, notification 2). Thus, it is no longer useful. A suitable replacement may be to instead use {{cite web}} and its archive link parameter on the <200 transclusions of this template to salvage some of the links (e.g. is an archive of the ref at Larson, North Dakota that currently uses this template). Staraction (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge templates

The result of the discussion was keep. But it's complicated.

The previous RFC explicitly allows for retention of mechanisms for consensus building other than WP:PAM, referencing WP:CONBUILD, which in turn references article talk pages among other mechanisms. If editors wish to ban discussions of merging on article talk pages, a new RFC would be needed.

Some editors argued that this RFC should be interpreted to ban the use of any merge-related templates outside the AFD process, as they formalize the process and are centrally tracked. Others argued the previous RFC should be interpreted to disallow the use of templates for centralized merge discussions, but allow them for decentralized talk page discussions that aren't tracked in the same way.

Some editors did seem to be confused about the changes being made, but even discounting those opinions, there was more support for the latter interpretation. I will therefore say there is consensus to allow the use of templates if they are no longer connected to a centralized discussion system for non-redundant purposes like:

Drawing attention to a local merge discussion on an article talk page.
Flagging an obviously-needed merge in the hopes that another editor will perform it.
Flagging an article that needs more research to see if it needs merging, without asking for a decision to be made now. (Similar to {{notability}} for deletion.)
Flagging content that needs to be rearranged but which does not affect a whole article.

The proposed replacements for formal centralized discussions are:

{{Merge to|Target article}} -> {{Article for deletion/dated|outcome=merge|target=Target article}}
{{Merge|Other article}} -> {{Article for deletion/dated|outcome=merge|target=Other article}}. This is not an exact replacement, because {{merge}} does not specify the direction of the merge, but the replacement does.
{{being merged}}, {{being merged from}}, {{being merged to}} -> {{afd-merge to}} and {{afd-merge from}}. This is not an exact replacement because the new templates assume a discussion happened at AFD; the old template can point at any discussion (and defaults to the article talk page).
{{merge portions from}} has no replacement.

Some important points from this discussion:

A lot of editors are used to using the existing templates.
Redirection rather than deletion is one of the nominated options.
Having redundant discussion systems is poor.
New templates can be created to handle cases inappropriate for AFD. This had more support from advocates of deletion than did keeping existing templates for these purposes.

The most-supported way to reconcile all the various concerns then seems to be to gently transition editors to the new AFD system by integrating redudnant existing high-use templates with it, but having some non-redundant templates for merge-related issues inappropriate for AFD. So I would say the outcome here is:

{{merge to}} is made a wrapper for {{Article for deletion/dated|outcome=merge|target=Target article}}. Editors who want templates for specific cases not suitable for an AFD merge discussion are free to create {{merge maybe}}, {{merge obvious}} (presumably challengeable like {{prod}}), {{merge local discussion}}, or whatever they think is appropriate. These must not be redudant with the AFD process, and must be integrated where possible. For example, the backlog of AFD-merge outcomes should be at least next door to the {{merge obvious}} backlog, or integrated into a unified backlog. Presumably {{merge maybe}} would be mentioned on WP:AFD but make a separate work queue, similar to {{notability}}.
{{merge}} is made a wrapper for {{Article for deletion/dated|outcome=merge}}. The wrapped template would need to be updated to allow the direction of the merge to be ambiguous - which seems like something AFD needs to support regardless? If there is consensus to demand AFD nominations always specify the direction of merge (if only to facilitate bots, with "reverse merge" allowed as an outcome), then {{merge}} can be redirected to {{merge to}} (causing an arbitrary direction to be assigned to legacy merges) and documentation updated.
{{merge portions from}} is kept, as it has no equivalent and serves as a local flag for a unique problem; there was explicitly less support for it being deleted.
Some mechanism needs to exist that flags articles that need to be merged as determined by local talk page consensus. {{being merged}}, {{being merged from}}, and {{being merged to}} are currently working fine for that. They can be kept mostly as-is, but it might be good to add a note saying that AFD outcomes should use the approptiate AFD merge template instead. Another option would be to make these wrappers for AFD templates, and give the AFD templates override parameters so they can refer to article talk page discussions. Either way, the queue of articles to be merged needs to be unified regardless of where the discussion took place. I leave the choice of option to the implementer or future discussion.

As mentioned in the nomination, implementation of wrappers must take into account the current backlog, meaning: perform all necessary merges to clear the backlog, support the legacy parameters used by backlogged instances, or update all instances affected by legacy parameters being changed or dropped. Simply waiting for the backlog to clear might not work given that these templates would continue to be used, but it's possible to deprecate legacy parameters and wait for old instances to get cleared out. Many merge templates are also used by bots, and operators need to be notified in advance about any format changes.

-- Beland (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Merge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Merge to (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Being merged (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Merge portions from (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At a recent RfC, there was "consensus to merge proposed article merge process with Articles for deletion". The PAM process used various templates, categories, and a central noticeboard. Going forward, formal merge discussions will be completed at AfD. (This change does not change that bold merging is encouraged, nor does it prevent informal discussions on article talk pages, at WikiProjects, etc., to try to reach consensus before using AfD.) The process of reworking the {{Article for deletion/dated}} set of templates is complete and Twinkle is being updated to support the change.

I propose that the {{merge}} and {{merge to}} templates be redirected to Template:Article for deletion/dated or reworked to be a wrapper for that template. {{being merged}} should be redirected to the disambiguation page Template:Afd-merge, deleted, or marked historical, as AfD uses {{afd-merge to}} and {{afd-merge from}}. Or, it can be reworked to wrap either of those templates based on a parameter. I'm frankly not sure what to do about {{merge portions from}}; there won't be a central noticeboard for that anymore and such discussions can presumably be handled via regular dispute resolution processes instead, so I lean delete. Note that I haven't nominated {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} for deletion because I believe that those should continue to exist for bold merges and to document past merges. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that the outcome of this TfD may need to be delayed for ongoing post-RfC maintenance. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I also didn't nominate {{merge from}} as that is being used to tag targets of AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support all – These are obviously all obsolete now that the PAM process has been deprecated, thanks to the great work of the editors at WT:AFD § Updating templates. You can see how the new templates look at {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases}}, in the "Merging" section. Of course, we'll have to wait a couple months for the PAM backlog to fully clear out in a few months, but the sooner the better. (I'm still salty about PAM becoming historical, but the sooner we implement the consensus, the better) FaviFake (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I still think {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} should be considered in conjunction with {{afd-merged-from}}. Also note that {{merge from AfD}} was recently redirected to {{merge from}}.

As for {{being merged}} and its wrappers {{being merged to}}+{{being merged from}}, once all of our updates are implemented to {{afd-merge to}}+{{afd-merge from}} (i.e. implementing all of the parameters from {{being merged}}, apart from |dir=), it will almost be entirely obsolete. The remaining differences will mostly be:

the discuss/discussion/talk parameter for the non-afd templates do not prefix with WP:AfD/ for the link and require full input (as in |talk=Talk:Example). That will of course be obsolete in the new system.
being merged without a |dir= parameter (which is what the wrappers auto-apply) allows for ambiguous direction, as {{merge}} does. That will probably also be obsolete in the new system, as AfD should in theory always have a conclusion about which way a merge should go.

~ oklopfer (💬) 20:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I still think {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} should be considered in conjunction with {{afd-merged-from}}. I didn't nominate them for the reasons stated above; they're not being considered in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My implication of should be considered is not that they should be deleted, but that perhaps {{afd-merged-from}} should be redirected to {{merged-from}}. I think it is confusing that both of these will remain existing, while the others will likely not. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that the templates are better re-purposed to point passing readers to engage with local (or WikiProject) discussions that might look to build a local consensus. The articles get more traffic than talk pages, and building a genuine local consensus will be helped by this. I agree that should the proposal pass, delayed implementation will be warranted (per Voorts). Klbrain (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

better re-purposed to point passing readers to engage with local (or WikiProject) discussions that might look to build a local consensus I believe that that is contrary to the consensus of the RfC, which was to avoid having formal merge discussions outside of AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. This implementation would basically result in the same PAM process, except maybe without the categorisation? The RfC closure specifically said that there is consensus to merge the proposed article merge process with Articles for deletion, and the entire PAM process is held up by the templates. What makes a PAM discussion formal is the presence of a template on the article.

Just as we don't have two different templates for requesting a move formally through WP:RM and informally on the talk page, we shouldn't have two different templates for pointing people to merge discussions. FaviFake (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Kinda rule-breaking, disagree. ~2026-20695-95 (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – These templates should still exist for use during talk page-based merger discussions, which will continue to exist as an alternative venue for merging in parallel to AfD as per the RfC close. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
And how exactly would that be different from the current PAM process, which the RfC closure said should be merged into AfD? FaviFake (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
There is no 'process' or noticeboard, both of which have been deprecated. The templates never had anything to do with PAM. The RfC closure specifically allowed for other forms of consensus building, including but not limited to talk page discussions or RfCs. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The templates were being used for PAM; they had tracking categories for PAM and resulted in discussions being listed at PAM. That's why we're discussing what to do with them. Continuing to use those templates to tag and track talk page discussions for merges would in effect maintain a formal merge discussion process alongside AfD, which is against the RfC's consensus. The RfC close's reference to BOLD merging and talk page discussion should not be read to support maintaining the skeleton of PAM without the noticeboard. Otherwise, the RfC would have been completely useless and the community's decision would make absolutely no sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no 'process' or noticeboard
The RfC closure starts with There is consensus to merge proposed article merge process (emphasis supplied), yet PAM worked exactly as you describe: an editor starts a talk page discussion and, if they add a template, the discussion is considered a formal PAM proposal. There was consensus to deprecate exactly this, so how is that different from what you're proposing? FaviFake (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Support redirecting or replacing the content as proposed. For any template that isn't needed anymore, I support deletion. Per the RfC we should use AfD. Informal disscussions should not need templates at all. If they do, they are not informal and they using an incorrect venue. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep The templates are useful for building local consensus. The tracking on a separate page was done by Merge_bot, which can be disabled. The {{Merge}} template says, Some editors also use these tags to mark pages that obviously require merging in the hope that someone else will merge the pages, I don't think this use case is substantially different from the use of maintenance templates such as {{Notability}} or {{Original Research}}. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep The templates {{merge}}, {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} display banners within an article alerting the visitor to a proposed change to the location of the current content. The various AfD templates display banners alerting the visitor to a proposed removal of the current content, which is rather different. The location of resulting discussion is linked in the template, so most visitors will not need to understand exactly where it is, just that there is a discussion that they can get to — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
That's just not true. The AfD template for merges looks very similar to the {{Merge}} template and doesn't mention removal of deletion anywhere. See {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases}} and 2025 Bulldozer March for an example of how it looks. FaviFake (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Can someone explain why {{Merge portions from}} is proposed? So if you want to merge, let's say, a section from one article to another, you nominate the whole article for deletion now? --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
No. The preferred option is always to perform a bold merge. If that is reverted, or if you believe that the bold merge will be controversial, you open a talk page discussion, notify relevant WikiProjects, and follow dispute resolution procedures as needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, AfD now handles merge discussions. You can nominate an article for merging via AfD. Using AfD doesn't mean that you are nominating the article for deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Then, of course, it should be renamed. wp:surprise. — LlywelynII 15:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

So let's play that out. You make your bold edit. Someone reverts it. Now you are obliged to discuss it. Wouldn't it be useful to have a template message on the article indicating that there is a discussion taking place on the talk page? Something that looks like {{Merge portions from}}? --Bsherr (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And again, just to clarify, if you want to take just a section, or just a few sentences, from one article and move them to another, if it is contested, you nominate the whole article for discussion at AfD now? --Bsherr (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
No. You can use normal dispute resolution for that, i.e., request a 3O, input from WikiProjects, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
But not the talk page? You can't try to reach consensus unassisted? You believe that is the result of the RfC? --Bsherr (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep, oppose per above and common usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Support I opposed the initial RfC but I agree with Favi and Voorts on the interpretation and implementation of the RfC close. Keeping the templates as is would create confusion among newer and less active editors not knowing where to discuss article merges and which templates to use. Its best to keep the processes simple and keeping the old templates doesn't help with that. I agree with the redirects (which could be undone if the merge process is spun out from AfD at some point in the future). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. It's nonsense to use Articles for Deletion for any purpose other than to nominate articles for deletion, of course, but (a), if talk-page based merges will still occur, then these should be kept as is and (b), even if talk-page based merges cease to occur, these should still be kept and simply redirect to whatever silly forum these discussions get shunted around to. — LlywelynII 15:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Regarding (a), that's not allowed per the RfC's consensus among more than a hundred participants, and regarding (b), that'd mean we'd be left with 3 copies of 3 templates that are used for the same purpose and look alike... did you read the nomination fully? FaviFake (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment I notice that many users AfD only think that only serves to delete and nothing else (eg. redirecting or merging). LIrala (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Hopefully that will change with time and experience of seeing merge nominations there (and if consensus is found to change the name of the venue). The AfD template now also has parameters to nominate articles for redirecting and draftifying to make it clearer what the proposed outcome is that the nominator is suggesting. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There is a lot of focus on the RfC and formal merge discussion process. How does one now conduct an informal merge discussion? -2pou (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
We still have WP:BOLDMERGE. My reading of the RfC close was that if multiple editors happen to come to an agreement on a talk page that a merge should be performed then its ok to just go ahead and do it. But if there are templates involved with a formal proposal and consensus needs to be determined then it should be done at AfD. Its not like we had a separate informal discussion mechanism previously. We've also added a line in the lede at MERGE telling editors that if they're not sure if a merge is likely to be controversial they can ask on WT:MERGE for input. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Rename {{merge}} to {{AfM}}, keep {{being merged}}, and delete or merge the rest. I don't see a benefit to having one template handling both deletions and mergings. The merge box should remain purple (and not red which is associated with deletion) and the wording can be adjusted to be similar to {{TfM}}. Aasim (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Many editors here seems to be misunderstanding what's actually being proposed.
The merge box should remain purple (and not red which is associated with deletion) and the wording can be adjusted to be similar to {{TfM}}.
The AfD merge template is already purple, just like the template it's replacing. and the wording very explicitly explains that that the article has been proposed for merging and not deletion. See {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases}} for an example of how it looks. FaviFake (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
support for all but {{Merge portions from}} per results of RFC; not every talkpage discussion needs a reader-facing banner alerting readers to a several year old dispute, and these should no longer be needed to get outside eyes on formal discussions. Merge Portions From is much more similar to splitting, also a moribund process, but I don't think the RFC consensus applies to it. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 17:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep (with modifications to the bot and category tracking) – I agree with User:Kelob2678 that it would be useful to have a tag like {{Notability}} for merge discussions. I add {{Notability}} when I spend two minutes looking for sources and can't find any SIGCOV; I nominate for deletion when I spend 30+ minutes doing a WP:BEFORE and have the time to write a nomination. It would be useful to maintain an analogous maintenance template on the merging side to provide an indication to future editors that they should look more closely at that aspect of the article in the future. An example: I spent five minutes looking for sources for Saadi Metro Station and noticed that all of the similar metro stops I looked at use the same generic/non-SIGCOV sources and I couldn't immediately find any SIGCOV of my own in English or Farsi, so my gut feeling says "this article should be merged into a new subsection of Tehran Metro Line 1". It might be nice for future editors if I can leave a maintenance tag to express that idea – a comment on the talk page will obviously never be seen, and I don't know enough about the article subject to justify a BOLD merge. Suriname0 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a very different use than the other existing merge templates were used for. Anyone can feel free to create a new template that categorizes articles into a "maybe merge" category. That's simply not what these templates have been used for. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
A notability tag and a talk page message saying "maybe merge this" would also accomplish exactly the same thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't think this is true: the essential purpose of maintenance templates as I see it is (a) tracking categories and (b) relative specificity about how to resolve the issue. We could tag every ailing article with {{Something is wrong}} and leave an explanatory talk page comment, but the specificity of the maintenance tags makes them more useful. "This content should be merged to a specific target" is a reasonable maintenance tag; {{Merge portions from}} already functioned like this, as I understand it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
The merge templates were used to point to discussions and track them in categories, not as maintenance templates indicating "someone should propose a merge at some point". voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I should note for the eventual closer's benefit that I agree something needs to change about these templates, and I think the most likely candidate is deletion and recreation of new maintenance templates using the same name(s). Basically impossible to see how anyone builds a new consensus on this topic; additional RfCs seem like they will be necessary. Suriname0 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Support all per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Won't it be really confusing that you have to put a AFD template when you want to discuss a merge? Why redirect {{merge}} to {{Article for deletion}} when you can just keep it?
Zhang 20:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
... Because they serve an identical function now. Formal merge proposals must now be held at AfD, did you read the nomination? FaviFake (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. As a new article reviewer who proposes merges, these templates are needed for clarity. Mariamnei (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
But, we have new templates now that mergers have moved to AfD, what purpose do these templates still serve for NPR? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For clarity? Clarity on what? To be proposed formally, merges have to be created at AfD now. FaviFake (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
I think it is easier for the average user to see the distinction between a merge and a deletion. Mariamnei (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Did you read my nomination? The merge process is now part of AfD. There is no longer a separate merge process. The AfD templates are all being or have already been updated to handle merging. Twinkle is being updated as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. These templates are some of the building bricks of how adjusting Wikipedia works. They should stay, as to keep it simple for editors that are used to this. One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment for closer: It appears some participants in this discussion have not fully understood the nomination or the RfC that led to it. I believe the closer should keep in mind that these templates are essentially the entirety of the PAM process, which, again, must be deprecated following the consensus in the RfC. Closing this relatively small TfD nomination as keep or no consensus without any modifications would effectively allow the PAM and AfD processes to continue to exist in parallel, contrary to the consensus formed among more that a hundred editors just last month. FaviFake (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 There has also been confusion among editors at AfD who don't understand why merge nominations are being made there while these templates still work. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Also +1. Keeping these around longer than is necessary for clearing out the PAM backlog is going to in effect keep PAM around eternally. They should only continue to exist alongside the AfD merge equivalents until the backlog is cleared. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:WOS Researcher ID

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:WOS Researcher ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Badly-formatted single-use template created for an incorrect purpose. Templates are for broad consistency of formatting across a group of related articles, not for simply adding information to one single article -- but this is used solely in the external links section of a single AFC submission, despite not actually featuring any external link. Instead, it directly contains that AFC subject's own personal ID number, meaning that even if it did actually offlink anywhere it still wouldn't be usable on any other article.
No prejudice against reformatting it as a general, broad-use template if there's any consensus that it would actually be useful or needed, but transcluding a single person's own personal profile ID number into an article or draft about them, so that it can only be used on that page and no others, is not an appropriate or correct use of templates. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Subst and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox convention center

The result of the discussion was ..

Merge Template:Infobox convention center to Template:Infobox venue
Keep Template:Infobox building Primefac (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Template:Infobox convention center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox convention center with Template:Infobox building.
Not enough uses or unique parameters that fit MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to justify a unique infobox. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom; or into {{Infobox venue}} if preferred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I am totally fine to merge to {{Infobox venue}} instead if other's prefer that. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Merging it in Venue would be more accurate since convention centers are similar and not like full-on office buildings or skyscrapers Aspifi (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Replace with {{Infobox venue}} and merge any relevant and needed parameters. Gonnym (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge because there are not enough independent uses for venue which merits its own infobox that can't be integrated into the building template AML KING (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with @AML KING 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@The BO77! and AML KING: you both seem to be !voting to merge {{Infobox venue}} with {{Infobox building}} which is NOT the discussion here... can you please clarify? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped I meant to say merge to infobox venue AML KING (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note to closing admin as the nominator, I am totally fine with what appears to be the consensus or merging to {{infobox venue}} instead. Just didn't feel the need to redo the nomination to reflect that. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak Merge with Template:Infobox venue It does have some important features that define a convention center like "Exhibit hall floor" and "Theatre seating". An example of ones that use the Templates venue and Template convention center that are completely different are Busch Memorial Stadium and McCormick Place. But Gonnym makes an important argument to merge any relevant and important parameters.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Long Island Rough Riders sections

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) 14:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Long Island Rough Riders sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substitute. Was previously similar to Template:Squads sidebar, with the exception that it included an entry for "Academy" with no link, which isn't discussed in the articles. I converted it to a wrapper. With only two transclusions, I think it should be substituted. Bsherr (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:QuotePerson

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:QuotePerson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:QuotePerson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created just over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete including Module:QuotePerson. Created by an editor who hasn't really edited either before or since. Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per above. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:TGL

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:TGL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I would say this navbox falls squarely in the "too soon" category; the "league" has only been around for a year, and there just aren't any articles written about the teams yet. I don't see any issue with keeping it if/when those articles are written but at the moment there's literally nothing here. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. 2 links is not enough for a navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Volleyball results 5

The result of the discussion was merge Template:Volleyball results 5 and Template:Volleyball results 50 into Template:Volleyball results 51. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Volleyball results 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Volleyball results 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Volleyball results 51 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Volleyball results 5 with Template:Volleyball results 51.
These three templates are essentially the same in a progression of expanded options in increasing order. #5 is the base model, #50 adds in the option for flags via |nat1= and |nat2=, and #51 adds in an optional Golden Set display. The code is nearly identical though so a page using #5 can use #51 with only the parameter order needing a little tweak (#51 automatically calculates the total while the other two have it as an input). Primefac (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

As a minor procedural note, I had to tag {{Volleyball results start 5}} with the TFD so that the nomination would appear without breaking extant uses (if it's any indication that these templates are basically the same, all three use this header template). When this TFD closes that template will need to be updated to remove the TFD tag. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge all per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge: as per nom. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 18:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:WOTD

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:WOTD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Word of the day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy-paste from Wiktionary. We don't have a Word of the Day, so none of this even works. Also, what's with the "counting frogs" bit? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 02:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of bundling in Template:Word of the day as related to this. As an admin, I declined a WP:G1 for both of these as they are not patent nonsense, and left a note on the editor's page asking why these have been copied from Wiktionary. A note from User:Polomo indicates that the editor who copied over the templates is indefinetely blocked on Wiktionary and Commons. I've checked and the accounts on those two sister projects are blocked for vandalism and disruptive editing. I support deleting these templates for the reason given by the nominator and because this looks like trying to find a new home for their disruption after being blocked on sister projects. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. These templates are not useful or usable on Wikipedia. This looks like a kind of block avoidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. These don't seem to be useful on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Procrastinator202 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)