Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 19
January 21 >

January 20

Template:Jaturong Mokjok

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) HurricaneZetaC 15:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No article on the subject, only directed two films with articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 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.

English variation templates

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. This was inappropriately relisted by a user with zero TFD experience. Additional discussion not needed at this time. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

On talk pages, these English variation templates just cause banner bloat—I don't think a single editor has ever (a) felt the need to change one variation to another, (b) went to the talk page first, (c) found the relevant banner in the onslaught of banners, and then (d) actually listened to its advice. On most articles, WP:ENGVAR is not disputed and the much more common and unobtrusive {{Use xxx English}} templates are sufficient. If it is an actual, recurring problem, an editnotice is much more effective. Therefore, I am proposing that we remove these banners from talk pages and retain them as editnotice-only templates. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  • I have seen talks start over a direct change to an article when these types of templates are seen in page notices i.e (Template:Editnotices/Page/Canada). What has happened because of this notice is a debate on the proper spelling.. for example Aluminium vs Aluminum. If you're talking about talk pages I can see it not being very useful but I've witnessed it many times being useful in a page notice. Moxy🍁 01:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Moxy: that's my exact proposal: don't use these as talk page banners; use them as edit notices (where it can be super helpful). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry..... Should have wrote "agree" then my statement.Moxy🍁 02:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    Soft delete, more likely than not what I've elaborated here needs to be a separate discussion, but I feel it's pertinent to why this discussion was started in the first place. Small text for readability:
    Though I often find it serves as an interesting indication of the primary regional affiliation of a given topic, it also makes proper analysis of relevant talk page info difficult. I think the more relevant discussion to be had is how to reduce the clutter of talk pages more broadly. This should be part of a broader discussion of potential areas of concern that can be combined into separate uniform areas of discourse to allow for multiple automatically collapsed (or collapsible) sections, (i.e language / editing conflicts / relevant categories / DYK / etc.).
    At present, the banner topics that are most relevant to the majority of editors end up being the ones that are collapsed most frequently (though it's always interesting to note, I'm not certain the lion's share of editors that are already familiar with a topic need to or care to see the full text of every single Did You Know spotlight that a page received, yet most often, you have to scroll through several paragraphs of text before you reach their conclusion because no collapsible state is ever employed for them).
    There are relatively few average readers who are even aware that talk pages exist. Most of the information that actually causes banner bloat on popular pages (or those with intensive discourse) is there for readers' benefit, not editors'. Most often this is done in an effort to assuage the concerns of those readers or legalistically elaborate on Wikipedia policy to justify article content that non-editors might take issue with. At least in my own experience, readers who are upset enough by an article's content to visit the talk page are going to take the extra step to raise their concern regardless of what's deliberated at the top of the page, which is ultimately the definition of banner bloat as it's explained in the article linked by @HouseBlaster. This ultimately prevents the exact engagement it's intended to stimulate.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • So you mean, put these templates not in talk pages, but in edit notices? I believe the latter would be more helpful to editors, too. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    Correct. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Languages differing can be confusing and it provides examples. Template:Australian English is a perfect example of this with labour (but Labor Party). E.G. let's say someone wanted to start a discussion on an article like this National Hockey League or Ice hockey to make a discussion to use American English stuff for certain content. They will immediately realise that the issue is that it is written in Canadian English. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    I take it everyone's aware that these notices are hidden in mobile view for talk pages.... It requires you to click on this little tiny thing if you want to read anything. Whereas it's a pop-up in mobile view when editing a page if it's an edit notice. Moxy🍁 03:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Servite et contribuere. These are useful notices. TarnishedPathtalk 03:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Alexeyevitch(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. 2600 etc (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful notices. Editors do change variations from one to another, obviously defaulting towards their own native English variation, and the banner is a handy reminder to be more careful and check to make sure you are following the English variation for that article specifically. jolielover♥talk 06:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not broken tho. This is helpful notice for the editor if they want to edit the articles with own English variation. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep a high proportion of articles I watch are written in New Zealand English and these notices do seem to be noticed by good-faith editors who just happen upon them going by the comparative lack in recent years of well-meaning attempts to change the vocabulary and spelling to American or other foreign varieties of English. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    The {{Use New Zealand English}} template is used on approximately 38,000 articles. Whereas {{New Zealand English}} is only on around 1500 talk pages. I wonder if you're attributing the success of Use New Zealand English to the rarely used New Zealand English template. No-one is suggesting the deletion of the Use New Zealand English template here. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The guidelines for which ENGVAR to use are covered at MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. Explicitly listing it on the talk page is both unnecessary, and often not compliant, as very often the variety given is not the one supported by the guideline. The reasons given for keeping the templates above, are the very reasons why they must be deleted. Editors use these as some sort of attempt to "win" ENGVAR edit wars, despite there being no way to determine if the template is compliant with the MOS. As per the nom, the talk page notices are unlikely to be checked by newcomers to the article even if they show the correct value, so overall they are a clear net negative.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – These talk page templates only encourage people to play games of nationalist territorial marking. The articles themselves are already tagged with ENGVAR maintenance templates, and categorised appropriately. There is no need for additional talk page templates. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • HouseBlaster is it intended that only page movers, template editors and admins can apply this message which restricting it to edit notices would imply? I'm a bit unsure how best to manage these templates and am also concidering if making the in article templates have a preview only display is a good idea but I guess that's off topic. Trialpears (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    Edit requests would be available. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This can help distinguish articles in either British or American English, so strong keep ~2026-11754-9 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    That's what the {{Use X English}} templates are for. These are superfluous. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong delete – These templates are useful as edit notices and useless everywhere else per HB. FaviFake (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    However, there are no edit notices in place that could replace them. Gawaon (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The 'Use X English' templates appear right at the top of an article page when a user clicks 'edit' and are quite sufficient, clear and unobtrusive. There is no need for a suite of templates to accompany them. I suspect these talk page templates are popular in large part because they allow a little flag to appear. They only encourage petty nationalisms and suggest 'possession' of an article which is a complete nonsense. Best deleted. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • It will not appear after the templates are deleted... Christian75 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    What won't? Use X English is not going. That will still be on each article edit page at the top. Up there with 'Use dmy dates' etc. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry. I forgot I wrote that before I added my other comment and had read the TfD again... But it wil only appear when pressing "edit" if some admin or template editor added it. Normal user can not edit edit-notices, and it is not moved, when articles are moved. Christian75 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Use xxx English}} templates are sufficient. I agree with this. Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡♡「talk?⋆.˚sTALK?. ݁₊ ⊹ .」 16:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a bot solution to add the templates on the editnotices pages are made and move them when pages are moved. Edit notice pages can only be edited by the super users (admins/TE/Page movers), and are not moved when a page is moved. Christian75 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful to make it clear what variation to use which can be helpful especially for controversial topics or those where it is likely people will change the variation. However I'd only use the templates when actually needed namely there is no need to tag Talk:Lowestoft with {{British English}} as it would be obvious as the topic is specific to British English but Talk:COVID-19 pandemic seems appropriate as that has no close ties to any variation and Talk:Wikipedia where although it probably has strong ties to American English it clearly isn't specific to it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant to main article template. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep NimbleNumbat (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep this template has been useful to me several times, and is useful to many other editors on Wikipedia. —paranormalcaramel (leave a message) 19:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been helpful. Also noting is the fact that all of the variants are not in the "EngvarB" tool.SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 20:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Closer, please note that the people voting to "Delete" may not be reading the nomination. The proposer is not proposing to delete these templates. The proposal is to remove them from Talk pages and use them only in edit notices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    As a procedural matter the expected venue for such a discussion would be WP:VPR or possibly an RFC subpage. May still be possible to move or do a speedy restart. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
    I read it, but this is functionally a "delete" from most usages so I thought it was simplest to vote that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cfls (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Cfls: The nominator did not suggest deletion. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is one of the talk page banners that should appear on the talk page, as it is useful to know what language variation of English an article is in before editing the article. Having edit notice in the edit page would also be helpful, for both the article and talk page. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: The reason these banners would be important is because an article about a nation-specific-topic is likely to be primarily edited from people of that respective nation. If they have to constantly think about what variation of English they need to use, it will slow down the rate at which they can make contributions, and without a way to show an agreed consensus of the usage variation, I think it would be more likely to lead to disruptive edit wars. Furthermore, nation-specific topics will, in most cases, be viewed by an audience from that nation, and making it more familiar with them, especially where the local variety uses different words for the same meaning, allows the articles to better serve there purpose as a source of information. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • strong keep, these templates are also useful for readers or newer editors who find there way onto a talk page and don't understand wp policies/why an article spelling is the way it is, it's good to have a notice that reflects the consensus on the talk page. also more visible on mobile devices.--Plifal (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Already voted keep, but another argument I am going to make is that some editors might actually click on a link for a discussion on the talk page rather than going to the article first. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I believe that these templates are useful for readers to know that certain words/phrases on an article are supposed to be spelled a certain way, especially when the notice does not present itself when people are editing. Plus, this will help prompt editors to not copyedit an article that is consensusly written in a certain dialect. — Alex26337 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep or Modify Deleting is somehat of a solution looking for a problem. So it is another notice on the talk page. That's trifling. If someone wants to make them into part of the banner shell so that they get displayed as part of that, that could be an improvement. They could be further turned on by Rater or a similar tool. Alaney2k (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't immediately see the need to delete this template. You say that WP:ENGVAR is not disputed and I agree with that (although there is sometimes American spelling used on Australian articles), but this template is there to assist WP:ENGVAR, not replace it. It is silly to delete a template that is currently in wide usage. Australian English has its unique quirks to British English, such as "Labor Party" in Australian English compared to "Labour Party" in British English, which I don't think all editors will easily understand before seeing this template. I do however think an editnotice could work really well. We should keep both this template and add an editnotice to Template:Use X variety of English. I never understood why there was no editnotice, that made the article template virtually useless. I'm not convinced that this is the best template to delete to free up space at the top of talk pages; if we are to delete templates, this is probably not the least informative one so it should stay. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC). Updated at 01:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    I'd hesitate to point to proper nouns as evidence of variation. According to Australian English#Spelling, for example, the word would be spelled "labour" except in the name of the Labor Party. And I'd think that a well-proofread source would spell each party's name distinctly regardless of the variety of English they use. Anomie⚔ 18:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I feel It’s good to inform other editors to adhere to an english format to keep consistency. Imagine if there are wirds like analyzed and analysed or color and colour in the same section. It may not be a big deal to a lot of readers, but it can prevent articles from being promoted to GA or FA class and especially in articles like Stonehenge, located in great britain, using other varieties like american english would just be inconsistent overall and is not the local language of the subject. Dylan240 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Among science pages at least edit-notices are very rare. I rely on engvar templates in Talk pages. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    @HouseBlaster I suggest that you start with a proposal to automatically update all pages editnotices if they use the template in the Talk page, then follow up with this kind of proposal. Perhaps that first step is not technically possible or would be unpopular, I don't know. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Neutral on some, delete others We don't need a template for every country that has a local dialect of English, although what exactly we should do for countries that are not "British" but are indistinguishable from British English (or are not "American" but are indistinguishable from American English, etc) when written in an encyclopedic register with attention to MOS:COMMONALITY seems like a tricky issue. For the cases that are distinguishable under those conditions, I don't have an opinion on whether templates for those should exist or not. I also don't know which exactly are distinguishable under those conditions beyond "British" and "American", and I'm happy to leave that determination to others as long as they can clearly explain the distinctions. Anomie⚔ 18:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    I see no issue of merges for any dialects that are indistinguishable from each other. TarnishedPathtalk 09:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, English variations can be confusing to native English speakers, not to mention people who speak English as a second language. It's very useful to have these banners for these people. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep These are great for knowing what variation of English to use. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I go through the thought process that the nominator is sure never happens about once a week. There's a few comments here suggesting that the rarity of talk page discussions/disputes about English variants suggests that these templates aren't useful, but I don't think they've considered that those discussions are rare because these templates are on the talk page. There was a discussion I think quite a few years ago now about condensing these templates down to just British, American, and Canadian, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete A lot of the keep votes are missing the argument from the nominator. These would do much better as an edit notice because it's front facing for every single editor. They have some usefulness but I was fairly certain the templates were used when it wasn't clear. This is a behavior through the years that adds a coatrack to the talk pages. If they help with catsorting, that can still be done through the /editnotice. – The Grid (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    Edit notices don't work on mobile. Talk page banners do. WP:COATRACK means something else entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    I know coatrack is different but I'm saying we gather many different templates for talk pages and they have become merged into {{talkheader}} through the years. For example, the WP Projects templates, Vital article template, off discussion template, etc. The functionality will not be lost. We don't have navboxes that work on mobile either, we still use them. I have no idea if there's any work on them via Phabricator. We are still working on mobile Wikipedia through the years with functionality. There's no deadline. – The Grid (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I already vote as Keep but I have added comments. The {{Use X English}} is not enough to say that an editor or newcomer will get that or much worse it's unnoticeable to them. I am not saying that editnotices is useless, it's unstable for mobile readers. There are many editors here and some of them are not in American English or British English (of course for the readers too), deleting this template are not the solution. Given to The Grid's comment: We are still working on mobile Wikipedia through the years with functionality., I am really convince that this is not the right time to delete this or not to delete the template. Again, I am not saying that {{Use X English}} is useless, it's just not enough. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Helpful tools for the talk page to distinguish the language and resolve spelling disagreements. These are not superseded by {{Use X English}} which is a hidden maintenance template on the article page. Flibirigit (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: One of these banners was actually how I learned about the MOS:ENGVAR entry in the first place. They're helpful! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 11:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • keep i am the editor who checks the talk page for the english variation. that is a thing i do relatively often. also edit notices would be too invasive for most purposes imo Cmm78 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep A very useful template, I don’t see a reason to delete it, as distinguishing between the different types of English can be very helpful. Crystal Drawers 🍌 (wanna talk?) 18:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It is helpful for people brainstorming text on the talk page (for later inclusion in the article). Editors who have the article and talk page watchlisted and arrive on the talk page to take part in this can do so without openening the article editor. Rolluik (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep As an edit notice, it only appears in the edit window. My experience is that people editing an existing article tend to go straight to the part they are expanding or changing and don't look at the edit notices (which are sometimes placed at the end of the article with things like external links and categories). This shows up when the date of the edit notice is left unchanged despite edits that would have the potential to violate it. (I say this having just made edits to an article on a United States Air Force unit that had been edited to say it was "organised"). In addition, the talk page notices don't just say "Use ______ English" they give examples to prompt such use. As mentioned above, IMHO, unless prompted by something like the talk page examples, editors just don't think about differences from "their" form of English. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: We do not want edit wars on what variation of English to use. The banner describes what variation to use, especially in contexts that do not involve a specific dialect. EvanTech10 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. These templates help readers what variant of English an article uses so they cannot ignore it easily. If there is a disagreement about what variant of English an article should use amongst users, they can reach a consensus and change the template to the appropriate English language variety. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. While not as essential as the corresponding "Use ..." templates in the articles themselves, these templates still provide useful information, especially for editors who may not know what to look for in the article text itself. Another point in their favour is that you see them immediately when opening the talk page, while the "Use ..." templates are invisible until you press Edit. Gawaon (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The {{use American English}} tags et al. do less for the average temporary/newbie/typo editor than the visible talk banner. Irrespective of mobile editing, section editing, or anything else, this isn't telegraphed well to any editor unfamiliar with MOS:ENGVAR, except on pages where the English variant was the subject of controversy. I tried editing Old Frisian on my browser and phone browser as a logged in and logged out editor, and there is no indication that the page should be written in American English other than an editor having prior knowledge either of the page's conventions or ENGVAR. A reversion with "This article is written in X English, please see talk page" is a much easier read to novice/typo editors than "This article is written in X English; please see small invisible text at the top of the editing page", and I think this makes it easier not to WP:BITE. I'd also like to echo MEN KISSING's sentiment about discovery. That said, I wouldn't hate a merge here like occurred with {{lang}}/{{langx}} at TfD; collapsing them into something like {{English use|American}} might be worth considering. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support—remove the nominated banners from talk pages and retain them as editnotice-only templates. These banners impart an extremely small amount information and take up too much space, contributing to banner blindness. Retaining the existing variety is an important principle, but there is no evidence that the talk banner functionality of these templates is the right method to advance it.—Alalch E. 00:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Where banner bloat is a problem, the edit notice could be removed from that page. As banner bloat is not a universal issue on every talk page, a universal action will not benefit every article with the template. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, the talk page banners are aimed at casual users and readers who are (a) less likely to pay attention to invisible wiki markup and (b) more likely to get mildly offended by the use of other varieties of English. The latter point is what distinguishes ENGVAR from, say, date formatting, it's something many English speakers get very worked up about and we would get a lot more stupid talk page comments if we lost the talk banners. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    Not to mention unnecessary edits that need to be reverted. Even so we get them, but well ... probably less often. Gawaon (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Amakuru and the previous talk page bloat rationale - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid point but it's not worth any arguments that may happen (valid argument still but some places have a unique style of speaking that has to be notified) BronMeat (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, largely as per the talk-page-bloat rationale. Also, plenty of folks (me included) who can spell the special variant words still don't always clock the other quirks that are firmly "British" or "American" - for example, “at the weekend” vs “on the weekend”. Others have said it’s territory-marking, but I’d suggest that even editors who reckon they’re sticking to a single variety aren't consistently doing so, which rather shows it isn't as pointful as some make out. If the aim is that more editors should pay attention to it, then the talk page is the very opposite of the right place to put it, kindly. This comment uses four varieties of English. --Komonzia (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep especially for the non-major variants like Philippine, Indian, or Ghanaian English. You can't treat these the same as American or British English. Everyone recognizes American English, so maybe that banner is just "bloat." But people constantly mistake Philippine English for typos or bad grammar. We actually need the banner on the talk page to stop people from "fixing" valid spellings. If this gets deleted, anyone using VisualEditor won't see the hidden "Use" template and will just overwrite the style. Please don't lump the smaller variants in with the big ones, they have a different purpose. Sisigegg (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    "Everyone recognizes American English" seems vastly optimistic. Plus details like Oxford spelling vs. American English often even won't be detectable in short texts, even if you are an expert (which I doubt most people are). Gawaon (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alalch E.--FeralOink (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm glad to see this long overdue proposal. It would be better if the {{Use American English}} family of templates, which are in the code of articles rather than talk pages, had a form=editnotice option as these templates have. Note that those templates are the subject of another TfD discussion at the moment. The only thing that gives me pause is if editnotices are invisible in mobile editing, in which case there might be an argument for having both editnotices on articles (for editors on desktop) and these talk page banners. Ham II (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    They are also invisible in other contexts, like when you edit individual sections. Gawaon (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    I thought they are visible when you edit individual sections of articles? I've just checked United States and United Kingdom and their editnotices are visible when you edit individual sections. That seems to me the biggest advantage editnotices have over either the current {{Use American English}} family of templates or the {{American English}} family of templates on talk pages. Ham II (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    No, that's a misunderstanding, such edit notes are big, rare exceptions. As far as I know, they are hardcoded for a very small number of articles and totally outside of the normal editing process. Normal editors cannot do this at all and nearly all (I'd guess 99.9% or more) or all articles standardized on a specific variant of English don't have them. Normal editors can add {{Use American English}} and friends but those don't generate edit notes, they are only effective in so far as an editor happens to spot them in the source code. Gawaon (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    Would it be difficult to make {{Use American English}} et al. generate editnotices that appear when editing all sections? If it is feasible, the editnotices could be the main point of those templates. Ham II (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    I think it's more or less impossible since page content (source text) as such cannot modify the preview window outside of the actually rendered page content. In any case such a change would require first a lengthy discussion (do we want such an obtrusive display on all language-standardized pages?) and then changes to the MediaWiki software, which would need months to be implemented (at least). Hence I'd suggest changing your vote to Keep for the time being, as that's not a short-term or indeed likely solution. Gawaon (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
    It could be done like the BLP editnotice. But whether that's wanted or not, yes, that would need a big discussion. Anomie⚔ 03:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as they are useful and fufill their purpose. Swee☩ Amber|Bbyshrkbss2 18:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep because they help to establish continuity on pages and let unfamiliar editors know which tense should be used. DominikTuazon (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep it's useful to remind editors which dialect articles are written in. Sometimes it's obvious in which case there is no need for the banner, other times it's not and thus the banner can be helpful. CNC (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I disagree. The template has a valuable place in reminding editors the dialect used in the article, even if it is a subtle one. TheBritinator (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it's a really useful template for me and (as seen above) many others. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Servite et contribuere. A group of vital templates imo. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 20:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with HouseBlaster here, this should be a edit notice. Nugs T·C (they/she) 03:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Did you realize per the above discussion that replacing these with edit notices is currently not a realistic option, since such a heavy change would require consensus before being implemented? Gawaon (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Is it not realistic because you don't think such a task is possible? It's definitely not preventing the RfC to continue here. – The Grid (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't understand what "retain as edit-notices" means. But (most) new editors on Wikipedia would not be familiarized with the interface or editing very fast. If someone does click on the talk page, they can clearly and visually see the dialect in which that article is written in. Moreover, I don't think new editors will see a single line in source edit mode or the translucent templates in visual editor. Although it would have been useful if {{Use (English dialect name) English}} would add its corresponding talk page banner by itself. Babin Mew (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - this isn't banner bloat, on the talk page it provides an authoritative record of which ENGVAR was used first (or which ENGVAR fulfils MOS:TIES), so that you can point to it during discussions or in edit summaries, without needing to meticulously post edit diffs each and every time, which is tedious and effort-intensive. And unfortunately, as much as I wish this wasn't the case, arguing over ENGVARs for a particular article is a common and recurring problem on Wikipedia, so there is a need to "make this process easier", and these templates do exactly that. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - These are useful when dealing with non-American subjects. It makes it so someone can't come in and "correct" things like date standards, spelling, etc. to what the individual views as correct. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep - as many have mentioned above, english being a global language with different variations means different spelling terms and even punctuation. To remove this would cause issues for new editors who would be more likely to default to native style. I do think people should maybe be a bit more studious about it in future though, as this means this isn’t being treated as important as it should be. Legendarycool (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - agree with Servite et contribuere. BlueRockThrush (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. as many other people have said these templates are incredibly useful especially for dates and units of measurement. Sacrosanctity (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
They are useful no doubt, but in fact they document only the variant of English used in and are unrelated to date style or type of units used first. Gawaon (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Strong delete Per nomination, as no one really checks the talk page, because anyone changing the variation and starting this would still mean people reading the editnotice. Theeverywhereperson talk here 08:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are no edit notices instead of these templates, rare exceptions excepted. (Slowly running out of patience because of how many people seem to get this wrong.) Gawaon (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We would get more passers-by who edit articles that do not edit pages with these templates, and so more people are going to get attention, so we can get a more diverse amount of opinions and thus have a more inclusive consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theeverywhereperson talk here 08:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The user who re-listed actually voted above. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment - If the main rationale for deletion is banner bloat. I think it'd be a better idea to condense the templates to two sentences maximum and made them as narrow as possible over deletion. Jotamide (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete These templates are everywhere, and they do not necessarily reflect the invisible banner placed directly on the article. The latter is what should have official status. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    In my experience you usually encounter both together. And in case you don't, just copy the template from the talk page to the article top, adding "Use" at its start. Gawaon (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Rather than telisting, it seems to me this should be closed because of no consensus. I see no lack of diversity, but rather a clear split between supporters of their use and opponents. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    Second this - adding nom group is missing {{English ties}} in case we mean to discuss all English dialect talk page notices - and per the TfD table in the Aug 2025 MOS talk re these templates, the last group TfD for these templates (on 7 Sep 2013), nom'd for talk page bloat (among other reasons), resulted in a clear keep consensus. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    I agree this should be closed now. Relisting is for cases where were was too little discussion and debate to get a definite result, which is clearly not the case here. That the relister had actually voted ("Strong delete") before furthermore indicates that this was a bad-faith relisting that should never have happened. Gawaon (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that there was no point to relisting this, there was plenty of discussion. Personally I'd expect it to be closed as keep, seeing as neither "omg banner bloat" nor "I assert they're useful" are particularly compelling arguments while there seem to have been far more of the latter. I'd also recommend the "it should be edit notices" people should prototype a Template:BLP editnotice-like system, get it implemented (probably via WP:VPR), and then they might have better luck getting these templates deleted on the basis that a more effective system actually exists. Anomie⚔ 03:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    I agree. Should we close this already? DominikTuazon (talk) 06:29, 21 January 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 individual darts tournament

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. Rough consensus is to keep as separate templates (non-admin closure) HurricaneZetaC 15:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox individual darts tournament with Template:Infobox darts tournament.
Nothing I'm seeing in the documentation shows how these are even different. When do you use one vs the other? Should be an easy merge. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

As wjemather said, one template is used for main tournament pages, whilst the other is used for individual editions of these tournaments. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wjemather. The two infoboxes have different scope. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge - The arguments about "this one has this, and this one has that" fail spectacularly when it is simple to just selectively use the parameters. The arguments made for keeping assume all parameters must be used, which is nonsense. Take infobox person as an example of selective parameter usage. There is no need to create artificial barriers to new and unfamiliar users by having disparate templates essentially doing the same or substantially similar things. ~2025-35232-00 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 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:Mountain list row wikidata

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) HurricaneZetaC 15:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Only used on a single user's sandbox. Hasn't been touched in over 2 years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:58, 20 January 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.

Module:WikidataCoord

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) HurricaneZetaC 15:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Mostly procedural TFD. {{WikidataCoord}} is being/has been deleted at this TFD. There are a few direct calls to the module that are left to be resolved, then this module should also be deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:58, 20 January 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:Source check

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 procedural keep. This requires discussion elsewhere per WP:CONLEVEL. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It has been almost eight years since IABot has stopped posting source check messages, and it seems very unlikely that this template will ever be used again in the future. As with all talk page templates I suggest we substitute and delete the almost one million instances of this template to (1) reduce server load, and (2) free up this title in case at any point in the future a template with a different function needs to be created. The associated help category Category:Pages with active help requests for the IABot Interface only has 102 open requests and I don't think these requests are being monitored, we can perhaps at least depopulate and delete this category rather than the whole template. We can direct users to use {{help me}} instead if they need help checking a web.archive.org or archive.today link.

Courtesy ping User:Cyberpower678 as I think he would know about potential future use by his bot. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_150#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts?. This is a proposal to make 1 million edits and the effort in doing so would greatly exceed the value. If you want to delete the category then I would probably support that at CfD, but this is the wrong venue for that. And if you want to talk about "server load" then see WP:PERF; adding one million more rows to the "revision", "slots" and "content" tables forevermore probably causes more load on the database servers than the existence of this template which (until this TfD) hadn't been edited in 2 years and "free up this title in case at any point in the future a template with a different function needs to be created" is wholly speculative; this template is very old and there hasn't been such an issue so there's no reason to expect one. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    I do agree it is a bit of a challenge to make a million edits over a short period of time. We can take this very slowly if we need to. We have Module:Graph which at its peak had more than 9,000 uses, which are still being depopulated.
    Even if there is consensus to delete, I do not expect this template to be deleted right away. Maybe in a few years. The deletion consensus can still be reversed before the template is actually deleted at WP:DRV. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    9,000 uses is paltry compared to 931,278. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete entire discussion that contains the template per Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages. This is a giant pointless wall-of-text that even back then was arguably useful. In many pages that I encounter this dominates talk pages with several of these on a single page. That said, I doubt this will pass. I'll note that I don't know what systems we had back in 2018, but today editors can ignore bot edits and we've deleted templates with 6 figures in the past (all the templates that were converted to {{langx}} and {{in lang}} for example, which together currently have almost 1M, so a bit less than that converted)). Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Question: Instead of a mass removal of these talk page sections, could a bot instead be programmed to remove only the ones with |checked=true? That would likely reduce by a significant margin the number of edits made all at once, and the rest would trickle away over time. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
    This is not about the talk page sections. It is about whether to subst and delete this particular template. I see little reason beyond archival to remove one of these sections from a talk page, especially en masse. I still hope for wider community discussion at this TfD. Multiple relistings may be required to ensure that. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    In other words, after the deletion, the output of each of the edited pages will be the same as before, just that there won't be a transcluded template in the source code. It makes it more friendly for section archival as well, since archive bots tend to not archive templates. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see any evidence that bots aren't archiving these. I've removed these sections from archives all the time. Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This needs wider community discussion, like a VP RFC, for three reasons: Previous RfC consensus. The number of edits. The bigger picture of the "External links added" sections - if we are going to do a mass delete, that entire section should go at the same time. It serves no purpose and clutters talk pages and archive pages. Don't do it twice: removing the template in one pass, and that section later in another pass. -- GreenC 02:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, it's worthless. I remove them when I see them. But the question is it worth making one million edits to remove them?
No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
It took a million bot edits within the course of three short years to get to this level, the only way this is going to go back down to one is if we do a million more edits to remove them. It is not something that I think I like, since even if there emerges consensus to delete this template it will take a very long time to depopulate all of the template's uses.
Maybe an RfC is justified before or concurrent to deletion. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Or, we can just let sleeping dogs lie, and ignore it. What do we gain, by deleting this? Sure, it should have never existed, but it isn't causing any harm, and deleting it will. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 29 January 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