Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 24
Template:Spd
- 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:Spaced en dash by redirect. Whether snd should have an HTML or a Unicode reference to the character could be further discussed on that talk page. Izno (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Spd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Spaced en dash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Spd with Template:Spaced en dash.
I cannot see any reason why we need two templates that provide essentially equivalent visual results other than for grammatical pedants (no offense). – and – appear the same so I'm not sure why we need both of these. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Merge to {{Spaced en dash}}, leaving a redirect. The output is the same, and {{snd}} is even easier to parse and edit around than the raw characters provided by {{Spd}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Merge per above. We don't need two templates for the same thing. The only difference is the personal preference of the subst output. Whichever version is best should be decided by consensus not forked into two options. This isn't a template that needs substituting anyway. Mclay1 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Don't merge: The output of these templates is not identical in wikicode: {{spd}} outputs
– whereas {{spaced en dash}} produces – . I created Spd specifically to subst into text the Unicode en-dash character when one is wanted, rather than the HTML code produced by the older template. And having two options is harmless. 🅑🅐🅖 ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅰🅱 03:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)- Query: are there any use cases in which the HTML code will do but the Unicode won't, or vice-versa? If (for example) the Unicode is always workable but the HTML may not be, we could simply merge and edit the {{spaced en dash}} template. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- User:Baffle gab1978 can you address the above question? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'd like to know use cases too, spd vs. snd. Ponken (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Query: are there any use cases in which the HTML code will do but the Unicode won't, or vice-versa? If (for example) the Unicode is always workable but the HTML may not be, we could simply merge and edit the {{spaced en dash}} template. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 24 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:Tiw
- 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Tiw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Template link interwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Tiw with Template:Template link interwiki.
Two templates that provide an interwiki link to a template, which is probably one more than necessary. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, {{tl2}} produces a result similar to {{tl}} with monospace code formatting (and is used for that purpose with local links, for example in Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard's header), while {{tiw}} produces a link on a separate line, with additional help links. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC) - Oppose. Some stats: tiw is used on 360 pages, tl2 (Template link interwiki) is used on 9200 pages, tlx (template link expanded) is used on 2.6 million pages. Mostly on template doc pages, none seem to be used in mainspace.
More information tl2, tlx ...
| tl2 | tlx | tiw |
|---|---|---|
{{Example}} |
{{Example}} |
Template:Example (backlinks edit) |
Close
- The superfluous template is tl2 - it should be replaced with tlx (identical output in simple usage). tiw is an obscure utility template - it could be converted to tlx perhaps but this would have to be evaluated manually. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:16, 27 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:Interactive COVID-19 maps
- 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. If the graphs issues gets resolved, these templates can be made viable again, and if there is a consensus that they would be used (i.e. not just keeping them for the purposes of looking at oldids) I see no issue with restoration. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Cumulative confirmed cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Cumulative deaths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Daily confirmed cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Daily deaths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita confirmed cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita confirmed cases/Large (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita confirmed cases/mobilefriendly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita daily confirmed cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita daily deaths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/Per capita deaths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Interactive COVID-19 maps/common (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All interactive maps are no longer active due to old graphs no longer being supported and all are unused. No need to keep anymore. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep and modify {{Interactive COVID-19 maps}} for historical reference. The templates were implemented at COVID-19 pandemic on March 22, 2020 as part of the infobox, 11 days after the declaration of the pandemic. At least 5000 revisions, ~20% of the page's history, have some version of the template on the page. It was one of the only uses of the graph extension's interactive functions, and likely the most viewed one as they were also used on the Turkish Wikipedia. Later that year, improving the graph extension ranked 6th in the community wishlist survey after not being nominated in 2019 and finishing 28th two years prior. These templates were removed from the main pandemic article on October 27, 2022. Two months later in January 2023, a community wishlist proposal was created to upgrade the back-end from Vega 2 to Vega 5. On April 17, 2023 a cross-site scripting vulnerability was found in the graph extension. On April 19, 2023 the community wishlist team started working on upgrading to Vega 5. That would eventually be abandoned in favor of the current mw:Extension:Chart's back-end.Meh on {{Interactive COVID-19 maps/common}}. It might be worth copying as plain text for future reference. Not a high priority since rebuilding these would require extension changes that aren't on the team's roadmap, and a sysop or WMF staff can always look at deleted text. But if a non-admin wanted to study how these worked to help improve the extension, it would be easier if the code was available. For example, at mw:Extension talk:Graph, MediaWikians have just been removing the script tags so that the questions still have context and are searchable.Delete The rest. They're just regular template wrappers for the core Vega JSON. — Wug·a·po·des 06:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all. Limited usage (2 years) and have been broken for longer than that. If they can't be converted to the Chart extension then there isn't anything useful to keep here. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all per Gonnym. Anyone looking at historical revisions will see some flavor of "some content used to be here but we can't render it anymore"; both MediaWiki:Graph-disabled and a redlinked template convey that. And if this is redone using {{Calculator}} or the Chart extension (the former seems more likely actually), the now-unrenderable Vega specs aren't useful unless someone sets up their own MediaWiki instance with the now-archived Graph extension or uses the Wayback Machine. And the set of people who can do the former, aren't admins, and can't figure out how to use old DB dumps to find the content anyway is basically nil (because the first part of the intersection clause is itself almost empty).. So I don't buy Wugapodes' concerns about non-admin wikiarchaeologists. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 24 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Albania medical cases chart
- 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 userfy the templates not using the legacy Graph extension and delete those. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Albania medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Austria medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Austria medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Belarus medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Belgium medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Belgium medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bosnia and Herzegovina medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bulgaria medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bulgaria medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Croatia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Cyprus medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Czech Republic medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Denmark medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Faroe Islands medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Denmark cases by age chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Denmark deaths by age chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Greenland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Denmark new cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Denmark new deaths chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Estonia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Finland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/France medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/France medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Germany medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Greece medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Current confirmed COVID-19 cases in Greece by sex and age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Hungary medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Iceland medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Iceland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Republic of Ireland medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Republic of Ireland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy statistics charts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Italy vaccinations chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Kosovo medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Latvia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Lithuania medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Luxembourg medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Malta medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Moldova medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Monaco medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Montenegro medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Netherlands medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/North Macedonia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Norway medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Norway medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Portugal medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Portugal medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Romania medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Romania medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Russia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Russia medical cases by federal subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/San Marino medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Serbia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovakia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovakia medical cases by region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovenia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovenia deaths chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovenia new cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Spain medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Sweden medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Sweden medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Switzerland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Turkey medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Turkey daily vaccination chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ukraine medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Vatican City medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
See same types of templates of Covid data below. Same rationale for this batch as ones below. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases + Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship as these mostly remain verifiable; Keep Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases chart, as statistically, along with all the other charts,
at least for the purposes of understanding intrinsic and administrative clustering, the C19CCTF medical cases chart data appear to be the better curated version of the national daily SARS-CoV-2 infection counts as reported by official agencies
.[1]There was consensus in 2020-2021 to (implicitly) override WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS. Most of the sources here by me and (I think) one other major editor for /Poland medical cases and /Poland medical cases by voivodeship mostly have archives of the sources, mostly at archive.today. This is a hand-curated set of archival, historical data of encyclopedic values that remains (to a fair degree) verifiable thanks to the archives. It is also a historical record of the Ministry's official policy of posting daily information only on centralised US-based social media instead of on the Ministry's website in Poland in a plain-text accessible data file. The chart only has generic URLs written as sources, but AFAIR, at least in the Poland case, the values were in reality those of the medical cases tables, but stored in a more convenient form for automatic retrieval. A hypothetical alternative to keep for these templates would be to transfer the data to Wikidata, but a debate would be needed over at Wikidata if the data are notable enough, and a volunteer to do the transfer would be needed. I'm not volunteering for either. Wikipedia is not just about current knowledge - encyclopedic coverage of past events is part of the mission. Keeping these three templates will help preserve encyclopedic verifiable knowledge.Moreover, as quoted above, the evidence is that the Wikipedia curated data is better curated than the corresponding WHO data set.[1] It would be a pity to destroy a high-quality human-curated dataset because it's no longer a popular topic. I would keep these templates for all countries, because they are evidence that human-curated, crowdsourced data has been, in at least one notable event, of higher quality than official data. The repeated infobox wars for quantitative NPOVing of data to include unreliable government data (justified by NPOV based on the difficulty of distinguish which govt data are reliable vs unreliable) are circumstantial evidence that the essay WP:ROGD remains an unsolved long-term problem for Wikipedia that is not going to disappear.If we want to block future Wikipedia crowd-sourced curation of data, then better block it next time it starts (and maybe propose that it be done directly in Wikidata, based on consensus over at Wikidata), rather than after it's collected. Boud (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)- There was no consensus to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats. What What Wikipedia is not is a policy that we can't ignore. None of these templates are up to date. They have been abandoned for years now. A templates having a citation does not mean it is worth keeping and certainly not what the nomination is about. There have been two discussions already resulted in other country templates like these to be deleted in October 2024 and December of last year. These are supposed to have up to date information. Some have been dormant since 2021. It's clear they have no use to be kept around. And all data is able to be found and added as part of the article instead of having to be transcluded from template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- There was a de facto consensus by the people doing the editing work to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats at the time those pages were being heavily edited. I don't remember a whole bunch of TFDs in early 2020 for these pages. This is not just the case of "a" citation; this is part of the history of effective crowd-sourcing of information, where the crowd-sourced version is (modestly) better than the officially curated version. I agree that it would be good to make sure that nobody incorrectly thinks that they're updated, and some decision is needed what to do next time an analogous situation comes up. As the climate emergency progresses, there'll be all sorts of world events where a mass of people may decide to push tables of open government data into Wikipedia. Two alternatives to deletion would be (1) to archive these pages, to make it clear that they're not updated, or (2) change them into redirects to their corresponding main pages in mainspace, so that the editing histories are preserved. Boud (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, but vast majority of editors no longer update these. So the de facto consensus is no longer relevant all these years later. I do not mind redirecting the templates to the main pages, but it is not an appropriate redirect because ideally templates that are redirected should be redirected to other templates. Preservation is still a waste of template space if it were still kept in template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- There was a de facto consensus by the people doing the editing work to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats at the time those pages were being heavily edited. I don't remember a whole bunch of TFDs in early 2020 for these pages. This is not just the case of "a" citation; this is part of the history of effective crowd-sourcing of information, where the crowd-sourced version is (modestly) better than the officially curated version. I agree that it would be good to make sure that nobody incorrectly thinks that they're updated, and some decision is needed what to do next time an analogous situation comes up. As the climate emergency progresses, there'll be all sorts of world events where a mass of people may decide to push tables of open government data into Wikipedia. Two alternatives to deletion would be (1) to archive these pages, to make it clear that they're not updated, or (2) change them into redirects to their corresponding main pages in mainspace, so that the editing histories are preserved. Boud (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to override NOTDATABASE and NotStats. What What Wikipedia is not is a policy that we can't ignore. None of these templates are up to date. They have been abandoned for years now. A templates having a citation does not mean it is worth keeping and certainly not what the nomination is about. There have been two discussions already resulted in other country templates like these to be deleted in October 2024 and December of last year. These are supposed to have up to date information. Some have been dormant since 2021. It's clear they have no use to be kept around. And all data is able to be found and added as part of the article instead of having to be transcluded from template space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- If any medical cases chart is decided to not be kept, then please userfy for me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete graph-based pages without userfying anywhere. These are broken pages. They clog up Category:Pages using the Graph extension which should eventually be at 0, not near 0 with pointless user pages. The rest can either be deleted or userfied. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
References
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC) - Delete Per nom below. Specifically for Poland though they can be preserved elsewhere. Wikidata would be a good start, as someone who also edits there, but I won't be volunteering. And to be honest I really don't support userfying especially if they use the Graph extension. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Medical cases charts don't use the Graph extension afaik. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete per nom, but no objection to migration to Template:Chart or moving "medical cases"-based templates to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 17 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia cases by state/territory
- 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 and userfy any using the "medical cases" module Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia cases by state/territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Fiji medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/French Polynesia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/New Caledonia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/New Zealand medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Papua New Guinea medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Solomon Islands medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Antarctica medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Diamond Princess medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Europe medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Algeria medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Angola medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Benin medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Botswana medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Burkina Faso medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Burundi medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Cameroon medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Comoros medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Egypt medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Eswatini medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ethiopia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ghana medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ghana medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ivory Coast medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Kenya medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Libya medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Malawi medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Mali medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Mauritania medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Mauritius medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Morocco (including occupied Western Sahara) medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Mozambique medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nigeria medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nigeria medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/São Tomé and Príncipe medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Senegal medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Seychelles medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Sierra Leone medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/South Africa medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/South Africa medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/South Sudan medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Sudan medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Tanzania medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Togo medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Tunisia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Uganda medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Zambia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Zimbabwe medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Zimbabwe medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Argentina medical cases by province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Argentina medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Suriname medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Chile medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bolivia medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Brazil medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per precedent of two previous nominations of other covid data case templates from October 2024 and my previous nomination on December 2025.
These COVID data template pages have either no transclusions or a few and are all or mostly:
1) out of date 2) In violation of WP:NOTDATABASE 3) In Violation of WP:NOTSTATS
These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of COVID-19 pandemic navbox, which violates our guidelines on linking from article space to other namespaces including from templates. The transclusions coming from the navbox add more than what appears to be direct transclusions with use of a template.
If any are single-use, i.e. being used only on one article, I would argue against subst and delete due to the outdated chart is no longer going to serve any purpose.
Five years ago, they were useful to have. Now, five years later, we don't have a need for these anymore. Delete and remove transclusions.
Most editors are no longer editing this information as Covid cases and deaths are not as significant anymore to keep a tally of and the world is not in a state of pandemic anymore. We just no longer have a need for these. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all There's practically no way to keep them all up to the present day, with most of the data sources are likely dead or full of rotten links. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Like before, userfy if a medical cases chart is not kept. On the other hand, I noticed that I wasn't notified about the recent December 2025 deletion discussion and, as such, wasn't able to cast my "Userfy" vote. Therefore, it would be nice Primefac if you could amend this issue and undelete/userfy those charts for me 😊. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- If deleted, oppose userfying Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Nigeria medical cases and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Zimbabwe medical cases as those use the broken graph extension and should either be converted or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that as they don't use {{Medical cases chart}}. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Pinging users from the previous discussions. Novem Linguae, Crossroads, Frietjes, thosbsamsgom, Izno, Vestrian24Bio. MarioJump83, Zackmann08, ReyHahn. Please also see the other nominations relisted on this Tfd page above and below this nomination set. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all. Tables of data don't seem like a great fit for the encyclopedia (WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDATABASE). The charts could be a good fit if it were a useful chart, but the charts I spot checked are mainly useful for checking the ratio of deaths to recoveries to active cases, which doesn't seem that useful to me. Also the strong consensus of delete all in the similar TFD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 25#Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bolivia medical cases suggests to me that we should finish the job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- See nominations for January 25. The rest of the country templates are nominated. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete all, clear violations of NOTSTATS. Most if not all of them are also severely outdated, and give a misleading picture of accuracy since little testing has been done for years, but for the record I don't think these should ever have been created, not even in 2020. Why would Wikipedia be the place for meticulous records of disease spread? If god forbid there is another pandemic, this sort of cruft should be nipped in the bud. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 26 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.
ICC Rankings
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:ICC Men's T20I Team Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:ICC Men's ODI Team Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:ICC Men's Test Team Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:ICC Women's T20I Team Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:ICC Women's ODI Team Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Just a wikitable; can be replaced with WP:LST instead; but a WP:HISTMERGE should be performed given the substantial page history. Vestrian24Bio 03:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Merge these tables should be in an article, not a template. Can copy list of editors for attribution if hist merge not possible. Spike 'em (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Merge into article and use WP:LST. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete, after merging with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Merge into the parent articles as tables in place of templates. As someone who regularly maintains these, I feel neutral towards the templates and would have no problem with them being deleted if the exact format is pasted into the parent articles. Bs1jac (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- A histmerge almost certainly can't be done here due to WP:Parallel histories. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment To me there is clear consensus to merge content into the parent articles, which I'm happy to do. Would replacing the templates with an LST back to the content allow the templates to be kept for attribution purposes, or alternatively, how do I construct a list of the contributors to paste into edit summary / talk page of destination? Spike 'em (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Spike 'em, I created a tool that generates lists of contributors that can be put in the edit summary when pasting the contents into the parent article. unfortunately, when there are a lot of contributors, like these, you have to use multiple edit summaries to get the entire list. I suppose, you could put the list of contributors in an html comment with the first merge, then remove that comment in a second edit? the general guidance for how to do it is outlined in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 2 February 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.
Autobahn 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 delete. Izno (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:BAB-Verwaltung (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Tunnel- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Plan-Parkplatz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Plan-Maut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Plan-Brücke-grün (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Kreuz2- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Kreuz2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Kirche (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:BAB-Grenze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Outdated template system and unused template after manual substitution DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Replace with the newer road system. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- For newer template system, it already enough for most of road junction lists, unlike the BAB and AB templates, the templates name already have problem as per WP:USEENGLISH, that make non-Deutsch native are difficult to use. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Even in Malaysian highway articles doesn't have too many template just for the junction lists. Although the Malaysian highway articles also have its own problems. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Restore and Stop pre-TFD substing of this type, which defeats the purpose of having templates, and bypasses the normal process used here. Per the instructions above:
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed.
– Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC) - Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 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:GeorgiaSenDst21–30
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:GeorgiaSenDst21–30 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it was created. Created in November 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- keep: I built it, and am still building it, in order to link the bios of past members for each district. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete this is part of a series of other GA state senate districts see Template:GeorgiaSenDst1–10. I clicked on a few categories for other states and none of them exist that I could find. I don't see a compelling reason for this to exist, let alone be replicated along the other 98 state legislatures across the country. If expanded to it's possible fullness you might have legislators that served decades apart from district 20 and district 29 in the same navbox that have had no reasonable connection to each other. The linkages by number spans are completely arbitrary too.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:07, 27 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:Uw-spamblacklistblock
- 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 to merge * Pppery * it has begun... 22:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Uw-spamblacklistblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Uw-sblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Uw-spamblacklistblock with Template:Uw-sblock.
{{Uw-spamblacklistblock}} uses the following phrasing:
You have been blocked [...] to prevent you from using your IP address to add external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist.
However, add[ing] external links which are blocked by the spam blacklist
is not a blockable offense. WP:BLOCK doesn't mention it; it only mentions spamming.
Not every attempt to add blacklisted links is bad-faith. (For example: I once tried mentioning some webpages in an AfD, only to learn that they are blacklisted. I hit the blacklist several times, because my comment linked multiple blocked domains.)
I strongly believe that edits should be judged on their own merits when blocking users. Using the blacklist to stop insertion of problematic URLs is acceptable. But it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist. I think this is common-sense and already the best practice. The text of this template of this template just doesn't reflect that.
I also don't see why to distinguish blocks for unsuccessful spamming attempts from blocks for successful attempts. A separate block template for spamming already exists at {{uw-sblock}}, and I believe it could be reworded to be inclusive of unsuccessful attempts to spam.
-- Janhrach (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support merge. Essentially per nom, these are redundant. If they truly are spam links, we can block whether they're blacklisted or not, just like we block for "repeatedly triggering the edit filter" even if few or none of the edits actually go through. Toadspike [Talk] 19:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Janhrach no, this is a block for persistently hammering the spam blacklist logs, making the log useless due to excessive amounts of similar or the same links (see e.g. this set, you will have difficulty to find a good faith entry in these 1000 related hits performed well within an hour; also see de.wiki). Nowadays less seen, but in the past we had spambots adding hundreds of links per IP, with IPs operating simultaneously. We even had an adminbot detecting IPs that performed these actions and block them. It is a blockable offense as it is disruptive, and because they are unauthorized bots. I would keep them separate (keep / no merge), though I can maybe be convinced that it is now obsolete. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Toadspike ah, I forgot that analogy, indeed we do this for repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but I fail to see how this doesn't fall under {{Uw-spambotblock}}. (That template was created in 2020.) Also, Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates explicitly lists this block template as intended for temporary blocks, not indefs. Janhrach (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Janhrach this template is for temp blocks, and it says so. I know there is overlap, but this template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log, which lacks on all others, spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses. Same as edit filter, you have blocks for vandalism, en blocks for insisting to trigger he edit filter on a filter that blocks vandalism, both are disruptive, but it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Did you actually go through the logs I linked and considered your
But it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist
in that respect? Do you understand that those logs are useless and that we need(ed) to stop those IPs from even attempting to hit the blacklist? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)template explicitly talks about the fact that you may not see any edits in the edit log
– I didn't know that; it is hidden from non-admins. This means that the blocked user also won't see this note.which lacks on all others
– Then, it should be added to the other templates. I don't see any downside to adding it to {{uw-sblock}} and {{uw-spambotblock}}.spambots or editors that spam while the link is not blocked are blocked with the other templates (and their links may later be blacklisted), this is for editors/bots that hammer the blacklist (examples shown in the two logs Ilinked). Those are different uses.
– From the point of view of the blocked user, it is not important whether the spammy domain is blacklisted, or whether they have been successful in spamming. The reason for the block is important.it is not informative to block the filter-hammerer for vandalism that they could not perform
– I think it is informative. It is certainly more informative than saying that they were blocked for hitting the blacklist. Hitting the blacklist isn't (inherently) a blockable offense. However:- Spamming is a blockable offense (and for spamming, there is {{uw-sblock}}).
- Deliberately hitting the blacklist is also a blockable offense. However, the spam edits you linked above didn't hit the blacklist deliberately. The edits' purpose was to add links, not to hit the filter. Spammers don't hit the filter just for the sake of it. Vandals might do that – in that case, the block message should specifically emphasize the deliberate intent of the hitting the blacklist.
- Using an unapproved bot is a blockable offense. Any unapproved bot can cause massive damage; this is not limited to abuse logs. (For this case, there is {{uw-spambotblock}}.) When it comes to spamming, edits like this are an exception, not a rule; for the vast majority of editors (both good-faith and bad-faith), I still think that
it doesn't make sense to block editors just for hitting the blacklist
.
Did you actually go through the logs I linked and and considered your [...]
– I did. You linked the logs after I had written that sentence. I understand that the logs are useless.- If there is an editor who happens to trigger the blacklist a lot, but they clearly aren't a bot, I would warn them, but certainly not block them without prior warnings. If this is particularly frequent, the logs should be fixed by fixing the software (by adding an option to exclude entries generated by specific users/IPs/ranges), not by broadening the block criteria.
- —Janhrach (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- There is a difference in hitting the blacklist (which I agree is not a blockable offense), and (intentionally) hammering the blacklist. Hammering the blacklist is blockable not only because the user is intending to spam (which is a blockable offense), but also blockable because of the disruption they cause. And sometimes it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors better instead of sweeping them all under the same rug.
I would not warn an editor who is hitting the blacklist. Ever. The hit is either in good faith or in bad faith. If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block. And an SPI (with block) was just performed on an editor who hit the blacklist after their spamlink got blacklisted. Note that warnings against spamming are inherently acknowledged the moment a 'Publish changes' button is pressed. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC) - If anything, I think a merge with {{uw-spambotblock}} could do, but I think there is still value in keeping them separated as the reason for the block (then mostly performed by an adminbot) is then easier to administrate/categorise. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure if we understand each other correctly. To clarify:
- By "hitting the blacklist" I mean (unsuccessfully) inserting blacklisted URLs, without regard to the editor's intent or the count of attempted edits.
- By "deliberately hitting the blacklist" I mean willfully/knowingly hitting the blacklist, just for the sake of it (for example to annoy other editors). Is this the same what you mean by
hammering the blacklist
? When someone intentionally hits the blacklist, they do it because they want to hit the blacklist. For spammers, it's the opposite; spammers want their edits to go live, not to get caught by the blacklist. That means I don't consider spamming to fall under intentionally hitting the blacklist.
If it is in good faith, you talk, if it is in bad faith, you block.
– Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was refering to situations where the edits are not clearly bad-faith. I used the word "warn" broadly, akin to when you warn an editor for inserting nonfree text, or for other (possibly good-faith) actions.it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors
– I don't understand how you delineate the meanings of these three templates. I think we both aggree that {{uw-spambotblock}} is for unambiguous spambots. But are you arguing that:- {{uw-sblock}} should be used for successful spammers and {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} for spammers caught by the blacklist?
- Or are you arguing that {{uw-sblock}} is for spammers, while {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} is for editors who are not unambiguously spammers or spambots or act in bad faith, but they are disruptive because they hit the blacklist too much?
- Which one of these two is the case?
- —Janhrach (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist, possibly in a hope to overwhelm it. Though there the word may also be wrong, since it is clear that it were botscripts. It may be close to attempts towards Denial of Service. It strikes me otherwise senseless to write a botscript which is only intending to attempt to add links that you know are blacklisted, I mean, there are no successful attempts, it is only blacklisted stuff (they could have claimed new domains and be successful ..).
For the good faith/bad faith situation, if a regular hits the blacklist, that is in good faith. If a 'newbie' hits the blacklist, the situation is dark grey, nearly black .. it is very unlikely that the previously spammed and now blacklisted 'yourobscurecompany.com' is now being added by a good faith editor (not impossible .. but). Those editors have already the failed the AGF-way-out before it got blacklisted, and as I said, I just saw a report about a new editor that tried to add a now blacklisted link, and that new editor was immediately checkusered. And I draw a distinction between warning (formal) and just talking, maybe on the 'don't template the regulars' side of definition.
I see three situations:- spammers = humans who add links, successful edits -> uw-sblock
- spambots = bots/human assisted scripts that in short succession add links to multiple pages. Successful edits. Non-approved. -> uw-spambotblock. Generally applied to IPs.
- the hammering bots = clearly bots that only add already blacklisted links -> uw-spamblacklistblock.
- The reason for distinction is that the first ones are 'human', and just get indeffed generally (they generally don't respond to warnings, and sometimes complain for 20 years that they cannot make money by having their links on Wikipedia). That is where you gauge your unblock requests on. Spambots are generally on IPs, and the IPs get reassigned, there may be reason to unblock after some time. The last ones, the hammering bots, get (or got, I don't know if the adminbot still monitors) mainly blocked by an adminbot, with a larger chance of error. Moreover, these blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits. They do not have contributions (or only good contributions in another life), no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter), and no regular logs (see this, nothing there, it is the first one in this one from above!). An uninformed admin may easily oversee this, and unblock the editor 'because they did not do anything'.
So for that reason, I think we need the three different ones. The reason that we may not need it anymore may be that WMF has adapted the MediaWiki software (captcha or so?) so that we don't see (so many) of these botscripts hammering anymore. But well, the template in existence or in the deletion logs takes the same space, with on the other side that undeletion is also cheap. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)no editfilter logs (SBL hits before edit filter)
– I didn't know that; thanks for clarifying. Do admins see the content of edits that hit the blacklist?First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist
– I thought that that was a futile attempt to spam, but that makes more sense.- With that in mind, I agree with you that having a separate template for hammering bots is beneficial. But I think that {{uw-spamblacklistblock}} needs some changes to fulfill this purpose. I would change its wording so that it refers to "deliberate disruption" or something similar.
Moreover, these [uw-spamblacklistblock] blocks are applied to editors who do not have 'visible' edits.
– I disagree with this practice (using the same template for hammering bots and editors with no immediately visible spammy edits). As I have originally proposed, I think that these users should be blocked under {{uw-sblock}}, and that the wording of {{uw-sblock}} should be changed to be more clear about blacklisted edits.- But I would also accept a compromise solution – creating a separate template for users whose all spammy edits have hit the blacklist.
- —Janhrach (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- First, I somewhat expect that the situation that I showed logs for was intentionally hammering the spam blacklist, possibly in a hope to overwhelm it. Though there the word may also be wrong, since it is clear that it were botscripts. It may be close to attempts towards Denial of Service. It strikes me otherwise senseless to write a botscript which is only intending to attempt to add links that you know are blacklisted, I mean, there are no successful attempts, it is only blacklisted stuff (they could have claimed new domains and be successful ..).
- I am not sure if we understand each other correctly. To clarify:
- There is a difference in hitting the blacklist (which I agree is not a blockable offense), and (intentionally) hammering the blacklist. Hammering the blacklist is blockable not only because the user is intending to spam (which is a blockable offense), but also blockable because of the disruption they cause. And sometimes it is better to have a bit more specific template so you can separate/sort editors better instead of sweeping them all under the same rug.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Question Now that they've hidden the IP addresses, is this relevant anymore? Would we block an account that's hammering the blacklist in this manner? I've never seen this template before, and I've never heard of a human raising "repeatedly hitting the blacklist" as a reason for blocking; I've only ever seen it in the bot-reported section of WP:AIV, and all the incidents I've seen are either false positives or people who also succeed in disrupting other things. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The template is worded as if it is intended for IP blocks. When one tries to edit from a blocked IP, are they shown this template, or just the logged block message? If the latter is the case, this template is likely to be of little use.
- Also, from searching old talk pages, it seems that when registered users were blocked under this template, they were blocked for ordinary spam (which got caught by the blacklist), not for hammering. Janhrach (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. The twin of this template is {{uw-efblock}} and that template does get used quite a honkin bit for only-has-filter-hits (though I've been moving the direction of issuing a block for the substantive issue, which in this case is spamming, with an additional "see also filter hits"). Perhaps this template could be redirected to that one for a joined "your edits were blocked and we think you're still being obnoxious" block template.
That aside, please do as the documentation requests and notify WT:TW that the one template has been nominated for merging. Izno (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
notify WT:TW
– Twinkle had done so. Janhrach (talk) 09:54, 14 February 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:Simon Property Group
- 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 February 6. Izno (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Simon_Property_Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Simon_Property_Group_West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Simon_Property_Group_Midwest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Simon_Property_Group_Northeast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Simon_Property_Group_South (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Premium_Outlets_Eastern_United_States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Premium_Outlets_Western_United_States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Premium_Outlets_Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:BAB-Baustein-Hinweis
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:BAB-Baustein-Hinweis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Doesn't really seem to be a need for a list of templates in a template. Substitute the category and delete. DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to, or replace with, {{BAB-Tunnel/doc}}. This is shared template documentation and should be stored in a normal place for shared template documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC) - Delete. The entire set is already being deleted, so at this point, these nominations are just procedural. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 8 February 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:BLP nonbinary editnotice
- 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 February 7. (non-admin closure) Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:BLP_nonbinary_editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pronoun_editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete after merging the history with Template:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Now used only on Template:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree, subst and delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Do take note of the history here where substing and deleting was tried and reverted. I wouldn't be so hasty here ... * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 24 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:Boroughs of Mexico City
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Redundant to {{Mexico City}}. We just got rid of {{Mexico City neighborhoods}} at this TFD. No need for this one to stick around either. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I would suggest to use subgroups to distinguish boroughs and neighborhoods in Template:Mexico City. Cfls (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Links seem to already be in the bigger template. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 5 February 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:China provinces big imagemap
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:China provinces big imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused. Not needed. Plenty of maps of China exists already. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Cfls (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)- Support. Cfls (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete (do not subst to userpage). Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 5 February 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:PRC provinces big imagemap alt
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2026 February 16. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-use map. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It is an interactive map (which supports clicking on the provinces; not just an image), and it is used in the China article for the illustration of Chinese provinces. The deletion will negatively affect a highly visited article. Cfls (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)- You can still do that with a map without needing it to be on template space for it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- If so, then we need to ensure that the same-functionality interactive map is configured before any potential deletion of the template. Deleting this template should not negatively impact an article‘s readability, especially since China is a highly visited page on Wikipedia.
- Before the same-functionality interactive map is configured, the deletion of this template should be avoided. Cfls (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Moreover, I think Administrative divisions of China also needs this map. Cfls (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's what subst means. We can just copy and transclude the map easily onto the article space. It's a waste of template space to be used for single purpose. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- You can still do that with a map without needing it to be on template space for it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 25 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:PRC provinces imagemap
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:PRC provinces imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single-use map. Subst and delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Cfls (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)- Support (under the condition that "Subst" is implemented). Cfls (talk) 00:12, 26 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:Editnotices/Page/Template:Pruned editnotice/testcases
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted as G8 by Trialpears (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (non-admin closure) HurricaneZetaC 19:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Pruned editnotice/testcases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not sure what purpose this serves, since {{Pruned editnotice}} was recently deleted, and the immediate parent page Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Pruned editnotice seems to have never existed to begin with. Maybe speedy delete per CSD G8? I would have nominated this myself, but I can't edit the page, so here's a TfD instead. Duckmather (talk) 18:13, 24 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:Defunct PRC provinces
- 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 February 6. Izno (talk) 18:41, 6 February 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:Petro Gazz Angels roster
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Petro Gazz Angels roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused roster. Team dissolved this month. No longer needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete whilst the article sources show it's unclear whether the team is dissolved or taking a break, either way they don't have a current roster, as they're not competing this season. If they do return, then and only then it makes sense to potentially undelete this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 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.
Template:Argentina national cricket team series history
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Argentina national cricket team series history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cambodia national cricket team series history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Cambodia national cricket team tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Zambia national cricket team series history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
None of these templates contain direct links to the subject of the national cricket teams. WP:Bidirectional is not met due to no direct relevance to the template subject matter. This is basically a list of tournaments and competitions the teams played in which is something we can find on an article easily. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Most of the series listed in these templates do not even have their independent articles for not meeting notability guidelines.
- Cric editor (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete random collections of articles that random teams competed in, clear case of template by association, which we don't need. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 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.
Template:2024 T20 World Cup sidebar
- 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) 22:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Template:2024 T20 World Cup sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2026 T20 World Cup sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per WP:Leadsidebar. We have navboxes for the 2024 and 2026 T20 World Cup. Not every subject that has a navbox needs a sidebar. Avoid redundancy with templates. Just because it is easier to access links from a sidebar does not mean it improves navigation to articles for the subject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Deleteas per nom, we already have templates for this purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete it might be easier to access the links in a sidebar for some, but for the visually impaired, they are hidden beneath a show/hide toggle which screen readers are not capable of using.— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Unecessary sidebar, fills up too much of the page after the infobox. Spike 'em (talk)
- 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:2028 T20 World Cup sidebar
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:2028 T20 World Cup sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per WP:Leadsidebar and WP:Too soon. Mostly filled with redirects and plain text. Even the main article for 2028 T20 World Cup is a redirect to the Men's T20 World Cup article. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, a number of articles and templates were created related to the same tournament and have been deleted before too.
- Cric editor (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Really does not add anything. All redirects are to the same page. Sputink (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 22:03, 25 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:Country data Rashidun Caliphate
- 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 February 6. Izno (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Country_data_Rashidun_Caliphate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Ministry of Sports (Taiwan)
- 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) 22:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Ministry of Sports (Taiwan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only one article outside the main title link. Not enough for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 22:04, 25 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:50 most populous Nordic urban settlements
- 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Template:50 most populous Nordic urban settlements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The main article lists 52 urban areas but this template lists 50. Precedents: Logoshimpo (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep; no deletion rationale provided. The navbox is clearly used (in 50+ articles) and useful. If the nominator feels that it is important to make the contents of the article and the template the same, one or the other can easily be edited. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Navboxes list articles which are a part of a series. If the contents of the article and the template are not the same then we would never have consensus. Logoshimpo (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Jonesey95. QubeCube (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per Jonesey95. No argument presented for deletion. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 30 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:30 most populous cities of Denmark
- 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The main article lists 36 urban areas but this template lists 30. Precedents: Logoshimpo (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Cfls (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep; no deletion rationale provided. The navbox is clearly used (in 30+ articles) and useful. If the nominator feels that it is important to make the contents of the article and the template the same, one or the other can easily be edited. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Navboxes list articles which are a part of a series. If the contents of the article and the template are not the same then we would never have consensus. Logoshimpo (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep, please, as the template has been in use since 2008, provides useful information and has been regularly updated. I believe the first number for København includes the metropolitan area, including some areas that had been cities in their own right. Objectivesea (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Wow: so many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions used by your vote specifically WP:MERCY, WP:LONGTIME, and WP:USEFUL. Logoshimpo (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Also: navboxes shouldn't be regularly updated because article content is meant for that. Navboxes are only for and only include series. Logoshimpo (talk) 21:23, 31 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:Educational assignment
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Can this template be deleted or placed as a talk page post similar to Template:Course assignment? I found one on the talk page of Cognition that was 13 years old that said that it was part of a current assignment. It was mentioned in this template for discussion but seemingly the only one that wasn't taken care off. Rolluik (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Sometimes it is used on the article page (in contradiction with the documentation that says that it should only be on the talk page) but it isn't visible then. If parameters are not filled in, its output says that it is a current assignment. Rolluik (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know if it matters, but I sometimes work with students on Wikipedia outside of a specific course. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep as is, or improve: The template is intended to be used on talk pages only and says so in its documentation. Perhaps it should be amended so that the default, when no date is given, is to pick up the current date and state "As of 23 January 2026 it was the subject of an educational assignment", to avoid the problems of stale templates as discovered by the OP. PamD 14:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per above argument. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep I agree here. An education assignment is a little different, as a course assignment is usually made of multiple assignments. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This gives completely undue weight to what is essentially pointless information for 99.9% of the community. This is even less important than a WikiProject banner tag, yet this had much higher visibility and as Rolluik has pointed out, it's just left to rot on the page even when it isn't relevant. Either this is coded with a bot that removes these templates once assignment is completed, or just don't put it at all. Keep this information on the Wikipedia:Student assignments project pages where people who care about such things can see it. Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: There are a handful of educational welcome message and other related templates that are commonly left for new Wikipedia accounts of students who are editing as part of their class assignment (such as {{Welcome student}}). Many of them currently recommend that they add this template to the talk pages of articles that they'll be editing as part of their educational assignment. If consensus is reached to delete this template, we'll need to make sure that all of them are modified and have this recommendation removed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 4 February 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:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Greater Richmond Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods with Template:Greater Richmond Region.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. In this particular case, just keep only the links. Don't add plain text or any red links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 4 January 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) 04:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC) - Support. Jq talk 💬 contributions 15:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. The first template is for the city; the second is for the greater region, which includes some surrounding counties and should also include (but doesn't) some nearby cities, like Colonial Heights. Why not merge the county navboxes for all sixteen counties into this one, while we're at it? I can understand the argument for merging the neighbourhoods template with a city-specific template (something comparable to the San Jose proposal above), but not with a greatly expanded regional template. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are right. I just found out about Template:Richmond, Virginia. We can do this. Merge the neighborhoods into this navbox. And delete the regional navbox. Most of the entries in Greater Richmond Region are for the city as a whole. And Greater Richmond Region subject is not really a suitable topic for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm a little uncomfortable with the general idea of these mergers, but not to the point that I've opposed any up above (as I say, I can understand the argument), and I likewise wouldn't oppose a proposal to merge this template with {{Richmond, Virginia}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- By the way, the regional template has eighteen "Attractions" links; eleven are in the city of Richmond, six in surrounding cities and counties, and the American Civil War Museum is a mix of sites in Richmond and a site in Appomattox, far outside the entire region. I didn't click the links in the first part of the regional template, but I'll guess that they too are city-related. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are right. I just found out about Template:Richmond, Virginia. We can do this. Merge the neighborhoods into this navbox. And delete the regional navbox. Most of the entries in Greater Richmond Region are for the city as a whole. And Greater Richmond Region subject is not really a suitable topic for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan, why don't you just close this as withdrawn and start over by proposing the merger of the neighbourhoods template with the city template? I seriously doubt that User:Jq would find that an objectionable situation. And I won't offer input on the new proposal, per my comments above. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 2 February 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:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo
- 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:Sarajevo. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Sarajevo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods of Sarajevo with Template:Sarajevo.
Per precedent of Tfds on December 21. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include without worrying about navbox size. And there is already a section on the main Sarajevo navbox for this. Redundant to have two navboxes. Just keep the blue links into the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:55, 4 January 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) 04:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)- Support like the others. Jq talk 💬 contributions 15:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, for now (although, I'm inclined to support); the Neighborhoods of Sarajevo (NS) is huge, and even now has more than 30 blue links, and potentially 3 times as more if all red links get their articles. It could swell to enormous proportians, as evident with current size of the NS. We can leave only blue but it will grow, and when that happens what then? (I suppose this is the case with all the templates considered in this thread.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC) - Comment: {{Sarajevo}} is right at the limit of being too large to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- merge, {{Sarajevo}} already has a neighborhoods group, so merging would reduce duplication. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 23 February 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:Neighborhoods of Tripoli
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Neighborhoods of Tripoli (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No longer used after replacing with main navbox. Some links were not neighborhoods that were removed and only three links are present. Fails navigational purposes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Propose merging. — The Anome (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- To what? There is nothing to merge to. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 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) 04:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment No merge is explained by sole voter. Templates is not needed to merge. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete after making sure {{Tripoli, Libya}} is used on those pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 5 February 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:Neighborhoods in Dubai
- 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. Izno (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Dubai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Neighborhoods in Dubai with Template:Dubai.
Main navbox is capable of listing neighborhoods. Easy enough to include in its own collapsible section without worrying about navbox size. Do not add red links over to the main navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:47, 4 January 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) 04:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC) - Oppose. Template:Dubai is horrible and too large to be of actual use. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 5 February 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:Ethnic groups in Rwanda
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
for consistency with this TfD, this navbox can be merged with Template:Rwanda topics Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Not opposed to a merge. But still delete this navbox in the end. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- The content was already merged, so all that is left is to delete. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Already merged and all pages have the topics template. Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 5 February 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:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases
- 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 the graph-based and userfy the rest Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Gibraltar medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations daily chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations weekly by nation chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom cases and deaths chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom cases by week reported chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom deaths by week reported chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom per day deaths chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bailiwick of Guernsey medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Isle of Man medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Bailiwick of Jersey medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom new cases by day reported chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Northern Ireland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Scotland medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Wales medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/England medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Same as two batches below. Out of date and no longer updated or needed. Almost six years since the start of the pandemic and a couple of years later into 2026, these templates have not been updated as much. No need to keep. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Like I generally say in these, userfy any medical cases chart that would be deleted otherwise. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Delete graph-based pages without userfying anywhere. These are broken pages. They clog up Category:Pages using the Graph extension which should eventually be at 0, not near 0 with pointless user pages. The rest can either be deleted or userfied. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sort out which of these are what and what to do with them. Some of these seem to be graphs. Others seem to be tables.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)- Pppery, these are the graph based templates:
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations daily chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom vaccinations weekly by nation chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom cases and deaths chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom cases by week reported chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom deaths by week reported chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom per day deaths chart
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom new cases by day reported chart
- Gonnym (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pppery, these are the graph based templates:
- 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:Prod-speedy
- 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 January 31. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Template:Prod-speedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:COVID-19 UK timeline sidebar
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 UK timeline sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per WP:Leadsidebar. All links are found in the main navbox Template:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. We just do not have a need for every subject to have its own sidebar. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Unrelated comment/question. Shocking to see that OP got 'nuked'. I would believe that this doesn't make all the TFD discussions stale/void, right? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. HKLionel TALK 08:09, 5 February 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:2021 2nd half. Monthly cumulative COVID-19 death totals by country
- 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 February 6. Izno (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Template:2021_2nd_half._Monthly_cumulative_COVID-19_death_totals_by_country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2021_first_half._Monthly_cumulative_COVID-19_death_totals_by_country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2022_first_half._Monthly_cumulative_COVID-19_death_totals_by_country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.