Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 27

Template:Hellblade

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 August 4. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hellblade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ninja_Theory (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:Adoption backlog

The result of the discussion was withdrawn in favour of MfD. Apologies, and thanks, Pppery :). (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Adoption backlog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is dependent on the now-deleted Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, which was populated by Template:Adopt me before its deletion at TfD last September. It now has no use (and permanently displays the number of users seeking adoption as -1). GoldRomean (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a userbox so needs to be nominated at WP:MFD instead. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox urban feature

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox urban feature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox street (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox urban feature with Template:Infobox street.
"Infobox square" was previously merged into "Infobox Street". It seems that the latter can do this job (with minimal, if any, changes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's why I brought it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 27#Template:Infobox square - it doesn't make much sense for square to redirect to street, when it can redirect to urban feature, which actually seems logical (a square is an urban feature, it's not a street). --Joy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I should mention that I tagged that redirect for discussion, which affected ~50 articles, but this sort of a discussion affects ~4k + ~500 articles. I don't think the squares are enough of a big deal in comparison :) --Joy (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the rationale for merging? Simply 'can do this job' doesn't imply any improvement and IMO is not a rationale. Please provide more details. Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. While I think we can reasonably say that a square is just a type of street (a flattened surface in an urban environment where people can move from one place to the next, or hold events, etc. with a street name, addresses etc.), "urban feature" is rather vague but simultaneously a lot broader than that. Does it include fountains, gardens, monuments, statues etc.? Then I Oppose this merger because those aren't "streets". NLeeuw (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thirded. If there is to be any merger, then "Infobox street" should be merged into "Infobox urban feature", as the former is an example of the latter, not the other way round. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense:

{{Infobox street}} – 4436 transclusions
{{Infobox urban feature}} – 470 transclusions

A redirect from 'urban feature' to 'street' will suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, but why would we even bother doing any of that, when all I asked for is to have a good destination for Infobox square?

By this I implied that Infobox street was not a good one - the parameters mostly don't match. The parameters of urban feature, however, mostly do match.

I think I made a mistake, I should have simply updated it myself and cleaned up the 50 existing square transclusions, and it would have been less effort than to deal with all this. :) --Joy (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, WP:Infobox consolidation. The destination of the Infobox square redirect is orthogonal to the issue at hand. But Wikipedia is voluntary; you do not have to "deal with" with any of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We already have other, more specific, infoboxes for fountains, gardens, monuments, and statues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:Infobox consolidation. We have ample precedent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I view, {{Infobox street}} is more similar to {{Infobox road}} (used for "major" highways like the Henry Hudson Parkway) than {{Infobox urban feature}}. {{Infobox urban feature}} is usually used for points of interest like the Hess triangle. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Parameter analysis

From the monthly parameter reports, the following 49 44 parameters are used in {{Infobox urban feature}} and have a corresponding parameter in {{Infobox street}}:

|address1=
|address2=
|area=
|complete=
|construction=
|cost=
|demolished=
|designer=
|destroyed=
|embedded=
|former_names=
|ind_name=
|ind_name_lang=
|image_alt=
|image_map=
|image_oth=
|image_place=
|imagesize=
|length=
|location=
|map_alt=
|map_caption=
|mapframe=
|mapframe-caption=
|mapframe-coordinates=
|mapframe-custom=
|mapframe-frame-width=
|mapframe-marker=
|mapframe-point=
|mapframe-shape=
|mapframe-stroke-color=
|mapframe-stroke-width=
|mapframe-wikidata=
|mapframe-zoom=
|name=
|native_name=
|native_name_lang=
|open=
|other_names=
|owner=
|type=
|pushpin_label=
|pushpin_label_position=
|pushpin_map=
|pushpin_map_alt=
|pushpin_map_caption=
|pushpin_mapsize=
|pushpin_relief=
|website=

The following 16 21 parameters are not in {{Infobox street}} and would have to be added in the merge:

|amenities=
|architectural_style=
|builder=
~~|construction=~~
|coor_pinpoint=
|coordinates_footnote=
|dedicated_to=
|dimensions=
|features=
|footnotes=
|height=
~~|ind_name=~~
~~|ind_name_lang=~~
|manager=
|nickname=
~~|other_names=~~
~~|owner=~~
|parking=
|steps=
|surface=
|transit=

Given this analysis, I oppose the merge. While some of these 21 new parameters could be generally helpful (e.g., |other_names=), I think many of them would "junk up" {{Infobox street}} and tempt editors to make worse infoboxes. — hike395 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out --- fixed in the analysis above. I will stick with my oppose because I think the remaining 16 parameters will still junk up {{Infobox street}}, although it is definitely better than I originally thought. Unless you are proposing deleting more than |parking=? — hike395 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

We could delete or remap the following less-used parameters, and then I would support a merge: |amenities=, |architectural_style=, |builder=, |coor_pinpoint=, |dimensions=, rename |footnotes= to |module=, |height=, map |nickname= into |other_names=, |parking=, and |transit=. If we did this, then the extra burden on {{Infobox street}} would be minimal: |coordinates_footnote=, |dedicated_to=, |features=, |manager=, |steps=, |surface=. — hike395 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

All right, so I'm still not quite getting the concept here. Why would we declare it implausible that some of these urban feature topics have an architectural style, builder, dimensions, transit access, amenities etc, that are key facts about them? That just seems weird.

The urban feature infobox has existed since 2010, split out of the settlement infobox it seems. Pigsonthewig created the Infobox square redirect to Infobox street in 2014. Since then, the square redirect was barely used (34 transclusions). The urban feature infobox was used by an order of magnitude more (448 transclusions). I looked for square articles that are using Infobox street directly that are not obvious from these statistics, and by going through by my rough count there's 314.

So judging by that, we already know that this layout is not particularly appealing to the editors - they're actually using the somewhat awkwardly, generically named "urban feature" infobox more often than the street infobox for squares (448 > 314+34). What is the exact benefit of a consolidation that we're looking for here? How would this merge help make it more likely that people will format good infoboxes for squares, plazas, walkways, etc? It seems more like a technical migration for its own sake. --Joy (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"we already know that this layout is not particularly appealing to the editors" We know no such thing. 448 vs. 348 (1.29:1) is closer to equal than decisive; and a significant proportion of those 348 are not squares.

The benefits of merging are explained in WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I have referred more than once already. No benefits of maintaining separate templates have been suggested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You didn't see the part where I said "urban feature" is awkwardly named. It's just unlikely people think of that when they say "Hey I want this thing to have an infobox". So it's really weird that the ratio is that high.

The premise of infobox consolidation is covering the same subject. We already know that not all streets and urban features are the same, regardless of how they may have similar characteristics - the line vs. point distinction as identified nicely by AlphaBeta135 is very pertinent here. There's a reason why we don't try to merge infobox railway station with infobox railway line. --Joy (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I did see what you said; I just didn't think it was as significant as the errors I corrected. If "'urban feature' is awkwardly named", ~~what~~ why are you arguing to keep it?

Squares (and parks and buildings) are not points, they are areas. {{Infobox street}} already has an |area= parameter. As I demonstrate above, Infobox street is already, by your own rough figures, used for almost as many such features as is infobox urban feature.

We indeed don't try to merge infobox railway station with infobox railway line; but we have merged many, many station templates together, and many, many line templates together; even when they were very different kinds of stations, or lines, and we did so based on the similarity of the fields in the templates; as is the case here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The elephant in that room is that I have no idea why we'd need an area parameter for a street. It's exactly the kind of a convoluted parameter that we get through excessive consolidation. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

It should also be borne in mind that the "urban feature" infobox is being used on a number of articles which should instead be using a more suitable infobox, like

Trevi Fountain, which should use {{Infobox artwork}} (to which {{Infobox fountain}} redirects)
Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook State Park ({{Infobox park}})
Queen Elizabeth Planetarium ({{Infobox museum}}; to which {{Infobox planetarium}} redirects)
Kamuning Footbridge ({{Infobox bridge}})
De la Rosa Elevated Walkway ({{Infobox street}}, of course).

It's even being used on Venetian Arsenal (a complex of buildings), River Landing Towers (a "mixed use development") and Lethbridge & District Exhibition (a corporation!). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find some exceptions in the set of articles using infobox street. I already said the math was rough. The problem isn't the specific numbers on the margins, but the fact that the use of infobox square hasn't risen proportionally over time. --Joy (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not that the maths is rough (which indeed it is); it's that the way you interpreted it was wrong (not least in claiming that a ratio of 1:29 or fewer was "far more"), which means that the conclusion you drew was erroneous. I have laid out why, and the correct conclusion, in some detail.

Any "exceptions" in uses of infobox street are likely to be far less significant, given its order-of-magnitude higher number of uses.

You (or anyone else) have yet to make any argument why both templates are needed; or indeed why an "Urban feature" template should be used for artworks, buildings, bridges, or parks, all of which already have their own dedicated infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the argument I made about naturalness of the infobox name, we're going in circles. --Joy (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

And you are ignoring all the points I made.

The "naturalness" (whatever that means) of the infobox name is immaterial, because redirects can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring all the points you made, I'm engaging with you. In retrospect, that might be a mistake, as the result isn't productive if you feel entirely not heard. --Joy (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You still have duplicates listed, such as |dedicated_to & |namesake=; |coor_pinpoint= & |coordinates=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Mostly oppose. The fundamental issue with merging the two templates is that {{Infobox street}} is used for linear features (streets typically have two termini), while {{Infobox urban feature}} is used for point features. I do support retargeting {{Infobox square}} to {{Infobox urban feature}}. AlphaBeta135 talk 02:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

But that is not true; {{Infobox street}} is used for linear features (including stairways) and squares. Indeed, as our colleague points out above, it is used for 348 squares, almost as many as the other template's 448 uses in total. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of squares that use {{Infobox urban feature}} instead of {{Infobox street}}, such as Times Square, Kenmore Square, and Nubian Square. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. My point was that Infobox street is also—almost equally—used for articles about squares, contrary to the claim you made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

All of this is meaningless because it's just random editorial actions - just like infobox street is used for squares because Andy redirected it there, urban feature is used for Times Square because I made it work with that. The key point isn't what a couple of particular editors do or have done, but what actually makes sense for the average editor who is supposed to use these constructs to improve the encyclopedia, what happens organically. --Joy (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox street is not used for squares because I redirected it there. It was redirected because the street template was being used for squares.

The key point is not "what actually makes sense for the average editor", because the underlying code, thanks to template redirects, will not be seen by them, and nothing will change in the markup of the articles they edit. The key point is to reduce template duplication, as explained at WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I now refer you for the fourth time

None of what I wrote is meaningless. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You can reduce duplication if it makes sense, and it makes sense if the concepts are duplicated. It doesn't make sense to merge just because of some overlapping syntax - yes, multiple things can have dimensions, but that doesn't make it right to merge based on that. If the concepts are distinct, which they are, it doesn't make sense to force editors to deal with a more complex combined template. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does make sense, and we have ample precedent, over a period longer than a decade, of doing so.

The concepts are not distinct; they overlap.

Editors will not have to deal with a "more complex combined template", because redirects exist and existing markup will still work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen evidence that editors react better to a single consolidated template with a huge amount of convoluted options compared to two more coherent templates with fewer, clearer options. The idea that the maintenance burden here suffices to push this is also unproven, and seems like a solution in search of a problem. --Joy (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

As I've already noted, we have over a decade of precedence, which shows a strong consensus for such merges. The problem is described at WP:Infobox consolidation, to which I once again refer you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That essay doesn't just provide the evidence I'm looking for above. --Joy (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I was replying to your facile claim that this "seems like a solution in search of a problem" by pointing out out that not only is the problem well documented, but that you have been provided, multiple times, with links to that documentation.

Your comment about "a single consolidated template with a huge amount of convoluted options" is a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I was not making general claims about infobox consolidation as a concept, I'm saying it's a solution in search of a problem in this particular case that we are discussing here now.

I don't think I can say much more to convince you that this is not a straw man, so I'm just going to stop contributing to this wall of text now :) --Joy (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, {{Infobox street}} (a template for linear features) has parameters designated for two endpoints, because streets (and roads, see {{Infobox road}}) fundamentally have two endpoints. {{Infobox urban feature}} (a template for point features), however, does not have parameters for two endpoints, because urban features are typically represented by a single point (no endpoints).

On the subject of WP:INFOCOL, there are cases where consolidation failed due to disagreements on whether to include or exclude oft-used certain parameters on the merged template, such as Template:Infobox London station. AlphaBeta135 talk 21:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

"To clarify, {{Infobox street}} (a template for linear features)"— No, as I have already pointed out to you earlier in this discussion. The documentation for Infobox street says (and has done for well over a decade) "{{Infobox street}} may be used for urban and rural thoroughfares, lanes, alleys, public highways and similar features, including squares/ piazzas (note |area=)...".

As our colleague has already evidenced above (and as I have also already pointed out to you earlier in this discussion), Infobox street is used on "roughly" as many articles about squares as is Infobox urban feature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose—if anything, infobox square should redirect to infobox urban feature, and anything added to infobox street that's specific to squares should be removed to reverse that merger as not having consensus. That merger was not well considered in my opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 06:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Yet you a make no arguments why a separate infobox is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Having read the above discussion, I'm left with the impression that support for a merger boils down to "we should reduce the number of infoboxes", even if we assume that this is an unambiguously desirable aim (and I'm not certain it is), what needs to be addressed is why merging these two infoboxes specifically is a good way of achieving that aim. However there is has been almost no attempt made to answer that question - just because we can merge them isn't a reason why we should. The opposition on the other hand have detailed several reasons why it doesn't make sense to merge these two specific templates, the most convincing to me is that streets are linear features while urban features are point or area features - the two are conceptually different. We wouldn't consider merging the infoboxes for roads and buildings but streets could merge with roads and urban features could merge with buildings without issue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
"what needs to be addressed is why merging these two infoboxes specifically is a good way of achieving that aim"—That is addressed above: as a colleague has demonstrated, roughly the same number of articles about squares already use Infobox street as use Infobox urban feature; and the parameter overlap is high.

The documentation for Infobox street includes (and has done for well over a decade):

Infobox street may be used for urban and rural thoroughfares, lanes, alleys, public highways and similar features, including squares/ piazzas (note |area=).

As I said in the nomination: "It seems that [Infobox street] can do this job (with minimal, if any, changes)." Indeed, once we take out the irregular uses of the urban feature box for buildings, artworks and bridges, which have their own dedicated infoboxes, it already does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Oppose— I agree that infobox square should redirect to infobox urban feature. The idea behind urban feature was to provide a 'catch all' for those things not exactly fitting otherwise. Urban feature should not redirect to street. If anything, more infoboxes for urban items should redirect to urban feature and extend it. Also, subjective dislike of a few parameters is not a reason for upending current practice. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)