Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7
December 9 >

December 8

[edit]

Template:I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 23:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated all pages linked in the template for deletion for fanmade WP:INDISCRIMINATE and no sources, which would this template completely empty aside from the title of the source show Shredlordsupreme (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Technically, User:Shredlordsupreme should wait until those pages are deleted before nominating the template as it currently is a valid navbox. But having looked at the pages linked to by the template, they are doomed. I see no harm in deleting this template at the same time. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the AfD results. If the pages are kept then the navbox should be kept. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Can con

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on its related pages, this template is intended to be an instruction to use Canadian English spelling. It is redundant to {{Use Canadian English}} and is also a terribly unclear title for any template. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I need a decoder ring to figure out what this is for... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this as a user-space helper with a broader Canadian content and cultural-sensitivity intent. It doesn’t belong in Template space, and I’m fine with deletion. Topoli-onpoli-canpoli (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Use Jamaican English

[edit]
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 replacement with the appropriate {{Use British English}} variant. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with several former 'Use X English' templates, this template is redundant to Use British English. As stated on the template page, it is an instruction to use 'Jamaican English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.' Dgp4004 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & Replace with {{Use British English}} the template/doc itself states that it is the same as {{Use British English}}... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These templates have no purpose and carry an implausible suggestion that an editor has to study Jamaican English before editing an affected article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Replace with {{Use British English}} as not usable here on the English Wikipedia. The effort of having articles identified as using British English spelling and word choices should not be lost; do not simply delete transclusions outright.
    This "Use X English" family of templates is intended to provide editors with advice about word choice ("truck" v. "lorry"), spelling ("color" v. "colour"), and occasionally grammatical construction ("Since 1960" v. "From 1960"). Other than those differences, writers at the English Wikipedia are supposed to follow MOS:COMMONALITY, writing in standard English that can be understood by the most readers. The article at Jamaican English describes phonology, which is not relevant for a written encyclopedia. It spends one sentence on grammar, providing no guidance other than that it is similar to British English. The lead says that "Jamaican English tends to follow British English spelling conventions". The article provides zero examples of how written Jamaican English differs from British English; any examples of Jamaican Patois would fail to conform with MOS:COMMONALITY, and any such words should be glossed for non-Jamaican readers. The article provides no real guidance about how to write in Jamaican English that is different enough from guidance that would be provided for British English, so this template is not useful or usable (TFD reason 3) on the English Wikipedia. The {{Use British English}} template provides appropriate guidance for editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strongly disagree with nom and all prior delete votes above (no normative backing to any reasons given; and no, COMMONALITY has no bearing on these TfDs, despite how often it pops up in these - cf this extensive MOS talk re COMMONALITY's applicability here) - would actually vote delete due to {{ties}} and consensus in the aforementioned MOS talk (as I did for UCarE and UBelE) except that (i) this is already an established template [used more often than {{IUPAC spelling}} and {{IUPAC spelling US}} even; cf Wikipedia articles by national variety of English]; (ii) this template quite obviously meets none of the WP:TFD#REASONS [for 2, note that Wikipedia is not an IRS on anything, much less linguistics - one has merely to open a JamE dictionary or look up the tonnes of scholarship on JamE to see that JamE != BrE, regardless of what Wikipedia says, and despite the fact that JamE is similar to BrE (as are a bunch of other Englishes obviously); cf WP:CARIB/E for a non-IRS overview]. Finally, note that if we were to accept nom and prior delete vote rationales, we'd basically end up w/ only Use X English templates for BrE, AmE, and possibly CanE, as once we've disregarded how heavily a template is used and whether it actually meets any TFD#REASONS, we'd find the Use X English templates of all quasi-BrE Englishes (AusE, NZE, etc) "redundant" on the basis of non-IRS sources - really can't overstate how silly that all seems in light of MOS:ENGVAR. (But if that's really what we want then I'd vote delete in a group [not piecemeal] TfD for all Use X English templates of all quasi-BrE Englishes [but to be replaced by {{ties}}, not {{AmE}} nor {{BrE}}].) – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Asdfjrjjj trying to understand here... What is the difference between Jamaican English and British English when it comes to writing and spelling? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Zackmann08: prolly same as diff as b/w NZE vs BrE or AusE vs BrE imo (ie only slight spelling diff; but a bit more vocab/idiom/convention diffs, even in the written formal register - enough such that linguistic consensus is JamE != BrE, just like NZE != BrE and AusE != BrE, regardless of how similar they seem to non-Jamaicans, non-Aussies, non-Kiwis [what exactly the threshold is for linguists to say English dialect x != y rather than x = y is a question for linguists/lexicographers/researchers, not any of us here imo]). Best I can do is WP:CARIB/E, but cf actual IRSs there and in Ggl Scholar for details! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably? Therein lies the problem I'm afraid. The case for retention always falls down when asked to give some solid examples of what a template is actually for. These templates, which are completely hidden from readers, exist primarily to instruct editors in a clear and unambiguous way what sort of spelling is in use in an article. That's all they do. They aren't there to bolster national pride or somehow take possession of an article.
    No case has been made that this template differs significantly from any of the others which use British English spelling and which have been deleted. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Dgp4004: ehh I disagree on their purpose - imo
    • they do not necessarily instruct "in a clear and unambiguous way" wrt spelling (eg I know no NZE, so {{NZE}} gives me only a vague idea of what spelling to use, and I feel that may be the case for vars non-Kiwi editors, and likewise for AusE and {{AusE}}, and so on), and
    • they do not instruct editors only wrt spelling (eg {{BrE}} further gives me an idea of what date formats, weights and measures, grammar conventions, vocabulary, etc to follow or prefer, as does {{AmE}}, as I have a sort-of-good feel for both BrE and AmE, and I feel that may be the case for vars editors, and likewise for {{NZE}} and editors with a feel for NZE [eg Kiwis], and so on).
    For sure agree re national pride/possession of articles though, with the major caveat that whereas ENGVAR and general WP spirit/principles give no national variety of English precedence over any others, some discussions re the varieties of English of smaller Anglophone nations (like Jamaica) imo seem to turn on how well editors know said variety sans reference to IRSs (ie not well, ofc), thereby establishing de facto prejudice/systemic bias against varieties of English of smaller Anglophone nations, contrary to ENGVAR and WP spirit/principles (imo, ofc). I feel like that's the main thrust of my keep vote. But if deletionists can find in IRSs a principled test of dialectal similarity (w/c imo is what you guys need here to deem these JamE templates redundant to BrE templates per TFD#REASONS no 2), then again, I'd for sure vote delete in a group TfD for the Use x Eng templates of all dialects which failed such test (as imo this seems like the only way to pre-empt the aforementioned prejudice/systemic bias).
    Ps I disagree that the burden of proof falls on retentionists (to show that "x Eng dialect is not too similar to y Eng dialect"), and don't really think proving that negative will help much here (imo it's not the main divide in this discussion; as long as the test of dialectal similarity ignores non-spelling aspects of dialects, or relies on non-IRS principles/means/sources, or both, no amount of IRS evidence would help further discussion imo), but here's a few IRSs and egs nonetheless:
    • every entry in the Dictionary of JamE [CUP, 1980] (not flagged as informal/colloquial/etc) is an entirely novel word, or else a word with a novel use or sense, in formal written JamE - eg (taking the first such DJE entry, ie aachi ["a river fish"] in p. 1), "aachi in the Black River" is a valid [if possibly non-factual] phrase in formal written JamE, but is nonsense in BrE, AmE, etc - similarly for the next such entry in DJE (abbay [Elaeis guineensis or its fruit] in p. 2), "abbays resemble small coconuts" is a valid phrase in formal written JamE, but not in BrE, AmE, etc - and so on to p. 509;
    • every JamE term or sense added to the OED in 2021 was unique to JamE (or CarE) prior to OED import - eg "sucking a snowball" is valid in any Eng dialect, but means one thing in JamE (and CarE; means having shaved ice) vs another thing in other Eng dialects (might mean licking a ball of snow or having a confection resembling a ball of snow, etc) - and so on;
    • plus loads of other IRSs in WP:CARIB/E and Ggl Scholar in general.
    - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As ever, it's difficult to respond to a wall of text but I'll try to be succinct:
    - The existence of other weakly explained or poorly justified templates is a weak defence for this one.
    - There is a separate template for British-style dates which is {{Use dmy dates}}. And as per the manual of style and this RfC, there is very little in the way of grammar that these templates can affect.
    - Again, the existence of other templates is a weak argument for the retention of this one.
    - This template is not 'Use Jamaican phrases'. And 'sucking', 'a' and 'snowball' are spelt the same in every English variant in any case, so would not be picked up by a bot. Dgp4004 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean and Wikipedia:WikiProject Jamaica. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's just British spellings, nothing to get excited about. We don't need this template. Oaktree b (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Someone needs to check the Dictionary of Jamaican English to find what the Jamaicans use for aubergine or eggplant (UK and US words for the same vegetable). If said word is "baigan" (with proof that this is proper formal, standardized Jamaican English, demonstrated in government and newspaper pages), I will vote keep and implore deletion admins to reconsider previous responses. This is an important word because Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities for commonality cannot apply to it (a common name for this vegetable does not exist), and it is an important word when discussing agriculture and food services. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a template to a page does not require editors to lose their minds—if there is good reason to write "baigan", that word would be used regardless of any template. A good reason might be that it is in a quote. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if baigan is more frequently used in Jamaica, most of the rest of the world would not know what baigan is. My autocorrect does not even recognize what baigan but does recognize eggplant and aubergine. Using baigan outside of a quote would just decrease accessibility. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is the Dictionary of Jamaican English by Cassidy and Le Page you mean, I just checked that. The only entry to refer to Solanum melongena that isn't called obsolete is:

    GARDEN EGG sb gen. The egg-plant, Solanum melongena.

    1811 Titford xiii, Garden Egg. (Solanum Melongena.) Cut in slices,
    parboiled and fried) resembles fried eggs. 1913 Harris 31, Garden
    Egg..It is grown to a considerable extent in Jamaica, especially by
    coolie market-gardeners near Kingston. 1952 FGC several parishes
    /gyaadn-eg/. (p. 195)

    In the definitions, egg-plant and garden-egg are used interchangeably. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete: per above, with the exception for the above comment(s), there shouldn’t be any reason to keep this template and that British English should be used in place of it PieWriter (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the case, can someone remove the very visible template deletion notice from articles? It will do nothing but confuse as the actual template is invisible. CMD (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to stay until this discussion is closed I'm afraid. Which is probably overdue now I think. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Asdfjrjjj, who expressed my exact thoughts. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 19:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jamaican English is not exactly the same as British English. For example, the standard spelling of scallion in Jamaican English is skellion. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L327183 عُثمان (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find 'skellion' in any of the sources cited on that page.
    Perhaps 'skellion' is an informal colloquial spelling. It's difficult to prove, which is half the problem with these templates. In any case, it would hardly be a sufficient foundation on which to base an entire language template. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching "site:gov.jm skellion" I get just one hit, in lyrics which seem at least part Jamaican Patois. "site:gov.jm scallion" however gets many hits. CMD (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is stated in the Dictionary of Jamaican English cited above. Quotations featuring this spelling in formal writing can be found in articles published by the Jamaican Agricultrual Society in a Google Books search. So long as those journal articles exist and use these spellings, I do not find it justifiable to remove the template as there is no reason a Wikipedia article could not be written in the same register/style of those articles if it cites them. عُثمان (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Module:Path

[edit]
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. On an administrative note, generally speaking if a module is only called by a single template (or in this case, two) and the template(s) are nominated for deletion, the module should also be nominated (mainly to avoid rehashing the same discussion as the other TFD). Primefac (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the deletion of {{relative link}} (TFD) & {{relative link implicit}} (TFD), this module no longer serves any purpose as it was exclusively used by those templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when one visited the Module:Params page, but to display
{{./examples/four cells per row table}}
when one visited the Module:Params/doc page. Now that that template is gone, it is still possible to obtain the same result by directly transcluding the module. The module appears currently unused because whoever removed {{relative link}} from the page did not do a good job at avoiding regressions. In general, we need the functionality offered by this module whenever a transcluded page displays relative paths (so that these appear differently depending on the transcluding page) – for instance, if page a/b/c displays a relative path to a/b/c/d, this should appear as ./d when visiting a/b/c, but should appear as ../c/d when visiting a/b/e. --Grufo (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have already litigate this at 2 seprate TFDs linked to above. This has already been deemed an unhelpful, overly complicated and generally useless template. No reason to keep the module that exclusively was implemented by 2 templates that have been deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This module does not implement templates. The templates that were removed added a further layer and a functionality to this module: that of creating links. --Grufo (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry but we have magic words that do part or all of what this module does. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Can I ask you how we can obtain this (see above) via magic words?
for instance, if page a/b/c displays a relative path to a/b/c/d, this should appear as ./d when visiting a/b/c, but should appear as ../c/d when visiting a/b/e.
--Grufo (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets start from the end here, I don't think there are many times, or any really, where you'll have a/b/c/d and you'll need something that isn't the first or the end. It's just not how en.wiki works. Now for your question. Please give me a real, current page, that needs this and I'll show you how to get it with magic words. I don't work in hypotheticals. Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This module was created with concrete use cases in mind, specifically subpages of modules and template (see above). “It's just not how en.wiki works”: I am not sure where you found the manifesto of how enwiki works. My approach is quite pragmatic. If we have—let's say—Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table, the choices are two:
  1. We decide to show always that long path
  2. We use a shorter, more readable, relative path
Wikitext already allows to use relative paths: for instance, if you are in Module:Params/doc/examples you can write [[/four cells per row table]] and you will see /four cells per row table. What wikitext does not allow though (or at least no that easily, as far as I know) is having a transcluded page that links to Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table and shows the correct relative path depending on where it is transcluded (so it must show ./four cells per row table when transcluded in Module:Params/doc/examples, but must show ./examples/four cells per row table when transcluded in Module:Params/doc, and so on—do not pay too much attention to the initial dot for now, this module allows to write it or omit it). If you accept the challenge, that is what I invite you to do via magic words. Careful though, above a certain length that solution might require to be templatized. Moreover, this module is truly a general solution for all these cases, so whatever you find, if you do, might not be as good. --Grufo (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you found the manifesto of how enwiki works - at some point, after having most of your work be deleted, you should realize that what you are doing is wrong. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“There is no reason for a page like Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table to exist”: How convenient. So you first ask,
“Please give me a real, current page, that needs this and I'll show you how to get it with magic words”
then I reply that you had real examples from the beginning (this discussion is based on those), with the most important one being:
And I ask you to go forward with your implementation. But then you reply that according to you Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table has no reason to exist. The problem is that what you don't like is just one of the many example pages linked by Module:Params/doc that do not need any help from you. If you don't like that target link you can use Module:Params/doc/examples/list of authors for your experiments, or even Module:Params/testcases/tcompare separated entries, or you choose. Nothing will change the fact that your solution will need to be implemented in Module:Params/doc, not in its links. --Grufo (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly coming to realize that Module:Params is the source of all this tiring back and forth. At some point, hopefully not too long, it will become orphaned. Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had no doubts you would come to that conclusion. --Grufo (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox pageant

[edit]
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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox pageant with Template:Infobox beauty pageant.
This seems like it was just an oversight by the creator... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One is for a pageant series in general rather than by edition. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename instead: Template:Infobox pageant is for pageant organizations themselves, while Template:Infobox beauty pageant is for individual editions of pageants, much like the difference between Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season. As they serve different purposes and exist for different reasons, a merge would not be helpful and one should simply be renamed instead to more clearly explain the difference. So I would simply rename Template:Infobox beauty pageant to Template:Infobox pageant edition. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hariboneagle927: if you can update the documentation with some kind of explination that these are different, why and how... I will withdraw the nomination and rename it per Jjj1238's suggestion. Sound fair? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the explanation on top. We could rename the template I created to maybe "Infobox beauty pageant organization" for more clarity as well? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:NSplaces

[edit]
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 but will be userfied on request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it exists. Created in 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it has no transclusions is because I removed the last of them yesterday... I'm still trying to figure out if this can be used. This book is cited on nearly 1000 articles (see here - doesn't catch all of them). It would have been nice if you reached out before nominating this... I might look into having a bot transform the citations to this book into this template. I can add a bunch of transclusions right now if you really want me to. MediaKyle (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MediaKyle so is this meant to be orphaned or not? I didn't quite understand from your comment. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the transclusions of this template because I wasn't sure how to fix it. Eventually, I figured out how to fix it, and now I'm trying to determine whether I can have a bot replace the ~1000 citations to this book with this template, so if and when the Nova Scotia Archives changes the URL again, we won't have all those citations turn to deadlinks. I was going to add some transclusions to this after I saw it posted here but it adds the "this template is under discussion" banner to the references section so I don't want to do that until this is done. MediaKyle (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put forward a property proposal on Wikidata for a Nova Scotia Place Names ID, and it looks like it's going to go through -- kindly keep this template for now while I work things out. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems MediaKyle is planning un reusing it. @MediaKyle I suggest you ask in WP:BOTREQUEST for help in replacing the manual usages with the template. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but please rename the template before you use it. "NSplaces" does not even remotely help identify what that is. See WP:TPN. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FOR NOW as it appears MediaKyle is actively working on it. MediaKyle please add {{Under construction}} to prevent re-nomination for being unused. Please also follow Gonnym's advice and rename this so it is clear what it is for. You can certainly keep {{NSplaces}} as a shortcut to it if you wish. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete struck my previous !vote as MediaKyle is clearly NOT actively working on this, zero edits on it in 6 days. So unused template with no reason to keep. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The property proposal isn't finished yet, I don't know what you expect me to do with it yet. I was going to add a bunch of transclusions after this closes, but whatever. Just get rid of it, I'm losing my motivation here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, MediaKyle I had requested above that you add {{under construction}} to the template to denote it was being worked on... You neither responded nor did so. It therefore appears that you abandoned the project... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping we could just take it on faith that I have plans for this -- I was intending to rename the template and add "under construction" once this TfD closed. Frankly, this whole experience has been disappointing. The nominator noted how old it was, so they must have seen I was editing it at the time. The only reason this template even ended up here is because I drew attention to it by orphaning it to start experimenting. Now, even as I have an open property proposal with unanimous support, we still want to delete this template here. Why is it so offensive to have an orphaned template that we must delete it even in the face of an editor saying he has plans for it? This was supposed to be the next step in a project of fixing up about 2,300 Nova Scotian geography articles, I've been working on it for quite a while. MediaKyle (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, keep if they're planning to work on it in the immediate future. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 06:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to WP:USERFYing the template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Purnagiri JS Express Route

[edit]
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. NPASR provided the template becomes unused/unusable again or there is a different rationale provided. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no main article for use due to main article not meeting basic GNG requirements. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now included in an appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Gilgit-Baltistan

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country data templates create data for flag templates to draw from, but Gilgit-Baltistan does not have a flag (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of Gilgit–Baltistan), so this template serves no purpose. Yue🌙 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Campeonato Pernambucano

[edit]
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) 18:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few seasons available, it doesn't seem really necessary. Svartner (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Do not create article

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless - if a redirect is being disrputively expanded into an article then the solution is page protection, not this sort of plea which is unlikely to be any more useful than the evil bit. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the redirects I had in mind had already been deleted in a discussion, and the attempts to create it were in good faith, but still unusable. Anyway, noted, thanks. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be modified so that text can be added into it. That way, the editor who adds it can include an explanation for why an article shouldn't be created at the redirect it's placed on and link to relevant deletion discussions if there are any that pertain to a given non-notable subject. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is a job for page protection, not a notice that will simply be ignored. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Protection is useful and important, but let's say in the case of a refined redirect, and the target name has change E.G., protection might make it harder. E.G. Having to request an admin. Honestly think the rationale is quality, but I feel like it would be good for redirects that should obviously not become articles. E.G. Redirects from a Non Notable Child to a notable parent. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:B-Bahn

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Became unused after the deletion of the templates that used them here. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:German rank

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as Template:German title is the template that should be used. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox swimming venue

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox venue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox swimming venue with Template:Infobox venue.
Very limited use by this Infobox. The only info would be lost at the moment is the specific measurements of the different pools in the complex. I do not think this information needs to be in the infobox at all (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Put it in a chart in the article if it is noteworthy. That can be placed in |dimensions= and a new param |dimension_label= created to override the default of "Field Size" to say "Pool Size" (or something else) when appropriate. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree that the dimensions don't belong in the infobox; other sporting venues have their playing area dimensions in their infobox, as it's a defining characteristic of the venue. Otherwise I support the merge. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: That is totally valid. I have amended my proposal above. Thoughts? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I support the merge in principle. The amendments alleviate my concerns. oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgp4004, Achmad Rachmani, and WikiCleanerMan: any opinion on the proposed solution to pool dimensions? I.E. if merged should we:
  1. Create |dimensions_label= that would override the default of "Field size" to say (for example) "Pool size" paired with |dimensions=.
  2. Create |pool_dimensions= that is its own row.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Create |dimensions_label=. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|dimensions_label= makes the most sense. Lest we end up with theatres that have pool_dimensions. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox building

[edit]
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 keep. Either inappropriate or disruptive nomination by a vandal. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox building with Template:Infobox casino.
This template needs to be merged with Template:Infobox casino. ~2025-39215-88 (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Improper, drive by nomination with no notices placed in templates or talk pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this, this is trolling and they're vandalising WP right now. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:Coin image box 2 singles

[edit]
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 replacement with {{multiple image}}. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Template:Coin image box 2 singles: redundant to template:multiple image. sapphaline (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are at least 2 other templates to consider in this "series": {{coin image box 1 double}} & {{coin image box 8 singles}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Sapphaline: without going too far down this rabbit hole, it does appear that coin image box styles things a bit differently. Can you demonstrate with an edit diff how one can be replaced by the other? If so I will strike my !vote and switch to delete... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here. sapphaline (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Struck my previous !vote. @Sapphaline: thanks for the diff. Please look at the other related templates I mentioned above. Should those also be merged? -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I will note that the template doesn't have a gap between the images, which looks a lot better when showing the obverse and reverse of a coin. Is there a way to do that with Template:Multiple images? Adding to what Zackmann said the other two templates are even more redundant and I wouldn't mind if we deleted those too. Template:Coin image box 1 double is just a template for showing a single image, and Template:Coin image box 8 singles only seems has one specific use case for euro coins that can easily be accomplished by a table. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 20:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until it's clear that {{multiple image}} can replace this template directly. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: I would encourage you to look at the diff linked to above (Special:PermanentLink/1327237049) which shows that the replacement can be easily achieved. As for directly replacing, that is what the holding cell is for... All transclusions will be converted before the template is deleted. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 Those do not produce the same output to me. I am aware of what the holding cell is for. As @Eman7blue42 notes above, there isn't a gap between the images, and there are other visual differences as well. I also generally despise template deletions as it makes perusing article histories annoying when an invoked template is missing... instead I wish there were a way to mark Templates as deprecated which would effectively forbid saving a page with the template in the wikitext, while allowing prior revisions to be viewed and displayed as intended. Somewhere along the way people got hung up on pruning the Template namespace at all costs... —Locke Cole • t • c • b 06:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well you seem to object to the entire process so not sure how best to engage with you on this one. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Those do not produce the same output to me" - why do they need to? sapphaline (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_8&oldid=1329329785"