Wikipedia:MBR

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 1 8 91 57 157
TfD 0 1 0 3 4
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 2 53 37 92
RfD 0 0 0 70 70
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, with a few exceptions, is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. See also WP:T5.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
Template redirects
List all redirects at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming a template
Use Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow the three-step process below. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps.

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. (After navigating to the template you want to nominate, click its dropdown menu in the top right of the page: TW , and then select "XFD".)

Step Instructions
Step 1

Tag the template

 Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use the meaningful title you chose earlier: {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}}.)
TemplateStyles pages
If you are nominating TemplateStyles pages, these templates won't work. Instead, paste this CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026_June_29#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

 Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without square brackets|result of previous TfD}} in the |text= field immediately before your rationale (or alternatively at the very end, after the last }}).

Use an edit summary such as Adding deletion/merger nomination of [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates
If you are nominating multiple templates, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |). Use the same meaningful title that you chose in Step 1.
  • Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
    • If there is a template you want the other templates to be merged into, you can optionally specify it using |with=.
Related categories
If this template deletion proposal involves a category populated solely by templates, paste this code in the |text= field of the {{Tfd2}} template, before your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
Step 3

Notify users

 Notify the creator of the template, the main contributors, and (if you're proposing a merger) the creator of the other template. (To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.) To do this, paste one of the following in their user talk pages:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd notice|template name}} ~~~~
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
  • Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination. In these cases, write a personal message.

If you see any WikiProjects banners (they look like this) at the top of the template's talk page, you can let them know about the discussion. Most WikiProjects are subscribed to Article alerts, which means they are automatically notified. If you think they have not been notified, you can paste the same message in the projects' talk pages, or use Deletion sorting lists. Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects.

Consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination notice is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

  • Notifying related WikiProjects: WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this. Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they are subscribed to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
  • Notifying main contributors: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template and its talk page that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, no further action is necessary on your part. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone other than you will either close the discussion or, if needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. If the nomination is successful, it will be moved to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst, subst and delete, or similar. This means they think the template text should be "hard-coded" into the articles that are currently using it. Depending on the content, the template itself may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Closing discussion

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

June 29

Template:Geography of Cambodia

navbox that only navigates to category space, when navboxes in article-space are supposed to generally navigate between articles Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)


Template:Kerry Junior Team 2012

WP:NENAN. Similar to TfDs for 2002 Kerry Junior Team, 2014 Kerry Junior Team, etc, a majority of the subjects in this template are not notable (and will always be red links) and therefore the value of this template is questionable. Largely just a team sheet dressed-up as a template.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Shooting at the 2028 Summer Olympics

No transclusions or documentation. No main article for this sidebar. Much too soon. No prejudice to recreation when it is actually needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:DefaultSettings.php

No transclusions. No incoming links to explain why it was created way back in 2013. The link is 404. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-ROC-GOV

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep There is no prejudice against local uploads to Wikipedia that should have been moved to Commons, or if an incorrect non-free license is changed to a free license. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Public domain images belong on Commons and their templates live there. Gonnym (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete Unused and no likelihood to be used. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-art-US-1996

No transclusions. Applicable pages may have been moved to Commons, which is where public domain files typically live.

I would typically merge these similar template nominations, but I suspect that one or more of them may be a special case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep those used on Commons. Commons are the experts on this, and PD files should indeed (usually) be transferred there. It will help them if they are already correctly tagged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC).
Delete. Based on the unused report this appears on, this hasn't been used in over 13 years. Public domain images belong on Commons and their templates live there. Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete Unused and no likelihood to be used. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No transclusions, and no incoming links to explain why it was recently converted from a redirect to a template without explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hold off for now, it has only been 3 weeks, and the reason I did the conversion from a redirect to a template was so that it would be easier to show how external links would be displayed. What I was intending was something along the lines of {{exlink|link|display}} to result in [link display], specifically for use when documenting templates and parser functions such as fullurl:. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Awesome Aasim on what pages specifically do you foresee this template be used? Holding off is fine if there is a clear perspective but for now it is still an unused template. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Documentation pages, template pages, help pages, etc. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

June 28

Template:Infobox hut

With under 80 uses in articles, this Infobox is full of stuff that doesn't belong in an Infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Things like catering, water, emergency beds, winter room... Wikipedia is not a guidebook and none of this is of encyclopedic value. Not sure what Infobox is best to replace these, I'm leaning {{Infobox building}} as these huts seem to closely resemble hotels and {{Infobox hotel}} is a redirect to Infobox building, but am open to alternatives. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Pennsylvania historic site

With under 100 usages, there is no reason for one US state to have its own historic site Infobox, these should just be replaced with Template:Infobox historic site. Otherwise, we open the door for all 50 states to each have their own custom historic site Infobox. Then what about other countries and subdivisions within those countries... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Star Wars new republic

As this is not Wookieepedia, we should probably be a bit hesitant to create new templates premises on particular periods of time within the canon of Star Wars rather than real-world characteristics. There might be occasions where this is merited, but the fact that this template is primarily being added to pages with too many templates already makes its redundancy more obvious. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Spanish missions in the Americas

Way too many parameters in this Infobox that violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. With only 64 article uses, I suggest replacing them all with Template:Infobox historic site. Any information that cannot be placed in Infobox historic site, does not belong in the Infobox for these articles. Examples include listing the number of burials and marriages that supposedly took place at the mission. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: The Spanish missions in the Americas were a unique expression of colonialism that have their own dedicated researchers, body of academic literature, and cultural legacy. More than 60 articles is plenty to justify a discrete template that distinguishes particular characteristics of the missions. Parameters like numbers of burials are actually relatively useful: they can help readers see at a glance one of the oft-discussed elements of missions that have been held up as evidence of their role in genocide against Indigenous Americans. A more narrowly tailored tweaking of this specific template is wholly appropriate and probably necessary, but outright deletion is probably an overcorrection. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

June 27

June 26

Template:Single chart/error

Unused subpage after template was migrated to a Lua module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2027 Africa Cup of Nations qualification group tables

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created when the same article content already exists at 2027 Africa Cup of Nations qualification. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Historical templates for equivalent qualifiers already exist:
Template:2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification group tables
Template:2023 Africa Cup of Nations qualification group tables
Template:2021 Africa Cup of Nations qualification group tables
I made the templace following previous trends of these templates being needed. Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete - WP:TOOSOON and not used/needed. The fact that other similar tables exists, is irrelevant as those are actually used. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
These will be used soon. Fixtures are expected to come out within the next month or two and therefore will facilitiate the use of this template as individual group articles can be made which have historacally implamented these templates (2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualification Group H for example) Fin.Seaman (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
So they can be made at that time when they are actually needed... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Saskatchewan Rush roster navbox

This template is years outdated. None of the other National Lacrosse League teams have a roster navbox. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Panther City Lacrosse Club roster navbox

Current roster navbox for a team that doesn't exist anymore. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Primary Schools in Dumfries and Galloway

almost entirely redlinks Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Dutch Marathon Champs

primarily redlinks Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Gibson County, Indiana Festivals and Public Events

primarily redlinks and redirects Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Edit COI/backlog

Barely used template that does not currently work. It relies on Template:Edit COI/level being updated to reflect the number of requests in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. Hasn't been updated in nearly 3 years... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that the template is working exactly as intended; Level 1 is triggered when the number of pages is >201 (current count is 408). Primefac (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:United States fire departments

Not widely enough used and nowhere close to a complete list (see Category:Fire departments in the United States by state or territory). Note I initially created this template back in 2015. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:PDBsum link with Template:Protein Data Bank link 3.
It appears that this unused template, {{PDBsum link}}, may be redundant to {{Protein Data Bank link 3}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I asked at WP:RM/TR recently for TM:PDB link to be moved to TM:PDBsum link and the leftover redirect be retargeted to TM:Protein Data Bank link.
TM:PDB link (now TM:PDBsum link) creates external links to the PDBsum database, which is currently unavailable and likely will remain unavailable for some undefined amount of time going forward. In the interim I thought it would be best to store the template at a similar/less ambiguous name and redirect the ~750 transclusions to the similar TM:Protein Data Bank link, which handles the same input.
I was not aware of TM:PDB3, which handles similar inputs that link back to PDBsum (though with a different URL construction to TM:PDBsum link). TM:PDB3 also suffers from PDBsum being down and live articles would benefit to linking to a live database (There seem to be 145 transclusions). If it were up to me I would do something similar again. ⇌ Synpath 21:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:NRL StG

No transclusions or documentation. All of the templates in Category:National Rugby League templates should probably be merged into a single {{NRL team link}} template, as was done with {{Australian Football League team}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Egy-proper noun

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links. Created in March 2026. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:ERRORS archive box

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in April 2026. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep part of an archival project for WP:ERRORs, which has been repeatedly advocated for on WP. — Knightoftheswords 🎂🥳 18:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
If it's been repeatedly advocated for, why are there no incoming links to this template? Please link to relevant discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tugs (TV series)

This template was created back in 2009 when alot more Tugs articles existed. Over the years those articles have been deleted / merged with other articles, right now the only two articles that are left in their state is the main article, and a list of Tugs books article, the rest just link to other related articles. With only two proper articles, I feel like it is too little for its own independent navbox, and should probably be deleted. Gavetheman555 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Scientific color scheme/broc

Unused module. There is no parent module. Gonnym (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:MoroccoHealthTable

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:London Underground passenger data

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/Thori Rural Municipality

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/Russia Ural Federal District

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/Poland Podlaskie Voivodeship Białystok County

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I was trying to expand on the Białystok county related Wikipedia articles due to many of them being out of date compared to their Polish translations, and thought it would fit to include the villages on a map of the poviat itself since they tend to be in clusters around cities (such as Michałowo, Łapy and Zabłudów). I couldn't quite get it to work though as they were still too clustered. I support its deletion. Axzyr (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/NileFull

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/India Hydrabad

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Location map/data/Ghaznavid Empire

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:K-pop track listing

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete – I support the deletion. It is unused/not needed. Harcshi (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:InfoboxNonEmergencyNumber

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete the sole template using this module was deleted at TFD here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Extensive archives

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Country by country subdivision category navigation

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Check bibcode

Unused module. Possibly replaced by something else? Gonnym (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Abu Dhabi T10 teams

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 U23 World Wrestling Championships

Unused, entirely redlinks. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of LLMPROD. Not eligible for G5 because it was created before the master account, Pehlivanmeydani (t·c), was blocked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

June 25

Template:Korea Industry Daily

Only used in a draft; also this is too exhaustive and not really appropriate for any article. No links to any other articles, defeating purpose of a navbox grapesurgeon (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Editor Retention welcome/Unsigned

This version doesn't seem to be used as it isn't linked from any page (project or talk pages) that make it naturally discoverable. Gonnym (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Any objection to my moving it to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, in order to preserve the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 4 § WER Welcome on Twinkle? A thought.? isaacl (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
We don't need to save templates just because they were once mentioned. Templates should be used (we aren't a code repository), if they aren't, then there isn't really a need for them. We regularly delete templates that were part of past discussions or failed experiments. Gonnym (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Keeping draft pages in the project namespace is a common practice. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll be opposed to keeping stuff for no valid reason. If it's a draft, move to to Draft namespace. Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
It's not common to keep draft templates in the Draft namespace. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Drafts are drafts. Either use them or lose them. Gonnym (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Rockingham Loop

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Unlikely to be used given that the project was scrapped (or so says the template documentation). Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    the template could be used in a subsection of the Rockingham Station or Mandurah Line pages, or on a page specifically for Rockingham Loop. LakelessLands (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Its useful to show the planning history of the Mandurah Line especially since its route was changed so substantially throughout the lines planning and early construction. LachlanTansey (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    There's already an OSM map on the Mandurah line article showing the Rockingham loop. What use is this template in addition? Steelkamp (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    Openstreetmap and Wikipedia are seperate entities and shouldn't rely on each other. LachlanTansey (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    and an unfinished route provides no functionality, the template should be deleted for now – The Grid (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no prospect of there being any use for this on Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox/imagelimit.css

Unused css created by an editor with a single edit. Unclear usage. Gonnym (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as it's unused or unclear in its usage. The person's account has 1 edit here. – The Grid (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Party shading/Unionist/Hold

Unused political party color template. Gonnym (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

June 24

Template:WikiProject assessment category check

Unused after this edit. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That was rather a bold edit, so I guess I should provide some more rationale. I was seeing errors on pages such as Template:WikiProject Pokémon/class which were prompting editors to create incorrect categories like Category:Redirect-Class Pokémon articles, which does not exist because it is correctly named Category:Redirect-Class Pokémon pages. Rather than spend ages of my time fixing the code, I believe the onus is on WikiProjects which have decided to opt out of the standard (PIQA) scale to maintain their own assessments and categories. So the best solution I could offer was to remove the offending code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hugo van Lawick

Only one film has an article. Useless for navigation. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I was planning to create articles for both People of the Forest and The Leopard Son but forgot. I would advise keeping it for navigation purposes, now that I am planning to do something about this. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:EXISTING and WP:WTAF. Even so, three articles does not meet the threshold for WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 15:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
I see, i'll keep this in mind. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:WPIE

Unused WikiProjcet link template. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:United States squad 1986 Goodwill Games

Duplicate of Template:United States Squad 1986 FIBA World Championship. The 1986 FIBA World Championship served as the men's basketball event of the 1986 Goodwill Games, so the same United States roster is already covered by the existing template. In addition, the jersey numbers included in this template appear to be unsourced, whereas player numbers for the World Championship roster can be verified through FIBA sources. Maintaining a separate template creates unnecessary duplication. Zdremon (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • comment, I would think all of the medal-winning Goodwill Games rosters should be considered together. so, either we delete all of them or keep all of them. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:.NET Framework version 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) 19:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Single use template which holds a regular table. Subst to article and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, I have boldly merged this with the parent article with attribution. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 25 June 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:WikiProject Portals/qualityscale

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Metro Trains Melbourne platform arrangement

Unused rail-related template. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I will agree to this deletion/merger. I should've sandboxed this before making it. LachlanTansey (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hanacaraka

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hanacaraka with Template:Infobox writing system.
WP:INFOCOL (Template:Infobox grapheme doesn't seem to apply). PPEMES (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge with {{Infobox grapheme}}; these serve the same purpose and we don't need a redundant infobox for a specific writing system. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Partial Support: I would support keeping it, but it's only used in Indonesian, Balinese & Hindi Wikipedias. I f we ever make pages on Balinese and Javanese letters, then it might come handy. ङघिञ (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Demography

Propose merging Template:Demography with Template:Infobox demographics.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • comment: the only "merge" votes are for merging {{demography}} with {{historical populations}} which is not what is being proposed here. so, I think we can close this an open another discussion if people want to merge those templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose this nomination makes no sense. per Frietjes this nomination is all over the place and shows a lack of WP:BEFORE by nominator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than dealing with the bureaucratic/procedural mess of closing this discussion, opening a new discussion, and then requiring all participants to vote (again) I'm am just going to relist this discussion, strike the clearly-opposed option and add in the preferred merge target. Further opinions should be added about a possible merge between {{demography}} and {{historical populations}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Primefac, you need to tag {{Demography}} for merger with {{historical populations}} if you want to propose it for merging with a new target. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Tag updated. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
You might also want to strike through the line in the intro of this proposal that says we're discussing a merger into the infobox. Grutness...wha? 10:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ecomodernism

Unused sidebar. If adds to all articles, let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The template is now being used. CozyWinter (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, per CozyWinter Frijfuhs (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - now used on all ten full articles listed (excluding the "related" ones). Grutness...wha? 11:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:EB1926 poster

Unused Wikisource link template. Gonnym (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep — now in use. Deployed on Battle of Arras (1917) (the supplement article is by J. F. C. Fuller), linking the 1926 Encyclopædia Britannica New Volumes text now hosted at Wikisource, in the standard public-domain sister-link / attribution pattern (cf. {{EB1911}}, {{EB1911 poster}}). Pinging Gonnym — the "unused" rationale no longer applies. pony in a strange land (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Drama television series by year and nationality

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cite EB1926

Unused citation template. Gonnym (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep — now in use. Deployed on Battle of Arras (1917) (the supplement article is by J. F. C. Fuller), linking the 1926 Encyclopædia Britannica New Volumes text now hosted at Wikisource, in the standard public-domain sister-link / attribution pattern (cf. {{EB1911}}, {{EB1911 poster}}). Pinging Gonnym — the "unused" rationale no longer applies. pony in a strange land (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I presume it was unused at the time of nomination, but it was in use when I found it. I added a few more, and there appear to further existing citations to EB1926 that could use this template. EB1926 is barely present at Wikisource, so it's mostly just a convenience wrapper to fill in {{cite encyclopedia}} parameters better. In the handful of existing citations I found, the parameters automatically filled in by this template were better than the values that were there before. Daask (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Additional pages

Unused citation-related template. Gonnym (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:AZTECCALENDAR

Unused date template that documentation says it isn't working and not to use. Move to creator's userspace if they wish to keep. Gonnym (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm its creator. Can you please give me some more time to figure out what's wrong with it? If it doesn't work, I'll delete it or move it to my userspace 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 07:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Country data Chinese Red Army

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) 19:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:DEL10. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 25 June 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:Cignal Super Spikers (women) roster

Unused roster template. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Evolution of Google

Unused infobox timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be sure to add this infobox onto articles right now — TheFloridaTyper | DMS — 16:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2022 NASCAR Pinty's

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2024 NASCAR Canada

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:2025 NASCAR Canada

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Abbasid invasions of Asia Minor

Unused campaignbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The links are also in Template:Campaignbox Arab–Byzantine Wars so this template does not offer anything new. Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Calheta parishes

Unused navbox. If added to all articles let me know and I'll withdraw nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars

Unsued campaignbox with only one item, so nothing to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also a duplicate of Template:Khwarazmian-Qara Khitai Wars. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 1 RDT

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: has been added to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ho Chi Minh City Metro Line 2 RDT

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: has been added to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Wars and battles involving Croatia

This is similar to the previous two about the Serbs and the Albanians, but only slightly better in the sense that it duplicates List of wars involving Croatia. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the list already exists. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

What's the problem here? "It duplicates List of wars involving Croatia?" So what? Lists are lists and templates are templates; each has different structure, different data, different place etc. What does that mean "...bottom of the article spam..."? I see that similar templates below for Albanian and Serbian wars and battles are "too busy". Why? Perhaps because there were too many wars and battles. Unfortunately! But for Wikipedia: Thank God that as many of them as possible are listed. Too many vaguenesses?! Too many questions?! --Silverije 23:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Please read WP:NAVBOX for context. They are laundry lists, they're not actually aiding navigation. It's very hard to imagine a genuine, average English reader actually going down to the bottom of e.g. Battle at Jurjeve Stijene and noticing a link to e.g. Battle of Lissa (1866) and thinking ah yes this box has been useful to help me navigate there. If the navigation box serves a generally implausible navigation scenario, it doesn't make sense for it to exist, it serves no actual purpose other than provide a fiddling ground for editors. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
The explanation is very arbitrary and voluntaristic: Insinuating whether an English reader will go to the bottom of the template or not, whether he will notice this or that link, etc., is quite unconvincing and unfounded. If he is interested in something, he will read it, if not, he will go to the next page. The template is not a playground, but a help to INTERESTED readers (doesn't matter if genuine and average English or not) and an additional quality of Wikipedia, because such a template can hardly be found anywhere else. If some modifications need to be made to this template, that can be done, but deleting the template would only harm its potential readers and mean a decrease in the quality that Wikipedia, I hope, strives for. Those readers who are not interested can simply move on to another template or article. I don't know what exactly is the problem with the text of WP:NAVBOX. It says there that navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but I haven't found anywhere that anything is prohibited. As for the size, or length, of the template, we can only, for example, take a look at the template:Philosophy topics, which is much longer. --Silverije 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This appears to be a fairly generic inclusionist argument. --Joy (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Mentioning inclusionism is not a very constructive argument and does not contribute to a more thorough discussion. I could also say something like: This appears to be a fairly generic deletionist argument. But I won't. There are a number of similar templates on Wikipedia that are used by a certain number of readers who are interested in military, war or similar topics (e.g. Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces, Template:Lithuanian wars and conflicts, Template:Viking activity in Great Britain). Is that not a sufficient argument? --Silverije 18:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Tuyến số 5 (Đường sắt đô thị Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh) RDT

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: has been added to parent article. Useddenim (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Attached KML/Bogor–Padalarang–Kasugihan railway

Unused as Bogor–Padalarang–Kasugihan railway was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Attached KML/Mort Street

Unused as Mort Street was deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:1900s shipwrecks

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) 19:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Unused navbox. Template:Shipevents is used on the list of shipwrek pages. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 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:Wars and battles involving Serbs

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template is an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the "involving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting - it's scope creep. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. There is no Wikipedia article on the subject of the template - there's a List of wars involving Serbia, but that's a reference to a place, not a people like here. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. --Joy (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Wars and battles involving Albanians

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template is an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the "involving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting - it's scope creep. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. There is no Wikipedia article on the subject of the template - there's a List of wars involving Albania, but that's a reference to a place, not a people like here. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Params

I am nominating this module for deletion because this module is unnecessarily complicated and thus very difficult for anyone other than the module creator to improve, even by sandbox testing. I was only able to find 35 actual uses for this module despite the few thousand transclusions and all of those uses can be replaced with either (1) a module that can read each of the parameters sequentially or following a specific format or (2) something like {{for nowiki}} or similar to iterate over a bunch of template parameters. I have previously discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Module:Params, courtesy ping the participants from that discussion: @Grufo @Ponor @Chrisahn @Snævar @Johnuniq. I concur with the comments that essentially this module is trying to make a whole other programming language that is not suitable for Wikipedia rather than simplify template writing. Potential unsalvagable monolith that can be WP:TNTed. Useful functions regarding arguments from this module can be spun out into their own module before deletion. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ping failed so retry @Grufo @Ponor @Chrisahn @Snævar @Johnuniq Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: interested in this as well. I've previously commented the same sentiments posted above about this module. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • First ban, later delete.
The module is too complex and should be removed. The English Wikipedia is a large collaborative project maintained by volunteers. We have to use tools that many volunteers can use with relative ease. This module basically introduces a third programming language besides Lua and Wikitext. Of course, neither Lua nor Wikitext are perfect, but introducing yet another language is not a good idea, especially one as complex as Module:Params.
The module was initialy created for the Latin Wikipedia (lawiki). I think @Grufo said somewhere that on lawiki too few users understand Lua or Wikitext, so Grufo created Module:Params to make it easier for others to create powerful templates. But as far as I can tell, even on lawiki Grufo is the only one who actually uses Module:Params. I looked at the edit histories of several lawiki templates that invoke Module:Params and found only edits by Grufo. It's likely that the same would happen here on enwiki: Only Grufo and very few others will understand Module:Params well enough to use it.
In conclusion: We should phase out Module:Params. As a first step, we should ban it from being used in any new or modified code. Next, we should change the templates that currently use Module:Params (mostly introduced or modified by Grufo). Some can simply be reverted to older versions, others may have to be converted to modules. In the end, we should delete the module. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
As an example, here are two versions of Template:Etymology.
The old version is syntactically ugly and hard to read, but semantically very simple. Anyone who understands if-then-else expressions can understand the template, and anyone who understands wikitext syntax can easily change the output of the template. Such changes are a nuisance because one has to repeat them five times and be careful not to break the syntax, but there are many users on the English Wikipedia who can do that.
Old version
<!--
-->{{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}}|from<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{1|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{1}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;'' {{{2}}}''}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{3}}}}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{7|}}}{{{8|}}}||{{#if:{{{3|}}}|}}&#32;and}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{4|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{4}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|&#32;'' {{{5}}}''}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{6}}}}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{7|}}}{{{8|}}}|{{#if:{{{10|}}}{{{11|}}}||{{#if:{{{6|}}}|}}&#32;and}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{7|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{7}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{8|}}}|&#32;'' {{{8}}}''}}{{#if:{{{9|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{9}}}}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{10|}}}{{{11|}}}|{{#if:{{{13|}}}{{{14|}}}||{{#if:{{{9|}}}|}}&#32;and}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{10|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{10}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{11|}}}|&#32;'' {{{11}}}''}}{{#if:{{{12|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{12}}}}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{13|}}}{{{14|}}}|{{#if:{{{16|}}}{{{17|}}}||{{#if:{{{12|}}}|}}&#32;and}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{13|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{13}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{14|}}}|&#32;'' {{{14}}}''}}{{#if:{{{15|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{15}}}}}}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{16|}}}{{{17|}}}|{{#if:{{{15|}}}|}}&#32;and}}<!--
	-->{{#if:{{{16|}}}|&#32;{{etymology/lang|1={{{16}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{17|}}}|&#32;'' {{{17}}}''}}{{#if:{{{18|}}}|&nbsp;{{gloss|1={{{18}}}}}}}<!--
-->|{{error|{{[[Template:Etymology#Examples|etymology]]}} requires 1st or 2nd parameter in each triplet!}}}}<!--
-->
The new version introduced by Grufo in March 2026 is syntactically nicer, but semantically much more complex. Anyone who wants to change the template needs to understand the intricacies of Module:Params. I've spent decades writing code in dozens of languages, so I can guess what excluding_non-numeric_names and trimming_values do, and maybe call_for_each_group, but I have no idea what backpurging|0|0|, setting|h/i/l or sequential mean. Why do we need three different renaming steps? I guess $# is some kind of index variable? And so on. Before I can understand the template, I have to learn a new language. Few volunteers will invest the time to do that, which means that Grufo will remain (almost) the only user who can edit such templates.
New version
{{#invoke:params|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	backpurging|0|0|
	trimming_values|
	renaming_by_mixing|floor(($# + 2) / 3) * 10 + (($# + 2) mod 3) + 1|
	renaming_by_magic|#expr|
	renaming_by_replacing|^(%d+)(%d)$|%2 %1|
	setting|h/i/l|from |; | and |
	sequential|
	call_for_each_group|Etymology/lang
}}
— Chrisahn (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
As another example, here's an excerpt from the current version of Template:Wrapper, introduced by Grufo a week ago.
Extended content
		{{#invoke:params|new|
			pulling|omitting|
			entering_substack|
				detaching_substack|
				reinterpreting|omitting|trim_all|splitter_string|{{{separator|//}}}|setter_string||
				mixing_names_and_values|$@|<tr><td><code style{{=}}"white-space: preserve nowrap; word-break: keep-all;"><s>&#124;<span style{{=}}"color: #767600;">$@</span>&#61;</s></code></td><td>''(undefined)''</td></tr>|
			leaving_substack|
			pulling|except|
			reinterpreting|except|trim_all|splitter_string|{{{separator|//}}}|setter_string|{{{setter|->}}}|
			snapshotting|entering_substack|
				with_value_matching||strict|
				detaching_substack|
				mapping_by_mixing|''(empty string)''|
			leaving_substack|
			mapping_by_magic|#tag|values_only_as|2|let|1|syntaxhighlight|let|lang|wikitext|let|inline|true|
			flushing|
			mapping_by_mixing|<tr><td><code style{{=}}"white-space: preserve nowrap; word-break: keep-all;">&#124;<span style{{=}}"color: #767600;">$#</span>&#61;</code></td><td>$@</td></tr>|
			flushing|
			setting|h/f| {{#ifeq:{{{passing-through|+}}}|{{{passing-through|-}}}
				| The {{#if:{{{passing-through|}}}|other p|p}}arameters passed are managed as follows:
				| However, the following are exceptions:
			}}<tabl{{#if:{{{table-class|/}}}
				| e class{{=}}"{{{table-class|wikitable}}}"
				| e
			}} style{{=}}"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tr><th>Parameter passed to {{Tl|1={{{1}}}}}</th><th>Value</th></tr>|</table>|
			all_sorted|
			list_values
		}}
I have no idea how all that substack stuff works. Maybe Module:Params is stack-based like Forth? On the other hand, the let statements are familiar from JavaScript, OCaml, and other languages... Anyway, code like this isn't going to be maintainable.
— Chrisahn (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I think the discussion would benefit from looking at concrete examples of actual problems rather than discussing the module in the abstract. The relevant question is whether the templates currently using Params would be easier to maintain if each of them were replaced by dedicated Lua modules or by long wikitext implementations. In many cases, the reason Module:Params is used in the first place is precisely to avoid having to create and maintain a separate module for a relatively narrow parameter-processing task, which would add its own maintenance burden.
It is difficult to see how creating a dedicated Lua module would be preferable for a template like {{MOS-TRANS}}, which uses Module:Params only for capturing parameters that follow a specific pattern:
Params in {{MOS-TRANS}}
{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^addct%d+$|
	renaming_by_replacing|^addct(%d+)$|%1|1|
	squeezing|
	concat_and_call|Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
Or for {{Preload}}, which uses it to append preload arguments:
Params in {{Preload}}
{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	setting|ih|&preloadparams%5b%5d{{=}}|
	cutting|3|0|
	magic_for_each_value|urlencode|QUERY}}
It is certainly possible to write complex code using Module:Params, but that usually reflects the complexity of the underlying challenge one is trying to address.
Looking at the {{Etymology}} example, I would dwell on this comparison: “The old version is syntactically ugly and hard to read, but semantically very simple”. Something that is hard to read is usually harder to understand, review, and correct. Also, the allegedly positive side of wikitext's poor semantics hides a vulnerability: repetitiveness, which tends to create bugs, inconsistencies, and overlooked edge cases (and in fact the old version of {{Etymology}} had inconsistency bugs).
But perhaps the clearest example is {{Pagesize table}}. Recently, the version that used Params — 13 lines of code — was replaced with a 6,000-line implementation. Whatever one's view of Params, it is difficult to argue that the resulting repetitive code became easier to maintain, especially for those working from mobile devices.
One of the sentences that struck me is: “Few volunteers will invest the time to learn this additional language”. Assuming it is a language (it isn't), who said it is an additional one? For most editors Lua will be the only language they would have to learn, whereas Params would simply be a documented glossary of parameter-processing instructions invoked through familiar wikitext syntax (again, not a programming language). Others may already know Lua but prefer to work in the template namespace rather than the module namespace. Last but not least, others may feel that relying too heavily on over-specific Lua code even for trivial tasks reduces the accessibility of template maintenance and makes Wikipedia a worse place (I am one of those, by the way).
To my knowledge, there have been no maintenance problems attributable to the module. The objections raised so far seem to concern the general philosophy of the module rather than specific problems arising from its current uses. I am also not aware of maintenance problems being reported by editors who are working on templates that use the module.
If there are particular concrete problems, I would be genuinely interested in examining those examples. That seems to me to be a more productive basis for discussion than general disagreements about programming style.
We can also invite here the people who have created templates with Module:Params and ask how they feel about the concerns raised here: @Chaotic Enby (for {{ProdwarningLLM-batch}}), @Raladic (for {{MOS-TRANS}}), @Cadddr (for {{userpage}}), @Mathglot (for {{Sfnlink}} and {{Remoteref}}), @WikiMacaroons (for {{Pantone table}}), @DefaultFree (for {{Autnum plain}}), @FaviFake (for contributing at {{Wrapper}}). --Grufo (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the ping! I used Module:Params to have a list in the correct format to call {{Flowlist}} on it. It is certainly a good tool for the job as it allows to convert parameters into links and then into a bulleted list, instead of having to code a custom version of {{Flowlist}} that takes a series of titles and turns them into a list of links. And, even then, we would still need a module to move an indefinite number of parameters to that helper template.
Honestly, this module feels less like a whole new programming language, and more like a library of functions, some of them operating on other functions, that can be useful tools for specific cases. Certainly, most volunteers won't ever have to learn these functions (even I don't know most of them!), and it is more a matter of finding which one is relevant to your use case and looking at its documentation. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
My usage of Module:Params in {{autnum}} and {{autnum plain}} has been limited to a single concat_and_call to invoke a subtemplate with variadic arguments. It's been very useful for this purpose, I'm thankful that Grufo wrote it, and I'm unaware of a simpler way to achieve this in pure wikitext or using an existing Lua module. I would not be bothered if a smaller module were written for this specific purpose, and basic calls to concat_and_call were replaced with calls to it.
I don't have a full understanding of Params usage outside of this. It does appear to be complicated. It also appears to be extremely well documented and learnable if necessary. I'm unmoved by arguments that it's too complicated, or that only a single person has contributed to it thus far. Looking at Chrisahn's {{Etymology}} examples above, I find the Params version to be more directly expressive of intent and written in a way that will produce cleaner diffs when modified. But I don't really have a stake in this beyond basic usage of concat_and_call, so my opinion should be taken with an appropriate quantity of salt. DefaultFree (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I've since taken a closer look at some of the additional functionality provided by Params, and updated {{Infobox network service provider/sandbox}} to use it. Like Etymology, it groups related parameters and calls a sub-template on each group. The non-Params alternative is repetitive, supports only limited variadicity, and, in my opinion, will be more tedious to maintain. Diff here. If this discussion results in a Keep, then I intend to merge these changes back into into the main template. Otherwise, they can be discarded.
The "pipeline of serial operations on a parameter list" abstraction, I think, is the most significant contribution of this module. The formatting/presentation bits (including the setting modifier which is the subject of some criticism here) are useful, but it's not clear to me that the two concerns need to be so tightly coupled. The distinction between call_for_each_group and grouping_by_calling was not immediately obvious to me, and even now that I understand it, I'm not sure why the module needs to have both, rather than always using grouping_by_calling|...|concat_and_call|enum|... (or similar - I understand that {{enum}} doesn't support every current setting variable - but this isn't a fundamental limitation) in place of setting|...|call_for_each_group|.... A similar pattern exists for other equivalent modifier/function pairs. If we conclude that the module is currently too monolithic, this may be a good line on which to consider splitting it. Even so, I don't think this is reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting it wholesale, as it provides useful functionality that is otherwise unavailable without writing template-specific Lua. DefaultFree (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
@DefaultFree: Thank you for taking a closer look, and nice work on {{Infobox network service provider/sandbox}}. It is always interesting to see how other people approach the interface, because it often highlights things I had not thought about.
Regarding the distinction between grouping_by_calling and call_for_each_group, the reason is mainly convenience. grouping_by_calling is a modifier, so any additional fixed parameters have to be encoded inside the pipeline itself, e.g.
...|grouping_by_calling|My template|let|foo|bar|let|hello|world|...
call_for_each_group, on the other hand, is a terminal function. Since it closes the pipeline, everything that follows can simply be interpreted as ordinary template parameters:
...|call_for_each_group|My template
	| foo = bar
	| hello = world
Aside from that, they perform essentially the same task. It is not the only case of syntax sugar. For instance, excluding_non-numeric_names is essentially a synonym for with_name_matching|^%-?%d+$. However, there are occasionally subtle differences. For example, a parameter named 007 is not considered a numeric parameter by wikitext because of the leading zeros, so excluding_non-numeric_names will remove it, whereas ...|with_name_matching|^%-?%d+$|... will leave it untouched. --Grufo (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The examples that Chrisahn has posted are also ones that I've encountered. The params code is just not readable at all by anyone that isn't familier with that specific syntax, compared to any code written in Lua or Wikitext which is (even badly written ones). Also, pinging people you know will be on your side is the definition of WP:CANVASSING. I expect any closer to take the votes that resulted in that into consideration. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I think this is a somewhat borderline case of canvassing. A centerpiece of Chrisahn's argument is that Grufo is the only editor on la-wiki who has been able to use this bespoke module and it is likely that no or few other editor here on en-wiki will be able to figure it out. Hearing from other editors who find it useful—and useable—is relevant to the discussion. Having said that, hearing from a small handful of editors who have used it doesn't override the concern that it is inaccessible to a much larger group of editors. I think the input from these editors is valuable to the discussion but agree that the nature of their participation should be taken into consideration, which is not to say they should be discounted entirely. It would be helpful see other editors responding directly to the use cases offered by the fairly small group of editors who have use this module. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, regarding allegations of being canvassed, I had been silently following the discussion leading up to this at Module talk:Params, which is on my watchlist. Because TFD notices for Lua modules are posted to the /doc subpage, rather than directly to the module page, it escaped my attention. I was surprised to learn that a TFD was underway when I was pinged. Had there been a notice on the module talk page, I would have been aware of this TFD organically, without a ping. And I disagree that Grufo would have reason to think that I would be on [their] side just by nature of having used the module. In fact, I noted that I would not oppose replacing basic calls to concat_and_call with a simpler module! DefaultFree (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Just a technical note: splitting out concat_and_call might work in very simple cases, but won't work in cases like {{ProdwarningLLM-batch}} and {{MOS-TRANS}}, where parameters need to be filtered, renamed, or otherwise transformed before being passed to another template. --Grufo (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I do not really consider this canvassing. Notice the nominator first pinged those involved in the discussion against this module that was at the village pump. That seems to be canvassing in my opinion. The counter-canvassing is just balancing things to improve the discussion which was already lopsided. An assertion that counter-canvassing is canvassing is akin to counter-terrorism being considered terrorism. Regardless, the point is to increase the number of interested parties to improve the discussion. Soliciting feedback from those actually using this module hardly seems to be canvassing. I have had extensive discussions with the author of this module and I have not really even used it myself but without reservation I would agree this module has issues and need help. Those using it would probably be the first to notice its flaws. —Uzume (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete setting aside the CLEAR case of WP:CANVASSING this is a prime case of WP:TNT. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:TNT seems like an odd fit here. The rationale behind TNT is usually that a system has become so entangled or difficult to maintain that starting over is preferable to incremental repair. However, I am not aware of any maintenance problems and, despite the nominator's description, Params is highly modular and rather the opposite of a monolith: templates typically use only a small subset of its instructions, and bugs can usually be addressed within the specific instruction involved without affecting unrelated functionality. The very idea of piping operations together comes directly from the Unix philosophy of building complex behaviour from simple, reusable components. Whether one likes this particular implementation or not, it is difficult to see it as a textbook case for TNT. --Grufo (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: I am mostly responding here because I was pinged by a few other user's comments. I was not aware that "unnecessarily complicated" or the inability of one or more users to understand something constituted a deletion criteria. That said, I too have had some reservations about the development of this Scribunto module. One could argue it is limited to dealing with just parameters (and thus its name) or arguments to Scribunto modules but then again those are the main input to such modules so another could argue the scope is open-ended and this is basically a do-it-all monolith. As for the argument that this introduces its own domain-specific language (DSL), I agree this module certainly moves into that arena but then again I was not aware being such was a deletion criteria either. There are certainly several other similar instances that are not targeted here, e.g.: Module:For loop almost certainly constitutes a DSL and Module:User:Cscott/LuaTurtle certainly does not even attempt to hide it is the implementation of a computer language. And there are plenty of complex modules that have major technical issues such as Module:WikitextParser (which has actually been rewritten a few times already); one can certainly question the value of parsing wikitext (an extremely non-trivial undertaking) in Lua during the parsing and rendering of the current page by parsoid/the main MediaWiki parser. I do agree that the module under this nomination has been mostly developed by a single individual and that it has grown organically with little real peer review and the lack of such most certainly shows. However, there are plenty of instances of similarly awkwardly and some outright poorly written modules about—some are even protected under high-use or system use criteria. I personally oppose deletion under the weak criteria of this nomination and I believe it makes considerably more sense to consider instead providing the missing code review (why WP:RUSH?) and perhaps splitting it up into more targeted pieces that have better cohesion, fixing its perceived loose coupling. I believe deletion under this nomination would constitute overzealous deletion along the lines of WP:POORLY, WP:OBTOP, or WP:LACK and certainly this module qualifies under WP:DOUBT and WP:BATHWATER. I say WP:TNTNT. If you want to improve the quality of this module, that is fine but that is a discussion for its talk page not a deletion nomination. I have already had some extensive discussions with its main author and I agree it could be improved in many ways. —Uzume (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

One thing that may help the discussion is to look at the current uses of Module:Params. Looking through the templates that currently use the module, I would roughly classify them as follows (excluding experiments, userpage templates, and similar cases).

Trivial usage of Params (6):

{{#invoke:params|self}}

{{#invoke:params|concat_and_call|autnum|plainlink=yes}}

{{#invoke:params|concat_and_call|sfnlink
	| text = {{{note|1}}}
	| article = {{{article|*}}}
}}

{{#invoke:params|concat_and_call|pagelist
	| nspace = ...
	| delim = ...
	| edelim = ...
	| separator = ...
	| conjunction = ...
}}

{{#invoke:params|sequential|count}}

{{#invoke:params|
	imposing|1|⫽{{{1}}}⫽|
	concat_and_call|IPA
}}

Ordinary usage of Params (10):

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	call_for_each_value|Pantone|type=formatted
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	setting|i|</td><td>|
	list_values
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	setting|i|</td><td>|
	call_for_each_value|Pantone|type=hex
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	setting|i|</td><td>|
	call_for_each_value|Pantone|type=rgb
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	setting|i|</td><td>|
	call_for_each_value|Pantone|type=cmyk
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	setting|ih|&preloadparams%5b%5d{{=}}|
	cutting|3|0|
	magic_for_each_value|urlencode|QUERY}}

{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^addct%d+$|
	renaming_by_replacing|^addct(%d+)$|%1|1|
	squeezing|
	concat_and_call|Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}

{{#invoke:params|
	cutting|1|0|
	setting|h/i/p|&#58;|&#124;|&#61;|
	all_sorted|
	list_maybe_with_names
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	trimming_values|
	mapping_by_calling|duses|values_and_names|
	setting|i|<br>|
	list_values
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	purging|1|1|
	providing|1|Error: There is no text to show.|
	setting|ih/p|{{!}}|{{=}}|
	all_sorted|
	list_maybe_with_names
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	purging|1|1|
	providing|1|Error: There is no text to show.|
	concat_and_call|Error
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	all_sorted|
	setting|h/i/p/f|<noinclude />{<noinclude />{<noinclude />#invoke:svg{{!}}create
{{!}} |
{{!}} | {{=}} |
<noinclude />}<noinclude />}<noinclude />|
	list
}}
{{Autnum}}
{{#invoke:params|
	sequential|
	trimming_values|
	with_value_matching|^%d+$|
	squeezing|
	setting|h/i/l|{{If|eq|{{yesno-no|{{{plainlink|}}}}}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{yesno-yes|{{{link|}}}}}|no|AS|[[Autonomous System (Internet)|AS]]}} }}|, |{{If||{{{leadout|}}}| {{{leadout}}}|,}} |
	for_each|[https://bgp.tools/as/$@ $@]}}

{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^p%d+$|
	count
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^p%d+$|
	all_sorted|
	setting|h/i|{{#if:{{{parts|}}}|<b>{{{parts}}}&#58;&nbsp;</b>}}|, |
	list_values
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^p%d+$|
	renaming_by_replacing|^p(%d+)$|%1|1|
	concat_and_call|Collapsible list
	      | title = ...
	      | expand = ...
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|
	with_name_matching|^p%d+$|
	count
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	cutting|2|0|
	discarding|title|
	setting|i/p|&|{{=}}|
	renaming_by_magic|urlencode|names_only|1|QUERY|
	mapping_by_magic|urlencode|values_only|1|QUERY|
	list
}}

Moderately advanced usage of Params (4):

{{#invoke:params|
	all_sorted|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	mapping_by_replacing|[^abdlp]+||
	mapping_by_replacing|a|⏒ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|b|⏑ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|d|⏔ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|l|‒ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|p|⏖ ||plain|
	trimming_values|
	mapping_by_replacing|%s+|&nbsp;|
	setting|h/i/f|<span style{{=}}"font-size: 1.4em; line-height: .857em;">&nbsp;|&nbsp;&#124; |&nbsp;</span>|
	list_values
}}

{{#invoke:params|
	setting|h/i/l/p/f/n|archived [https://web.archive.org/web/|], [https://web.archive.org/web/|] and [https://web.archive.org/web/|/{{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} |]|[https://web.archive.org/web/{{CURRENTYEAR}}0000000000*/{{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} search for an archived version of this page]|
	all_sorted|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	cutting|2|0|
	trimming_values|
	with_value_matching|^%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d$|
	renaming_by_mixing|$@|
	mapping_by_magic|#time|
		values_only_as|2|
		let|1|{{#switch:{{{date-format|}}}
			| MDY = F j, Y
			| YMD = Y F j
			| ISO = Y-m-d
			| #default = j F Y
		}}|
	list
}}

{{#invoke:params|with_name_matching|1|strict|trimming_values|mapping_by_replacing|^.*$|~#!@@///
<div>%1</div>|1|mapping_by_replacing|

+|</div><div class{{=}}"intervallum-carminis"><br />
|mapping_by_replacing|([^
]+
[^
]+
[^
]+
[^
]+
[^
]+)
|%1</div><div class{{=}}"quintina-carminis">|mapping_by_replacing|^~#!@@///
||1|mapping_by_replacing|
|</div><div>|value_of|1}}

{{#invoke:params|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	backpurging|0|0|
	trimming_values|
	renaming_by_mixing|floor(($# + 2) / 3) * 10 + (($# + 2) mod 3) + 1|
	renaming_by_magic|#expr|
	renaming_by_replacing|^(%d+)(%d)$|%2 %1|
	setting|h/i/l|from |; | and |
	sequential|
	call_for_each_group|Etymology/lang
}}

Very advanced usage of Params (use substacks) (2):

{{#invoke:params|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	entering_substack|
		with_value_matching|^%s+$|
		detaching_substack|
		mapping_by_mixing| |
	leaving_substack|
	trimming_values|
	flushing|
	mapping_by_replacing|^([^:]+):?%s-$|</ruby>%1<ruby>|1|
	mapping_by_replacing|%s*:%s*(.*)$|<rp> (</rp><rt>%1</rt><rp>)</rp>|1|
	combining_values|exitus|alphabetically|h/f|<ruby>|</ruby>|
	mapping_by_replacing|<ruby></ruby>|||plain|
	value_of|exitus
}}

{{#invoke:params|new|
	pulling|passing-through|
	reinterpreting|passing-through|trim_all|splitter_string|{{{separator|//}}}|setter_string||
	with_value_not_matching||strict|
	mixing_names_and_values|$@|<code style{{=}}"white-space: preserve nowrap; word-break: keep-all;">&#124;<span style{{=}}"color: #767600;">$@</span>&#61;</code>|
	setting|h/i/l/s/f/n|The following parameters from {{Tl|1={{{1}}}}} will work here: |, | and |, and |.|Since all parameters are already managed, no parameters from {{Tl|1={{{1}}}}} will work here.|
	all_sorted|
	list_values|
}}

...

{{#invoke:params|new|
	pulling|omitting|
	entering_substack|
		detaching_substack|
		reinterpreting|omitting|trim_all|splitter_string|{{{separator|//}}}|setter_string||
		mixing_names_and_values|$@|<tr><td><code style{{=}}"white-space: preserve nowrap; word-break: keep-all;"><s>&#124;<span style{{=}}"color: #767600;">$@</span>&#61;</s></code></td><td>''(undefined)''</td></tr>|
	leaving_substack|
	pulling|except|
	reinterpreting|except|trim_all|splitter_string|{{{separator|//}}}|setter_string|{{{setter|->}}}|
	snapshotting|entering_substack|
		with_value_matching||strict|
		detaching_substack|
		mapping_by_mixing|''(empty string)''|
	leaving_substack|
	mapping_by_magic|#tag|values_only_as|2|let|1|syntaxhighlight|let|lang|wikitext|let|inline|true|
	flushing|
	mapping_by_mixing|<tr><td><code style{{=}}"white-space: preserve nowrap; word-break: keep-all;">&#124;<span style{{=}}"color: #767600;">$#</span>&#61;</code></td><td>$@</td></tr>|
	flushing|
	setting|h/f| {{#ifeq:{{{passing-through|+}}}|{{{passing-through|-}}}
		| The {{#if:{{{passing-through|}}}|other p|p}}arameters passed are managed as follows:
		| However, the following are exceptions:
	}}<tabl{{#if:{{{table-class|/}}}
		| e class{{=}}"{{{table-class|wikitable}}}"
		| e
	}} style{{=}}"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tr><th>Parameter passed to {{Tl|1={{{1}}}}}</th><th>Value</th></tr>|</table>|
	all_sorted|
	list_values
}}

Naturally, others may classify individual templates somewhat differently, but I think the overall picture will not diverge much.

What stands out to me is that the majority of current uses appear to rely on a relatively small subset of the module's functionality, although the subset varies from template to template. This seems consistent with the idea that users can employ individual instructions without needing to make use of the more sophisticated parts of the module. The more sophisticated features that have attracted most attention in this discussion, such as substacks, are currently used only in the last two templates (aside from one use in a user page: User:Thatgaypigeon/TemplateData param). --Grufo (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grufo: you gotta stop. Responding to every comment that disagree's with you with a MASSIVE WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helpful to anything or anyone. We've been down this road before. Nothing about your nearly 11,000 byte response is worth reading or will be read. You are actually doing more harm then good. Just stop. Your bizarre rants and (as Gonnym correctly pointed out) WP:CANVASSING are getting old. Let the TFD run its course and stop dumping massive amounts of text in here as if that is going to help anything. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above, too complex with unreadable syntax. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I actually sympathize with the concept of this, of having ways for templates to take and process arbitrarily-many parameters without needing a custom module, but the implementation here does not do that concept justice and just turns into a mess. * Pppery * in solidarity 20:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • First time seeing this, happened to stumble upon the discussion. Just some bystander thoughts.
Reading the main documentation, this seems like it could be very useful, while at the same time the scope seems potentially too broad. It's like a whole little DSL was invented for parameter handling. It can sound fun, but it implies that everyone else needs to learn yet another language, which is a big ask. I noticed that the documenation says the module tries to make things elegant, which struck me as a potential red flag, as elegance can be very subjective.
The documentation generally looks like a software project. At the same time, reviewing it and the talk history, I immediately noticed a glaring issue with something that software projects conventionally need to have: lifecycle management. Two issues with that were immediately suspect: first, someone complained on talk that the module doesn't have a sandbox at all. Those comments weren't from e.g. 2004, when everything here was fresh and with ample growing pains - they were from 2024. Second, there's no apparent mention of anyone having done a review of the code. I noticed extensive discussions between Grufo and User:Uzume, but I didn't have time to check whether the latter actually provided a proper review (maybe it's just not documented nicely enough for me to notice - if so, apologies).
Anyway, after reading several sections of the documentation, I noticed the 'setting' modifier uses single letters for parameter names. That's usually a big red flag.
I also tried reading Module:Params/testcases, but it doesn't seem like it's actually... test cases as conventionally understood here. While I'm personally not interested enough to learn by ignoring that quasi-documentation and just UTSL, it's still indicative of a genuine problem.
It looks like quite a bit of work would be needed here. --Joy (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@Joy: Just replying to a few points.
  • The sandbox was introduced in April 2024, but the module itself was created only a few months earlier, in July 2023.
  • Re: no one having reviewed the code. That is possibly true, although Uzume helped me track down and fix a couple of bugs and investigated with me a Scribunto-related issue (which will probably need to be discussed on Phabricator eventually). More recently, Snævar also reviewed parts of the module, although I do not know how comprehensive that review was.
  • Regarding setting, the single letters are not parameter names at all (the modifier is completely oblivious to parameter names). Instead it is used for setting different types of separators, such as headers, footers and separators between successive values. It is analogous to the separator argument of Lua's table.concat() function, except that several different kinds of separator can be used. For example, if a template named {{FooBar}} contained the following wikitext:
    {{#invoke:params|
	setting|i|BOOM|
	list_values
}}
    transcluded as {{FooBar|one|two|three|four}} would produce:
    oneBOOMtwoBOOMthreeBOOMfour
    Likewise:
    {{#invoke:params|
	setting|h/i/f|BAM|BOOM|BEM|
	list_values
}}
    would produce:
    BAMoneBOOMtwoBOOMthreeBOOMfourBEM
--Grufo (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, it reads like setting h/i/f. Why would h, i and f have to be so terse? Were you trying to make it obfuscated? :D --Joy (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of peer review this module needs and I certainly agree that setting is obscure. I do not think this module can entirely avoid all of its perceived complexity although I imagine it could be simplified in several ways but it can definitely be improved to help remove its obscurity. The author has attempted to rectify this entirely with documentation and although I feel it has been a valiant effort, I do not think this is enough—it sorely needs peer review. Once an API is available, one cannot just change it as there are now clients of such but with work that too can be rectified. I see this deletion nomination as a statement that this module is getting noticed enough to call attention to it but so far not enough for useful feedback from reviewing peers to cause meaningful change yet. This is a crucial crossroad for it. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Or do we love it and mold it into something better—something we can be proud of? —Uzume (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This module is not maintainable and makes Wikipedia templates harder to edit. Introducing new programming languages into the Wikipedia ecosystem is a big decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. The domain-specific language of Module:Params is very hard to read and therefore poorly designed for Wikipedia. @Grufo: I'm sorry it has to be this way. I know it's hard to accept that the Wikipedia community is here rejecting a project that you have put a lot of time into. Daask (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, I would argue that it is better understood as a pipeline than as a language: each operation transforms the current parameter set and passes the result to the next one.
    To illustrate what I mean, imagine if Module:String, instead of using its current nested syntax,
    {{#invoke:string|
	match|{{#invoke:string|
		replace|{{#invoke:string|
			replace|hello wozld|z|r|1|true}}|%s+|-||false}}|hello-|1|1|true|}}
    (which I personally find rather difficult to read),
    used a pipeline-like syntax somewhat similar to Module:MultiReplace:
    {{#invoke:string|
	source|hello wozld|
	replace|z|r|1|true|
	replace|%s+|-||false|
	match|hello-|1|1|true|}}
    To me, the second version is much easier to follow because the transformations are expressed sequentially rather than nested.
    Just out of curiosity, here is the current implementation of {{Quantitative metre}}:
    {{#invoke:params|
	all_sorted|
	excluding_non-numeric_names|
	mapping_by_replacing|[^abdlp]+||
	mapping_by_replacing|a|⏒ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|b|⏑ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|d|⏔ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|l|‒ ||plain|
	mapping_by_replacing|p|⏖ ||plain|
	trimming_values|
	mapping_by_replacing|%s+|&nbsp;|
	setting|h/i/f|<span style{{=}}"font-size: 1.4em; line-height: .857em;">&nbsp;|&nbsp;&#124; |&nbsp;</span>|
	list_values
}}
    Could you point to the specific part—or parts—that you find difficult to read? That would help me understand whether the issue is with particular operations, the overall structure, or simply unfamiliarity with the names. --Grufo (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

June 23

Template:Kazakhstan 2014 Women's Rugby World Cup Squad

Team navbox with only 1 blue player. Not enough to navigate to. Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Barbarians August 2015 squad

These navboxes are used incorrectly as tables in the middle of the article at Barbarian F.C.#Previous squads. These should be converted to regular wikitext, subst and the templates deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Convert as suggested by nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • ;; Whats the suggested plan of action for listing previous squads? Rugby.change (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    If you are asking about this proposal then I wrote above, convert the navigation template into a regular wikitext. That can be a table, a prose, or combination, then subst the template and finally delete it. If you are asking something else about the content, then probably ask at the talk page or maybe the relvent WikiProject talk page. Gonnym (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Shizuoka Blue Revs squad

Following this TFD, requesting deletion as I forgot to include this template. Nomination and comments remain the same. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:The Amazing Digital Circus

Only 2 articles here are related specifically to The Amazing Digital Circus (those being the show's article itself, and it's series finale) while the rest just seem to be taken from the Glitch Productions navbox. With 2 in mind, I fear that is too little for it's own independent navbox, and this should probably be deleted since those two already fit the Glitch Productions navbox with no issues. ConeKota (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This was because the articles were moved back into draft space. Monathephantom (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Could be recreated in the future if the drafts become articles. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into {{Glitch Productions}}. Per WP:NAVBOX, navigation templates are intended to connect a robust network of existing, closely related mainspace articles. Currently, this template only links to the parent article and a single episode article ("Remember"). The remaining links are for voice actors, crew, and the production studio, all of which are already comprehensively covered by the parent {{Glitch Productions}} template. Creating a standalone navbox for only two distinct show-specific articles causes unnecessary fragmentation. If more individual episode or character drafts pass AfC in the future, a dedicated navbox can be reconsidered at that time. Per the guideline text on WP:NAVBOX, navigation footers don't render for the ~70% of readers on mobile devices, making micro-templates with minimal link density functionally useless for navigation. A standard category or inline "See also" link is much more appropriate here until a larger cluster of distinct mainspace articles is established. ChPo ^_^ (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Template:Glitch Productions – Agreed with ChPo and ConeKota, as this template should be deleted, however primarily merge into the Glitch Productions template, as The Amazing Digital Circus, is obviously already categorised, in the Glitch Productions template, however, merging The Amazing Digital Circus template, with the Glitch Productions template, should categorise Remember, into a seperate "Episodes" section, in the Glitch Productions template, alongside with adding actors/employees into the Glitch Productions template, which are mentioned in The Amazing Digital Circus template, however not the Glitch Productions template. MrDevolver (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
There's only one seperate episode article, and it is already mentioned in the template. The "actors/employees" are also already mentioned. I don't think merging is necessary. Maybe just redirect the template. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I literally already knew in which, Remember was mentioned, in the Glitch Productions template. MrDevolver (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
What's your point, then? 🩷 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | deltarune tomorrow! ) 17:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Nothing, and apologies for if I wasted time, I'm just suggesting in which, The Amazing Digital Circus template, should be merged with the Glitch Productions template. MrDevolver (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
To my knowledge, "merging" doesn't mean anything if you aren't moving stuff from the merged thing to the other thing. Maybe I don't know. 🩷 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | deltarune tomorrow! ) 00:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete fully redundant with Template:Glitch Productions; this will be the case even if more episodes (or characters) get articles of their own, as there is ample room for expansion of this navbox. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Froggy Radio stations

The Froggy article was drafted and most of other radio networks have a page to keep the other template. OWaunTon (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

June 22

Template:GR road

Duplicates the function of {{jct}}, but does so in a less MOS-compliant manner by obscuring the links to articles behind the images instead of displaying them separately. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: Hello, the template was based on {{AUshield}} and {{UK road}}, as well as my experience with rapid transit icons ({{rint}} and {{ric}}). I thought that using alt text would compensate for the text duplication. Best, --Minoa (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    Most of the road articles have been transitioned to use jct, which provides a better experience for readers of those articles. Because jct also uses some of the same backend as {{infobox road}}, it makes for a much simpler situation to support one code base now and in the future. (The remaining road marker templates that haven't been converted to wrappers for jct should either be converted or deprecated in the future.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    I understand what you mean: I should note for the record that the inability to set a maximum icon height of 20 pixels (instead of 24, to avoid messing with the default line height) was the side reason behind creating {{GR road}}. --Minoa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
    The size in {jct} can be set as needed for a country, but 24 px was chosen as a default to balance some legibility without disturbing line height in the tables too much. There's also {{jctrdt}} for rail diagrams. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Replace and delete per Imzadi. Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, because I replaced them with {{jctrdt}} as a stop-gap measure: I still do not know how to get the custom shield height of 20px (instead of 24px) to work, as described in my user talk page, but that's to be discussed over there. --Minoa (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Module:Unsubst-infobox

Propose merging Module:Unsubst-infobox with Module:Unsubst.
Behavior in this module can be recreated with an "infobox" function in Module:Unsubst, i.e. {{#invoke:Unsubst|infobox|$B=...}} Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

See Module:Unsubst-infobox/sandbox and Module:Unsubst/sandbox for an idea on what this merge might look like. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment my own technical expertise here is too limited to have a fully formed opinion of my own, but I trust the nominator's judgement on this, so this comment can be counted as informal support for the merge. If someone with better technical insights comes forward with concerns I will consider striking this. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ifexist series

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) 01:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unused if-else type template. Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It was in use when created. Is there a reason to do this extreme pruning of templates instead of finding use for them? jp×g🗯️ 05:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
It's not my job finding usage for templates that aren't used for multiple reasons. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
It's my impression that none of us have "jobs" with respect to our volunteer contributions; not really sure why it would be any more your job to file TfDs than to use templates. jp×g🗯️ 06:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
I will stop commenting on irrelevant comments. If you think, the template is useful (as its creator), then use it. If not, it will keep being sent to TfD. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I may not have been clear enough. It is not apparent to me that this self-assigned task of rotely going through lists of unused templates and indiscriminately nominating them for deletion without any effort to use them serves any purpose. What is the purpose of doing this? I regularly receive notifications that I am demanded to participate in this unpleasant adversarial bureaucratic task, which as far as I can tell accomplishes nothing. Is there a way to simply mass-nominate every template I have ever written for deletion? I would prefer this to being repeatedly antagonized every couple months with snide derogatory comments about the worthlessness and repugnance of code I wrote for free. jp×g🗯️ 17:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
I am demanded to participate in this unpleasant adversarial bureaucratic task You are not demanded to do anything and you are always allowed to vanish. (This is the core of what it means to be a volunteer, though depending on the timing and roles you hold your account may face other consequences.)
Coincidentally, other volunteers are always allowed to notice and say "this thing is not useful" (else it would be used) and subsequently say "we should delete it".
Wikipedia is not a sourceforge and it never has been. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. We enable that by making it easy to find useful templates. If your template goes unused, that's proof-positive that it's not useful. It is simple cleanup, and not about your value, nor the hypothetical value of the template you wrote.
Is there a way to simply mass-nominate every template I have ever written for deletion? Are they all in disuse? If not, that deletion request will be seen as pointy (whomever makes it). Based on a skim of , I see a few templates that could plausibly be deleted. I see a few others which would not be. Izno (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate the thoroughness of the response, although I must contest the factual statement of the vague threat; I am not familiar with any circumstance in which "my account may face other consequences" due to no longer wanting to contribute technically to the project. Is this a newly enacted policy? jp×g🗯️ 00:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
I have no reason to threaten you here. It was just a minor recognition of WP:ADMINACCT and other such flavors of policies as one might find when one is summoned to ANI that prevent one from totally disappearing off the face of the wiki-earth at any time one might please. Izno (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trialpears (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, unused and no clear need. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete as stated, unused and no clear need. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, update and deploy. The idea behind this can be useful, but it has a very niche usage and the current version does not allow to provide a fallback page in case every page exists. For instance, whoever currently maintains the {{Ill}} template has to check periodically that none of the red links provided in the examples gets created; this template can solve that. However an unchecked fallback page must be added (together with a tracking category) in case every page exists (e.g. {{Ifexist series|...|fallback=Bla bla bla}}. Other template documentation pages that need to show red links can benefit from this as well, because it spares maintainers' time. That said, again, it has very niche usage. --Grufo (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Marvel Comics universe

Barely used on any articles (5 transclusions at present). Doesn't serve to aide anything but cluttering the page. Also, not an Infobox by any means. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, for now it's a tricky call. I did edit it early on, so may have been involved in the initial discussion but, if so, I don't recall and I'm returning to this kind fresh. My thoughts:
    • It does serve a purpose because there is potential for confusion with characters who originated outside the main universe, hence its use on the Squadron Supreme characters.
    • It only being used on 5 pages, might suggest it should be deployed more widely. However:
    • It is clunky and ugly (especially on mobile)
    • I feel there is a better solution to this - probably merging this into the existing character and/or set index infobox.
So I went "keep, for now" as it is working OK for the moment but probably should be done in an existing infobox. I'd love to consult J Greb on this one as they had the best overview on the comics infoboxes but they've been MIA for a while now. Emperor (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I've never seen this style of infobox, are there other examples to consider/compare? Drew Stanley (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
@Drew Stanley: you've never seen this style because it isn't an Infobox... This is just a block of text using the Infobox code. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough, was trying to understand whether other articles or topic spaces use such "blocks" Drew Stanley (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely. Doesn't serve a good use for the article it's on. If clarification is needed for a specific article, that should be in the article text, not shuffled into a separate (large!) sidenote. Izno (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Templates that are primarily blocks of explanatory text are a bad idea in general, and this one is privileging in-universe fictional details about Marvel's particular use of parallel universes in fiction – a concept that any unaware reader can learn more about in the linked article. It also isn't in any way an infobox, although that could be resolved with a rename if it is kept for some reason. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename, and probably recode to avoid using infobox, to the extent it does. This serves the function of a template well. It involves information that would be repeated across multiple articles. But the author made a huge mistake. By calling this an infobox, the author has subjected this template to the obsessive scrutiny around consolidating and generalizing infoboxes. The information it contains isn’t "in universe": The fictional characters presumably aren’t aware of their world’s numbering. Perhaps it may not continue on as a sidebar. It could be article text or an explanatory footnote or an infobox entry or some combination of these. But that would still be a good template. Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete this template can barely be called an infobox and serves no purpose as a sidebar. Either the explanation it provides is useful and it should be in the main text, or it is not and should be removed. As is it just adds clutter below the actual infobox on the five articles where it is used. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Sbybst

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) 01:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unused link template to another language Wikipedia. Links to other languages should use {{Interlanguage link}}. Gonnym (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

it'll be used for routemap anyway. {{Interlanguage link}} will not be able to remove the end extension of that small wiki language code. Sorry, think better next time. Railfans JPL Sidoarjo (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't need to remove that. That's the point of it. Gonnym (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 23 June 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:Name in official languages

Propose merging Template:Name in official languages with Template:Name in various languages.
{{Name in various languages}} is fully backwards compatible with this template and has support for any language. I've spent some time converting all pages that used this template over to {{Name in various languages}}, so this template is now unused in the mainspace. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 23:43, 14 June 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) 04:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Speedy redirect as I notice that the conversion has been fully carried out already and there are only a few transclusions left (none of them in mainspace), so there is not much left to discuss here; the merge made sense in any case. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Bob FM Radio stations

Delete The main page associated with template was deleted for failing GNG. Also, all of other templates still have their page. OWaunTon (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Old discussions

June 21

Template:2027 Men's T20 World Cup Americas Regional Final

Just plain wikitables should be replaced with WP:LST instead based on the precedent TfD. Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Also nominating the remaining templates as well. Vestrian24Bio 10:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: @Vestrian24Bio none of these pages are tagged. Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Not a single one of these templates was tagged for deletion thus violating TFD procedure. Not a valid TFD to start with. I will note that Vestrian24Bio ignored 2 separate pings about this issue after their nomination of 50+ templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
So sorry, didn't see any of the mentions; been a bit busy with some off-wiki stuff. I'll tag the pages shortly. Vestrian24Bio 12:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep Changed to neutral. Unless I am misunderstanding the proposal. Many (if not all) of these tables are used in at least two places. 1) the specific tournament to which they relate; 2) a summary of the qualification pathway for a particular tournament; 3) the season summary page. For example Template:2026 Men's T20 World Cup Europe Sub-regional Qualifier A is used in 2026 Men's T20 World Cup Europe Sub-regional Qualifier A, 2028 Men's T20 World Cup qualification and Associate international cricket in 2026. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs1jac (talk • contribs)
@Bs1jac: The tables would be replaced by Help:Labeled section transclusion, similar to what's being done at 2026 Men's T20 World Cup and 2026 Women's T20 World Cup. The points table would be directly placed on the articles instead of templatespace from which they would be transcluded to the summary pages such as International cricket in 2026 or Associate international cricket in 2026 as well as the qualification pages such as 2026 Men's T20 World Cup qualification or 2027 Cricket World Cup qualification. Vestrian24Bio 13:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
@Bs1jac...? Vestrian24Bio 09:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Understood. Don't really see the problem in having the template, but I haven't created any of these (as far I remember) partly as there is inconsistency on which are kept and which are not. Bs1jac (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@Bs1jac: about half of these templates were actually started by me. I've nominated all of the T20 World Cup templates here, and I intend to do the same with all cricket events step by step.
Also, an advantage of not using templates is that the points table and scorecards would be on the same page. So, an editor can easily update them without having to switch between pages. Vestrian24Bio 01:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
My only issue with transclusions is that I think it forces a line of text above/below each table, meaning that pages like qualification and season summaries end up with that text repeated multiple times. Also does the reference get displayed correctly on all pages?Bs1jac (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
@Bs1jac: what line of text..? As an existing example, the tables at International cricket in 2025–26#2026 Men's T20 World Cup are directly transcluded from the article, which doesn't have any difference from the other tables on that page.
Another example below: Of the two tables displayed one is from the template and one is from directly from the article. No difference and refs are carried through just fine..
Final points
Pos Team Pld W L NR Pts NRR Qualification
1  Namibia 6 6 0 0 12 2.658 Qualified for the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup
2  Uganda 6 5 1 0 10 1.334
3  Zimbabwe 6 4 2 0 8 2.922
4  Kenya 6 3 3 0 6 −0.911
5  Nigeria 6 1 4 1 3 −1.026
6  Tanzania 6 1 5 0 2 −1.507
7  Rwanda 6 0 5 1 1 −4.303
Source: ESPNcricinfo[1]
Final standings
Pos Team Pld W L NR Pts NRR Qualification
1  Namibia (H) 6 6 0 0 12 2.658 Qualified for the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup
2  Uganda 6 5 1 0 10 1.334
3  Zimbabwe 6 4 2 0 8 2.922 Eliminated
4  Kenya 6 3 3 0 6 −0.911
5  Nigeria 6 1 4 1 3 −1.026
6  Tanzania 6 1 5 0 2 −1.507
7  Rwanda 6 0 5 1 1 −4.303
Source: ESPNcricinfo[2]
(H) Hosts
Vestrian24Bio 09:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Ah ok must be different to previous methods e.g. see Associate international cricket in 2023#2023 Nordic Cup, which uses
Pos Team Pld W L NR Pts NRR
1  Denmark 4 3 1 0 6 1.981
2  Norway 5 3 2 0 6 0.457
3  Sweden 5 2 3 0 4 0.052
4  Finland 6 2 4 0 4 −1.572
Source: ESPNcricinfo[3]

Bs1jac (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: Yeah, this uses the parser function {{#section}} instead of the template {{excerpt}}, so visually the outcome is pretty much similar.
So, do you strike your keep !vote and support the proposal..? Vestrian24Bio 10:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

References

  1. "ICC Men's T20 World Cup Africa Finals 2023". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
  2. 2023 Men's T20 World Cup Africa regional final, points table: standings at ESPNcricinfo. Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
  3. "Nordic T20 Cup 2023 Points table". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
Delete all and use section titles to transclude where needed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

June 18

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

All prior XfDs for this page:

In March 2025 an RfC on the use of these templates concluded per Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) that: "There was consensus to discourage (emphasis theirs) use of these templates. Editors overwhelmingly consider these templates to be unnecessarily restrictive in their style. There are also concerns that the templates conflict with the template guideline about storing text within a template, and that the specific wording used by the templates introduces original research and puffery. Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is." However, RfC obviously isn't a deletion discussion, nor can a local consensus be used to dictate content or style.
That said, based on the wording of the closing comments and the assessment of the consensus, it would seem reasonable to at least substitute the templates when they're used and advise editors that their usage is discouraged. However, editors favoring use of the templates have taken the wording of the RfC closure as an indication that it is not appropriate even to substitute the templates. That would seem to beg the question of what "discouraging" their usage would look like in practical terms. As there are also now questions regarding how Rotten Tomatoes presents their average of rated reviews, I am, with great reluctance, forced to bring these templates here so that these questions can, hopefully, be more explicitly addressed. While I am nominating them for deletion in deference to the findings of the RfC, I would also be amenable to having the templates be automatically substituted when they are used. However, that will not address the questions surrounding the average of rated reviews. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Past discussions (for reference):
Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Deletion preferred, auto-substitute as an alternative per opening comments. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: When the close says By-and-large, this consensus is going to be a reccomendation, it's an awful close. A RfC should end with some kind of result - either consensus for something or no consensus (status-quo). A "consensus to maybe, if you wish, to do something, but also, you don't have to" is not a valid close. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
It's easier to have a prose rather than just typing the same thing over and over. If anything, getting rid of the prose will actually cause more problems. SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Then don't try to enforce WikiProject advice as if it were P&G, or to bypass scrutiny at TfD by invalidating a template through another process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Responding to the email sent to me by MadbesWiki: I am not the one who wishes to delete this, I suggested this page as the correct venue where binding consensus can be determined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:TG. Rotten Tomatoes should not be be excepted from that and thus used to hide text in thousands of articles. I read through both previous TfDs and am not convinced by those cases to keep. The few more substantive cases to keep were ultimately convoluted ways of encouraging a one-size-fit-all solution rather than encouraging consensus at given articles like any MOS:VAR issue ever. Auto-substitution is valid per WP:TG, but I don't see auto-substitution actually discouraging the use of these templates throughout this very large topic area on Wikipedia. As Trailblazer101 stated in that RfC, implementing auto-substitution would just be prolonging the issues and necessity for this template, and would ultimately negate it and likely lead back here down the road. It won't do much to meaningfully stop users from replacing and forcing text into articles. Because, as GoneIn60 wrote: Though touted as optional, it is frequently used by bot-like warriors trying to be quick on the draw, not only in newer film articles, but also back in older ones overwriting perfectly fine text. We've even seen it happen in FAs. This violates the spirit of MOS:VAR in more ways than one. Because it also hides text, some level of Wikipedia expertise is required to know where to go to seek change. So while it seemingly makes one aspect of things easier for some, it can confuse and bewilder others. I have seen this myself on many occasions. A minority of editors end up adding the template into articles. But, as Kingsif stated in the second TfD, where they are adding it, they are instead replacing similar wording that already existed there. All that does is change the existing style, which transgresses MOS:VAR because there is never a substantial reason for such a trivial wording changes. The same concerns apply to {{Metacritic film prose}}. {{Metacritic album prose}} as well. Anyone familiar with the album topic area on Wikipedia knows the overwhelming majority of album articles that include prose on Metacritic aggregates do not use {{Metacritic album prose}}. I myself have written many album articles and have done so in a variety of styles when representing those scores. I have not faced any issues there. Believe it or not, there was a time on Wikipedia before {{RT prose}} and {{MC film}} and it was not very long ago.
    And as discussed at WikiProject Film, the RT template is currently hosting text for a feature that is incredibly unclear and misleading, and which users have agreed is either ultimately meaningless and should thus be discouraged in articles altogether or decided on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is actually a meaningfully representative sample, a challenge which I suggested is impractical and problematic. But actually changing the template is like pulling teeth. In the second TfD, Sdkb stated:

    Rotten Tomatoes itself hides the average critic rating, requiring an extra click to get to it. Let's say that they decide in the future to stop reporting it entirely. And let's say that the community decides that given this, we don't want to include it in articles. What happens then?

    Well, guess what? That hypothetical is not even a hypothetical anymore. In the time since TfD #2, that actually happened and for nine months of the average rating feature literally not even existing anymore I still couldn't get it removed from the template despite petitioning to do so. That left countless articles outdated as editors continued to update Tomatometer scores and review counts but then inappropriately left the old, nonexistent average rating combined with it. This affected uses of RT data in articles as well after Wikidata values were not appropriately updated. Elsewhere users began updating the average ratings using the HTML source code of RT webpages, resulting in original research and rendered those articles unverifiable. As Erik pointed out, the argument that:

    If there's no template, it becomes an arduous slog through every film article on Wikipedia to remove the information

    That only makes sense if you also want the template to be in all articles, which contradicts the stated premise that using it will be optional. Either way, cleaning up such changes will always be a slog and that in itself is not reason to force extremely specific wording into articles. Wording for which there is zero consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    You mentioned:

    In the time since TfD #2, that (Rotten Tomatoes hiding the average critic rating) actually happened and for nine months of the average rating feature literally not even existing anymore I still couldn't get it removed from the template despite petitioning to do so

    What was the reasoning they chose not to remove it? I'm curious about the reasoning. That being said, I don't think we should get rid of the template just because the wording is slightly outdated: that seems like a stronger argument for updating the template. Arcinati (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    The reason? The same reason as everything else related to this template: No consensus. And even when we do largely agree, nothing ends up changing. Hence the "actually changing the template is like pulling teeth"

    I don't think we should get rid of the template just because the wording is slightly outdated

    That specifically pertains to the average rating. My point was not that the template should be deleted because the average rating wording became outdated. Rather it emphasizes one of the practical problems with storing article text in a template. We should get rid of the template (or at the very least auto-substitute it) for that same WP:TG concern I've outlined above and below. And as I said above: That left countless articles outdated as editors continued to update Tomatometer scores and review counts but then inappropriately left the old, nonexistent average rating combined with it. Meaning thousands of articles continued to display information that editors could no longer verify (WP:V) from the cited sources.

    that seems like a stronger argument for updating the template

    Huh? That was exactly the problem. The issue persisted because there was no consensus to update it. Despite the average rating...literally...not...existing... anymore. That should have been an easy change with unanimous agreement. And yet even in that instance it wasn't. Οἶδα (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    Got it! I just read the discussions in Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes_prose#Update:_Average_of_Rated_Reviews_feature and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Average_of_Rated_Reviews. I find I actually generally agree with your proposed changes, and personally think it should be an easy change too. That being said, it's clear others disagree with both of us, which unfortunately blocked consensus. I respect that decision-making process though: I don't think we should just get rid of the template because we don't like the wording that process left in place. Arcinati (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or auto-substitute. I generally like the language used in the template, but I don't see the benefits of restricting editing in this way. As the first point in WP:TG says: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." – notwally (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - No one has indicated what the text might be edited to that might affect any other article. It encompasses the percentage, the rating and the consensus in a text format? How is it "extremely specific"? What would anyone want to change it to in the future? If a change needs to be edited into the text on a particular article, they can delete the template and edit the page themselves. It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year. Kire1975 (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I recommend you go try replacing the template with the identical untemplated wording in a few articles (let alone actually try to use alternative phrasing!), and see how you get on… MapReader (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
That would be going against MOS:VAR, same as replacing untemplated text with template which would also get reverted. I haven't seen an actual reason for different wording in any specific article, so please say if there is one, the template can also be changed to support anything if needed. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  • How is it "extremely specific"?

    How is it not? If all the template did was spit out data like {{RT data|score}} {{RT data|average}} {{RT data|count}}, there would be no controversy. The controversy only exists because it generates a specific prose. It is an extremely specific way of communicating RT's review aggregation. The fact that it includes three static variables does not make its prose non-specific. The template still dictates a very specific sentence structure, a very specific ordering of information, and a very specific presentation/contextualizing of the data. The Tomatometer percentage, review count, average rating, and critics' consensus are all combined into a standardized block of prose that is used across thousands of articles. All chosen by a coterie of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. The latter being, you know, the solution to every other MOS:VAR issue ever? So the thousands of article-level editors who chose to introduce the template's prose into articles at a given moment in time are not realsitically part of the consensus that determines how that prose is later changed because it is changed at the template level. The article text simply changes, undetected. That would not be the case if the template was auto-substituted. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical reception exists. If there is disagreement at an article, change should be determined by editor consensus at the given article's talk page. There are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers, especially in the case of the "average (of rated reviews) rating".

    What would anyone want to change it to in the future?

    Because how we present and communicate information is changed all the time here on Wiki. That is a normal part of collaborative editing and not a problem to be solved by templating prose. And if you're not convinced that "anyone [would] want to change it to in the future" then why do certain editors constantly change the existing text in articles by replacing it with these templates? They are doing this. All the time. And the text being hidden makes it all the more easier to replace article text when it looks as if it is only being removed and replaced with data, because it less obvious that the article's wording, style, and presentation have in fact been changed. Again: why should a centrally controlled prose template override normal article-level consensus? We should not be hiding text in thousands of articles. Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

    It is a useful tool for creating new pages about movie. There are dozens of new ones every year.

    As stated below, you have not addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed. Keep. ~2026-36001-71 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Oklamajojoruski (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Neither of you have addressed the question of why the template can't or shouldn't at least be substituted. DonIago (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete these templates cause as many problems as they solve. There's a big difference between "I like it" and something this encyclopedia project should be encouraging. As User Notwally pointed out starting by ignoring the basic principles of WP:TG is a pretty bad. Edit: Switching to subst only would give some editors the convenience they crave and reduce the need to understand yet another template for ordinary editors, people who don't edit film articles regularly for example. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Οἶδα's arguments. If deletion is not preferred, the next best solution is updating the template's language on RT's average rating update and auto substitution. Lapadite (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kire's arguments. When reading articles about movies, I find it summarizes the movies' critical responses in a succinct and consistent way. Qoiuoiuoiu (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    But why is a template needed to do that? It's invisible to the reader, and people who want to summarize responses in a "succinct and consistent way" can do so by copy-pasting the text, without violating WP:TG in the process...or the template can be substituted, as mentioned more than once above. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous discussions. Benefits include the ability to make large-scale edits to the prose as required, such as when Rotten Tomatoes change how they present their data as mentioned in the original post, the text for all articles using the template can be amended to text that has consensus. Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article, so using the template reduces effort, prevents inconsistences over time, and reduces watchlist spam for article watchers. Small details like punctation can be optimised in the template prose instead of editors fixing individual articles for what they think is best making them different to the majority. Language used in some articles has been promotional, subjective, or misleading, so prose templates promotes WP:NPOV. Inserting this into an article can be easier than writing similar text from scratch. WP:TMP says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content", so doesn't forbid this so exceptions are allowed, boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception, not seen an actual reason to change the text for specific articles. The use of the template is optional regardless, no one is forced to use it so no wording is forced into articles. Indagate (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

    Benefits include the ability to make large-scale edits to the prose as required, such as when Rotten Tomatoes change how they present their data as mentioned in the original post, the text for all articles using the template can be amended to text that has consensus.

    Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?

    Subst'ing the template means potential changes like this wouldn't be possible without amending each article

    Again this argument is completely bogus it because only makes sense if you also are suggesting that the template should be in all articles, which contradicts the entire premise that its use in aricles will be optional. And it is optional. And will continue to be optional. So "cleaning up" articles to match future changes from RT will always be a slog and that in itself is not reason to force extremely specific wording into articles. Wording for which there is zero consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles, so any edit wouldn't be "undetected". The templates are template-editor protected for RT, and extended-confirmed protected for Metacritic, so cannot be edited by inexperienced editors. Similar argument could be made for so many templates which are used on a similar or greater scale.
    I am not suggesting all articles should use these templates, I said use of them is optional, no one's disputing that. The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually, problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.
    There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template, it can be amended if consensus for new wording by using Template:Edit template-protected if needed. Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic as mentioned, such as giving judgement in WP voice or unclear phrasing like "approval rating". Indagate (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
    If you're going to say that the use of the templates is optional, then I have to ask why you felt it was appropriate to revert me when I substituted them on more than one article. If they're optional, then surely I have the right to substitute them? DonIago (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The templates were already used on those articles long-term, the option to translcude them was chosen before you substituted them, future changes to the template such as wording changes when RT changes how they present rated reviews as you mentioned won't be reflected on those articles. We have option to substitute them when adding to an article for first time, same as how we have option to transclude or not use them at that point. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it sounds patently ridiculous to me to claim that use of the templates is optional, but apparently only when they're brought to an article for the first time. That also flies in the face of the RfC closing comments, which said explicitly that their use should be discouraged. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The RfC closing comments also said "the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually" which can be done when someone creates a reception section, using them when similar text also in the article would generally go against MOS:VAR which goes both ways. Not sure what you don't understand but please ping the RfC closer if you need further clarification. The RfC also closed with "previous discussions have not found consensus to act on these proposals, so those opposing their current use will need to demonstrate that consensus has changed within the community", doesn't seem like any new argument has been introduced here from the previous TfD's? Indagate (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles

Yeah... and they don't. I don't know why you're suggesting that any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if it is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article to see the TfD notice. And none of the past changes to the template were even the result of TfDs.

so any edit wouldn't be "undetected"

At the article-level it absolutely constitutes undetected changes. That was the entire point. Unless there is a mechanism that tells the editors and watchers at a given article that the text of that article has been changed then those changes, by definition, go "undetected" there.

The benefit of fixing and updating any issues for thousands of articles is still a benefit even though there would still be thousands of other articles with issues that could be changed individually,

The maintenance "benefit" grows only in proportion to how many articles adopt the template. If usage is genuinely optional, and widespread adoption is not the goal, then the "benefit" is much smaller than suggested. And achieving those same results does not require hiding article prose in a template across that subset of thousands of articles. Templates which, again, have constantly encouraged replacement of locally developed text.
And this "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors.

problem not being solved completely isn't a reason to not solve it for thousands of articles.

Convenience has costs. And the cost here is hiding text in literally thousands of articles. If mass-updating prose were sufficient justification, then many forms of article text could be templated. I'll say again: Rotten Tomatoes is not so abnormally special that it is out of the scope of WP:TG.

There's implicit consensus for the wording as amended over time in the template

You're conflating consensus about a template's existence with consensus about imposing particular wording across thousands of individual articles. The text is used at the article-level, not at the template.

Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic

Not unique to templates. We do not create prose templates whenever some editors occasionally write poor prose. Again: by that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Οἶδα (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I fail to see the validity of removing these templates. The use of both the Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic templates helps to ensure consistency across the films detailed on Wikipedia.
Such consistency/uniformity across Wikipedia should be sought for as it also ensures parity - one film is not treated as more deserving of more detail than another film in this regard, as all films feature the average of opinion expressed on the same two external film review sites.
In turn, that also helps to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia for treating all films equally in that regard. ~2026-35740-30 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Uhhh...why are you convinced that templated text ensures "parity" between articles? Whether a film article uses one sentence or another to present the same data Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic does not mean either film is being treated as more or less "deserving" than the other. You are allowed to present information with different wording. One review aggregator prose template will never change that fact. Equal treatment (read: parity) between articles is the result of us applying the same content policies and sourcing standards to all articles. It does not come from us forcing identical wording across thousands of articles. Οἶδα (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Given all the comments regarding recommending substitution, is it at all possible to force it to always be substituted, and if so, would that solution be desirable or not? Assuming this isn't possible/preferable, I would delete the template alongside auto-substitution upon deletion. GooseTheGreat (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see a valid reason for removing these templates. They provide a convenient and consistent way to present commonly repeated Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information, rather than requiring editors to retype substantially the same prose across many film articles. Concerns about wording, overuse, or replacing existing prose can be addressed through documentation, article-by-article consensus, or discouraging blanket use; deletion seems disproportionate. A previous RfC discouraging use is not the same thing as consensus to delete, and keeping the templates preserves a useful optional tool for editors who find them helpful. Avocadoes (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
You're saying you find the template convenient (WP:USEFUL). That does not address why the text needs to remain hidden behind a template rather than substituted, and thus exempted from the basic principles of WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Οἶδα and notwally's arguments. I don't feel that consistency between film articles is more important than having the text easily editable by anyone who wishes to improve the article or change the flow to read better. This is the article body we're talking about, after all, not parameters in the infobox. Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I like it as it is - I think it serves a clear function - and I think it would be unconstructive to remove it. TheMovieGuy (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT. Whether you personally like the template does not address the concerns raised under WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Question: How will removal or substitution affect bots like RottenBot, the bot formerly running that retrieved and replaced Rotten Tomatoes data? –Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC) edited 07:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for both. This template, when used properly with wikidata, saves a lot of time and minor edits when a RT or MC score adjusts.
Filmforme (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
That is an argument for using {{RT data}} and {{Cite RT}}/{{Cite MC}}. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template. {{RT data}} can be used in any text. There's no Metacritic equivalent to {{RT data}} either way. That must be updated manually. And the same few values are updated in the same way whether the text is templated or not. So that doesn't really save time. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It is needed in articles. Now articles about films look weird. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:USEFUL+WP:LOOKSGOOD. That does not address why the text needs to be stored in a template rather than substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it serves a clear & precise function for the reader. Do not remove it. Valueyou
Another WP:USEFUL argument. Οἶδα (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete due to presumption against storing article text. It seems the benefits can be retained through templating it out as a widget or something rather than as prose. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Note: If this is being listed now as 'Keep' and 'No Consensus' then the awkward Talk page notification banners ought to be removed as well, for example, as it still appears on Killers of the Flower Moon. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This TfD hasn't closed yet. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong keep! Statistics is a fickle field and more often than not I as a mathematician register misleading formulations, especially since RT and MC use categorically different statistical methods. These templates offer participation for editors without deeper knowledge into statistics and their culprits. We in deWiki therefore have followed your procedure for our own handling of this aspect. --Eiragorn (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't see why substituting the templates or hard-coding the numbers would adversely impact your ability to do this? Nobody's talking about removing RT or MC scores. DonIago (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
From my professional experience a lack of statistical understanding is very widespread. When the text becomes editable again (e.g. by substitution) it opens the door wide for misleading wordings. The status quo may not be perfect but is at least statistically sound. --Eiragorn (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The templates as they stand allow for editors to insert numbers without any regard for what RT/MC actually say, so I don't see how this is a valid argument with regard to these specific templates? DonIago (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You just proved my point. Statistics is not numbers but what they mean. And to convey this correctly one has to word carefully. --Eiragorn (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Then you might want to read elsewhere in this TfD, where it seems clear that there are significant issues with at least the current wording of the template. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I see that but it's still substantially better than most I encounter "in the wild". And this is yet another reason to keep: the text inside the template can be improved for all articles at once while deleting/subst-ing would solidify the imperfect status quo. And since the majority also among WP editors does not have deeper statistic knowledge these "burned in" wordings would deteriorate even further over time. --Eiragorn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kind of indifferent, but I do think this template would be significantly more useful if it somehow automated updating RT scores and wasn't just a prose formula... I guess that could be interpreted as a weak delete. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    The template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} and associated templates were supposed to address automated updating of Rotten Tomatoes scores, but I cannot say how well that actually worked in practice, those templates always seemed massively overcomplicated to me, and in practice updates seemed to be too slow and some editors would overwrite them and update manually instead. But that is separate from this template and tangential to this discussion. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    @~2026-20754-35 @Locke Cole I think User:RottenBot possibly provided this feature, they did with {{RT data}}, but it looks like the last edits were 2021. Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TG and Οἶδα. A template shouldn’t be used to force standardised, formulaic text into articles, and it’s not as if the insistence as it is by some film editors on pushing identical wording into every article enhances the output of our project ("…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike….") Further, the terminology used within the template is contestable and yet by having it locked within the template it becomes almost impossible to challenge; as SMcCandlish has oft commented, "universal acclaim" is WP:PUFFERY that ought to be deprecated site-wide as unencyclopaedic - as a literal statement it is of course impossible to prove or cite, and Metacritic’s use of this term for scores of just 81% or higher is self-evidently absurd. The template confounds this issue by using the sloppy term "indicating" in editorial voice, implying that it’s the article’s editors making this conclusion, when other phraseology might be more appropriate, such as "which according to Metacritic represents…". When I have introduced such changes into the odd article it’s always reverted on the grounds that there is somehow consensus for reciting the same formulaic text in every single film or TV article. That isn’t how WP is supposed to work. Indeed, it’s only the scores from RT and MC that represent actual data - are editors and readers not able to draw their own conclusions from a score of 90% and not have wording generated by a formula, which adds no new information or value for the reader, forced by rote into every article? MapReader (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    I know we're on the same page anyway, but in case other editors see this before expressing their views...I feel I should be clear that I never wanted to be the one to bring this to TfD; I don't have a lot of experience with these, and I don't trust myself to word arguments about these sorts of things well. The tipping point for me was when I substituted the template on a few articles, figuring that would be seen as a reasonable compromise and true to the spirit of the closing comments of the RfC, only to have my substitution reverted. When there are editors who won't even allow other editors to depart from the template, there seems to be a significant problem that needs to be discussed. It's now bothering me that a number of the "Keep" responses above haven't even opined on the question of substituting the templates, instead treating this as a binary "keep" or "delete" scenario, even when my opening message was very clear that other options were available and might be worthy of consideration. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
"…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike…." isn't included in the prose templates so that's misleading, one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's which goes against WP:UGC as had to remove when templates not used, e.g. . "Universal acclaim" has been discussed before. e.g. here at WP:FILM where no consensus for removing that so please WP:DROPTHESTICK, the exact same wording including "indicating" is used regularly regardless of template so not a linked issue to these templates, it's only quoted from Metacritic and not said in WP voice, not for us to judge whether Metacritic is "absurd". Please focus on points related to the prose templates in this discussion. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
You're right that the 'acclaim' wording is to illustrate a point and not in itself at issue. I'm not aware that there is any consensus about having to use the same formulaic wording in every article, despite your long history of reverting any departures from it, and the issue with the template is that it hard-wires this into articles contrary to WP:TG. That there hasn't previously been consensus to remove misleading PUFF terminology such as "universal acclaim" does not prevent the matter being raised again, as clearly it is pertinent. The word "indicating" inside the template (or when used otherwise) is very clearly in editorial voice since it is never placed in quotation marks. MapReader (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's

Editors adding WP:USERGENERATED material to articles is nothing new or unique. And not reason itself to template prose. Not sure why you think the template magically prevents users from adding audience scores to articles. The template is only for critics' reviews. And in the example you cited, the audience part just comes right after the critics part. If it had used the template, the audience part could still be placed afterwards. Nothing about the template stops that. And in visual editor anyone can add another RT citation in seconds to support that audience rating. Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - These templates provide some minimum consistency across the film articles on Wikipedia, while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data, shown in a consistent layout, provided by the templates. The convenience of having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates, but still allows users to adjust the other prose that fills out the section to reflect specific comments from a later review from a film critic.~2026-36097-01 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

    having the RT template automatically capture new figures and dates from Wikidata also saves time and effort for later updates

    You are confused. This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. It is about two specific templates that force specific text around that data and hides that text behind the template rather than including it directly in articles. {{RT data}} is completely different template and can be used in any text. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template.

    while still allowing any and all users to add additional sentences with a balance of views from film critics. This even helps ensure the the free and open additions from any and all users aligns somewhat (but still does not have to be in lockstep) with the overall consensus of film critics, rather than loading with only positive (or negative) snippets from film critics that match a particular user's POV. Easier to provide encyclopedic editing, filling out extra sentences/paragraphs in the Critical response section for a production you really loved or really hated, if you acknowledge the legitimate yet minimum bits of data

    This is rather incoherent. You are mixing two completely different things. The {{RT prose}} template does not in any way have to do with how we write about or balance (WP:WEIGHT) subsequent individual critics' reviews in the "Critical response" sections. That is determined by the core WP:NPOV policy which states that articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia which we must consider and abide by. It is non-negotiable. Whether included reviews "align somewhat with the overall consensus of film critics" is not caused by a score being in a template that is being used to store article text around that score and does not depend on it either. Οἶδα (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stand by what I said in the 2025 RfC. They're completely pointless. JOEBRO64 07:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: How would deleting {{Metacritic film prose}} effect {{Metacritic album prose}} the arguments against would seem to apply equally to both templates (and if this template is such as good idea why isn't there a template for {{Metacritic video game prose}} already?) Are there any further implications for other Wikipedia projects about deleting or keeping the Metacritic prose template that need to considered? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Probably would be worth merging those two templates as seem duplicated but {{Metacritic album prose}} can exist without {{Metacritic film prose}}, discussion can happen depending on result of this. Video games seem to use boilerplate text for Metacritic but only for the label like "universal acclaim" with the number in a table, example 1, 2, 3. Indagate (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - As a reader and only rarely an editor, I was never aware that these phrases were templates. But I valued them greatly. Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial. And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.Harmenator (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    That's why I said these templates cause more problems than they solve. There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores. I for one hate that some editors try to claim Rotten Tomatoes "reports" anything, like as if they are an objective news source, rather than people subjectively interpreting reviews, quantizing them into numbers and creating scores based on an undisclosed algorithm, which is absolutely subjective not objective reporting. I also hate the needlessly pretentious wording that Metacritic "assigned" a score, when "gave" a score would just as easily make the same point. (Above we have an editor complaining that quoted text, indicating "universal acclaim" is not clearly enough attributed to Metacritic. Consistency would be nice but no one is happy enough with the wording for it to be stable enough to be fixed in a template.) I wish we could have greater consistency but Wikipedia is loose and there is no willingness to enforce hard guidelines, this template causes as many problems as it claims to solve. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think the conversation should shift to the wording of the template then, but as someone who uses the reception section of Wikipedia film articles quite often I think the deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves, especially for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template. Juanathanoli (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why wouldn't articles be updated because the template wasn't there? It often doesn't automatically update, and if anything basic prose is easier for anyone to update. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

    deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves

    Such as...?

    for many less-often edited articles where some articles may not be updated after the deletion of the template

    That. literally. never. happens. If the template is deleted, all instances will be replaced with the acutal text the template is currently hiding. There is no scenario where what you're describing happens. Non-issue. Οἶδα (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    It would also be better to stick to the factual data - that Metacritic gave a score of 50% - and drop the trite editorial-voice commentary indicating "mixed or average reviews" that some editors insist must always be tacked on the end, despite telling readers nothing that isn't blindlingly obvious from the 50%. MapReader (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

    Consistency is very valuable particularly when discussing contentious topics like reviews, it is impartial.

    It is not "contentious". We are not "discussing reviews". We are presentating aggregates in prose. And an aggregate is merely a subjective product with distinct variables created by a review aggregator according to its own subjective methodology. Presenting those few variables with different wording does not render it impartial. The template is completely optional. And will continue to be optional. Because there are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers. Per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required."

    And some of the arguments here read disingenuous. "Why are you covinced that you should be allowed make large-scale edits to the text of thousands of articles undetected?" well I presume significant changes to wording would be discussed, like this is.

    Again: "Undetected" at the article level, where the text is actually seen by readers and which is actually watched by the relevant editors. That was the entire point. Because the template is storing text and thus uneditable. Any meaningful percentage of the editors of the thousands of articles that would be modified through a single template edit are not watching the templates. Only the tiniest subset of the editors who maintain those articles will ever see a discussion on the template page. Because most editors watch articles, not templates. That's one of the reasons WP:TG discourages storing article text in templates in the first place. The only way to ensure those editors are aware of the changes are if those changes are actually seen at the article level. And unless the article text is changed through an actual edit to the page, the only other way it will only be detected is if the template is the subject of a TfD like this one. But even then you have to be viewing the article at the very moment the TfD is happening in order to see the TfD notice because it does not cause any changes to the article text. It does not notify the talk pages of articles using the template nor does it send warnings to those editors who added the templates to the articles. And none of the past changes made to these templates were even the result of TfDs. They were all chosen by a small group of editors who occasionally modify the template rather than by editors at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    STRONG KEEP: the reason that there is a push to delete consensus review aggregators from internet searches and use recommendations algorithms instead is that corporations that "exploit entertainment product" for profit want to limit or fully disable public response to the "entertainment product" from being accessible. "Entertainment product" and "exploit" are industry terms. Wikipedia is one of the only sites that provides access to the consensus reviews of films through the Reception Critical Response paragraph. This is a public service tool on a site that is open source and consensus based and should not be eliminated. Paurielarker (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    None of that seems pertinent to the question of whether the data plus accompanying standard text is inserted into articles by template? MapReader (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    You are confused. AGAIN: This discussion is not about removing Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic data from articles. Οἶδα (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:TG. I agree on "There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores." --Preferwiki (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the arguments about the phrasing of these templates being overly reductive — the lax definition of “universal acclaim,” for instance. I think it is fine for contributors to want to replace these templates with more accurate language, and I do not think that such changes should be reverted solely because of someone's judgment that it is inappropriate to replace these templates with even identical prose. The existence of the template should not be construed as some sort of immovable status quo. But if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates. I am quite certain that someone will reply to this comment with a detailed analysis of why I'm wrong and ignorant; luckily, that doesn't invalidate my vote. I don't think these templates are a universal good; I'd be happy for the same data to be presented in some other way (not necessarily prose!) that is largely standardized across pages. But the arguments for deletion have failed to persuade me. Andrewdupont (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
You’ve done one of those posts that, while ‘voting’ one way (not that it is just a vote), set out clearly the arguments for the other! It’s the text within the template that IS the issue. Personally I would have no problem with templates that just drop in the data - the actual RT/MC score - which would keep these updated without editors having to do it manually. That’s the sort of job that templates are useful for. The problem with the current ones is that they force an entire, standardised sentence whenever they are used (which has the knock-on consequence that a few editors will insist on exactly the same phrasing even when the template isn’t being used, arguing that this is the consensus when in reality it’s simply the wording someone put into the template). MapReader (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

if it is true that “There has never been any real consensus on how to phrase the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores,” then I fail to see how the situation is improved by deleting these templates.

Because the template has not really changed ever since it was added to thousands of articles. It simply remains at its current wording because nobody can actually agree on any changes after the fact, not because actual consensus has determined the existing wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior to other acceptable formulations. That's just inertia. And if multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, that makes standardizing a single fixed phrasing in a template counterproductive. Deleting or at least making the template auto-substitute instead of storing the text actually reinforces the MoS. Also, there isn't WP:IMPLICIT consensus for the specific wording either, because there is only one templated version. Most editors add it because they find it convenient, not because they've reached consensus that its specific wording is superior. Οἶδα (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Again: I don't mean to argue that the templates are good, or even better than just paraphrasing the templates in one's own words. But I don't agree that “standardizing a single fixed phrasing” is counterproductive — mainly because I don't agree that the template's existence carries (or ought to carry) that mandate — and I do not agree that deleting the template “reinforces the MoS.” The inability to come to consensus over how these scores should be described is not created by these templates; hence I think deleting them won't actually solve any problems — just give them a slightly different shape. And even you admit that a deletion outcome would remove a template that many editors find convenient. I would be strongly in favor of a non-prose presentation of the same data, but deleting these templates is orthogonal to that goal. Andrewdupont (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Harmenator. I don't see a problem with how things are currently done. ~★ nmaia d 10:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per kire and indagate Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Has indagate actually advanced any policy-based support for his position, rather than try to defend his historical editorial-warring? MapReader (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Please read my vote above for policy link which answers your question, plus further explanation of other reasons, your vote only included WP:TG and other parts which I explained is irrelevant. Disagree I've edit warred over this but regardless, this isn't the place to discuss that at all. Indagate (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Questions: Where are all the other non-substituted prose templates used across running text on Wikipedia? I can't find them. If there aren't any, are the commenters in this TfD aware of that? So why are editors convinced review aggregators be the sole exception to WP:TG and thus be used across thousands of articles in contravention of the basic principles guiding the use of templates on Wikipedia? Are we seriously suggesting this one topic is so special that WP:TG does not apply to it? Why don't we also surround United States census data around uneditable prose and just call it "optional"? And not to belabor the WP:POINT, but what prevents editors who disagree with the current wording of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from creating another template with different wording? Both would be optional. Οἶδα (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Other examples are {{Aired episodes}} and {{Television franchise episode count}}, examples of short boilerplate text used in the TV project, Also, {{Year article header}} used for year articles. WP:TG includes "normally" for that point, exceptions are allowed. Indagate (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Is that all? The first one is used in 485 articles but I cannot find any past discussions at TfD or elsewhere determining its acceptability as a template on Wikipedia or compliance with WP:TG. The second one is only used in 24 articles and likewise has no discussions about it beyond a few merges of duplicate templates. I also cannot find meaningful discussion about {{Year article header}} despite its use in roughly 500 year articles. If these are the only examples, essentially 2 across all of Wikipedia, and there has been no actual discussion regarding the appropriateness of their function in the template namespace then it is dubious to claim that they somehow establish why WP:TG specifically includes the word "normally" or that they serve as proof that such "exceptions are allowed" to the top-level guideline that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." Especially when we're talking about templates used to store text in the ordinary running text of articles rather than templates with some ancillary article text function that might plausibly justify an exception. The 2014 RfC that introduced "normally" to WP:TG was also rather brief and unimpressive. Either way, "exceptions are allowed" is not, by itself, an argument that a particular exception is warranted. If anything these few examples would indicate how rare exceptions are here on Wikipedia, not that such exceptions should be expanded. And none of those 3 examples even approach the scale of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} or {{Metacritic film prose}}, which are currently being used across thousands of articles. And as Netoholic stated in that RfC, such exceptions would have to maintain their status as exceptions which "break" this particular rule by way of strong consensus. There is no consensus for these aggregator prose templates. They are highly controversial, and completely optional. Οἶδα (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    Those are examples I found quickly, not an exhaustive list, you said you couldn't find any, likely be more examples but not easy to find. "Exceptions are allowed" isn't argument yes, as I've said previously boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception, not seen an actual reason to change the text for specific articles. Indagate (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

    likely be more examples but not easy to find

    Then let's identify them. We have the time. Because you're not really addressing that point I was making. I asked for comparable examples because the argument you are advancing here is that review aggregator text summaries should be treated as an exception to WP:TG and that the word "normally" there explicitly allows for exceptions and thus specifically aggregator ones. Pointing to a handful of obscure templates and the mere fact that they exist does not establish that. Because, again, I cannot find any evidence that their function of storing article text has ever actually been affirmed (or discussed at all) as being acceptable exceptions to WP:TG, which expressly states that such content belongs in articles themselves. That is a complete lack of consensus for said exceptions. And a rather weak foundation on which to justify specifically standardizing hidden review aggregator summaries across thousands of articles. If such article prose templates were actually well-established exceptions, they should be easy of us to identify. Instead, after searching far and wide across Wikipedia, we are only discussing a tiny number of edge cases. All that suggests is that WP:TG is actually being followed, not that any article prose templates have to any degree been established as exceptions to it. I'll say again: such "exceptions" would have to maintain their status as exceptions which "break" this particular rule by way of strong consensus. But there is no strong consensus for these aggregator prose templates. They are highly controversial, and remain completely optional.

    boilerplate text that only varies by numbers across many articles where the prose shouldn't be edited seems like a fair exception

    "shouldn't be edited"? Huh? That is the very point under discussion here and the source of all this disagreement. Why "shouldn't" the prose be edited? That's just begging the question, Indagate. Again, per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." If multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, then there is no basis for treating one particular wording as fixed boilerplate that ought to be protected from normal article-level editing. Because, again, no consensus has determined the template wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior. And if it's "boilerplate" then that also applies to just about an endless amount of article text across Wikipedia that could be templated on the same basis. But the perceived convenience of using a template to deal with such repetition is not sufficient reason to hide article text behind a template. Nor is the notion that you have "not seen an actual reason to change the text". Article text doesn't require evidence of a need for future edits to justify its continued existence at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per my past thoughts on this from previous discussions. At the very least, these need to be substitute only templates. The vast majority of the "keep" comments (not all but most) to me just boil down to "I like how this is used on film pages", which doesn't seem like that strong of support for keeping them. The prose should be easily editable for any editor on any page that uses it to make adjustments, not locked behind a template. I prefer outright deletion, but at the very least, subst'ing them will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, or alternatively modify to remove the prose element. These templates include useful data (percentage positive reviews, number of reviews—important for contextualising the percentage—and average rating) with more structure than {{RT data}} This gives a reader helpful encyclopaedic information about how the film was received by critics. But there's no reason they need to be presented as prose, and I think the consensus summary should be added intentionally and manually where it is actually informative, rather than mechanically and universally. Compare {{Music ratings}}, which uses a more structured box-score format. I think shifting this template to a box-score format (or replacing it) would preserve what is valuable while addressing the reasonable concerns about the prose. For the same reason, I'm against subst-ing it. Boilerplate prose is terrible; boilerplate prose that can incrementally drift from the boilerplate is way worse. Polonius (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    Please can you all stop messing with wikipedia - the rotten tomatoes section is directly useful for quickly assessing a movie's reception and changing the template is unnecessary - deeply dislike the new ways rotton tomoatoes is being written ~2026-36696-89 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments raised above, I think it's a useful tool for editors and beneficial for readers. If the prose element is a specific concern, then fine with modifying as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    That the prose element is the concern is the reason they need to be deleted. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    WP:USEFUL. Again, this isn't {{RT data}}. The prose element is entire point of contention here. Please familiarise yourself with the TfD you are participating in. Because modifying doesn't solve anything. Οἶδα (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    • @Οἶδα: Your participation in this discussion is coming very close to the line of WP:BLUDGEONING (in my personal opinion the line is very far behind you), please don't bludgeon the process. Nevermore27 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
      Hence why I indicated that I was only further responding below because I was specifically invoked and misrepresented. Otherwise, I'm done. I am now only responding because you specifically pinged me back here and lodged an accusation: This TfD is about whether article prose belongs in templates, not whether the templates are useful. Your original comment "If the prose element is a specific concern" suggested you fundamentally did not even understand what this TfD is about. So yeah, I'm going to respond to that. Unfortunately you chose to charge me with crimes instead of actually respond to what I wrote. Not responding further here, lest I be accused of further crimes by editors who would rather discuss my participation than the substance of the matter. Goodbye. Οἶδα (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
"Crimes" please get down off the cross you put yourself on. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you personally find a template limiting your options, don't use it. It's not an argument to delete it for everyone.Beaumain (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's not about individual decision. That would be an argument to keep an auto-substitution template. The argument to delete it for everyone is that storing article prose in a template is inconsistent with WP:TG and there is no strong consensus for these exceptions. if you don't like it don't use it. does not address that issue. And the specific text that the template produces and then hides rather than including it directly in articles, thus making it uneditable, is decided upon at the template level. Not locally at the article that an individual editor made the decision to add it to. Unless we're somehow now arguing that editors specifically chose the template because they prefer its wording to be centrally controlled. That would be... far fetched. Most editors add it because they find it a convenient way to add these aggregates to articles. Not because they've reached consensus that storing article text in these templates is clearly justified. It's only about convenience. And that convenience remains the same if the template were auto-substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    If editors add it because they find it convenient, it only makes a stronger point for Keep to me. Beaumain (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    Exactly the same for me. The prohibition on "useful" as defining worthiness for inclusion is for content, not tools. The entire point of templates is stated as "to help maintain consistent formatting and aid navigation between articles" - i.e. they are intended to be useful. The movie ratings template does exactly that. Templates are designed to be of a wide-ranging, uniform system across Wikipedia. If it was an infobox or stub this wouldn't be an issue and I guess it could be replaced by a simple chart type graphic with 4 boxes for review count, percent score, average rating, and space for 1 sentence of consensus summary - but I'm totally fine with it being 2 sentences with consistent formatting across every movie article instead. ~2026-37134-63 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I'm sympathetic to arguments that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content" from WP:TG, I really don't think this text is text that needs editing. The consistency is a net benefit to readers and at worst a minor drawback to authors. Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it. I've seen some interesting arguments from Οἶδα about (1) the wording ("universal acclaim") or contents (including average critic rating) and (2) substitution as an alternative. While I understand that we as editors want to have more freedom (especially when the template doesn't match our preferences), I think most readers actually prefer consistency over that. Substitution would make it harder to be consistent, and also make it harder to change the articles if RT/Metacritic do make broad changes. Arcinati (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    Responding because you've specifically invoked me and misrepresented my points as being largely about "universal acclaim" or including the average rating:

    "I don't think this text is text that needs editing"

    Again, as I stated above: article text doesn't require evidence of a need for future edits to justify its continued existence at the article level. The opposite is true, i.e. article text belongs in the article pages themselves unless there is strong consensus to store it elsewhere. No such consensus has ever been developed, here or elsewhere...

    The consistency is a net benefit to readers

    Can you provide a specific reason for that? For why we should be treating one specific wording as fixed and thus protected from normal article-level editing? Why is that warranted? There is no actual consensus that the existing wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior to other acceptable formulations. So what is it about the "consistency" that specifically serves readers? Because, again, presenting those few variables with different wording does not render it impartial. The template is completely optional. And will continue to be optional. Because there are a million ways all of this can be communicated to readers. Per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." The only consistency will thus be between the articles that happen to use the template. So again, the strength of that argument depends on widespread adoption of the template, which cuts against the premise that the template is optional. And it is optional. It always has been. Unless strong consensus is somehow reached that these templates should be the preferred method of presenting review aggregates. But that time is not now. We can't even presently agree on their very existence.

    Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it.

    WP:USEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT. That says nothing about whether storing text in templates is appropriate practice on Wiki.

    Substitution would make it harder to be consistent, and also make it harder to change the articles if RT/Metacritic do make broad changes.

    As I stated above: this supposed maintenance "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors. Οἶδα (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep because these are useful templates and obviously can be used to quickly summarize the prose and maintain the consistency among articles. I see no reason to delete them. M. Billoo 17:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Since when was it an acceptable use of a template to standardise the text used in multiple articles? MapReader (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't really know about this discussion but I think it would be good to decide something soon as the current appearance in articles means loads of them have this huge indentation, a big line and some little text, interrupting the article. I always like seeing the reception in percentage form, I'm not sure the website description is needed. ButterCashier (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    It is precisely that interruption in thousands of articles that drives all the participation in TfDs like this one. This is especially true when the template appears in the running text of articles, resulting in these huge indentations you mentioned. Generally, I have found TfDs to be the most widely and aggressively advertised discussion on Wikipedia. The sheer visibility of that interruption ends up attracting participants who often have little understanding of the underlying policy questions. They are mainrly reacting to the notice they've been bombarded with while reading any one of the thousands of articles using it. The discussion then gets filled with confused statements or comments that effectively amount to saying the template is useful, convenient, familiar, or performs some function (of course it does). NO PLEASE DON'T REMOVE IT. I LIKE IT. IT'S USEFUL. IT LOOKS GOOD. IT DOES [FUNCTION]. I USE IT. OTHER PEOPLE USE IT. IT SAVES TIME. I SEE NO REASON TO DELETE. KEEP. *reply*. *exit discussion*. Meanwhile the actual questions under discussion receive comparatively less attention from those participants. I don't fault anyone for participating, but it objectively makes it much harder to achieve consensus on the specific policy issues raised when most participation is only loosely connected to that. The way the discussion is advertised encourages more responses to the template's visibility and familiarity than about its compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: In part due to the comments expressed in the message immediately above this one, and in part due to having received an email from another editor I respect expressing similar concerrns, I've submitted a request that this TfD be closed. DonIago (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Support early close and keep. No-one is obliged to use them, they are not complicated, save editor time and promote consistency. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC).
    There seems to be an implicit pressure to use them when, when I substitute them on a handful of articles that I was already watching (i.e. I was not on a fishing trip), I'm reverted and the templates are reinserted. If the templates are optional and no-one is obliged to use them, then I don't see why they should ever be taking precedence over equivalent (in that I literally just substitituted them) prose. Also, your comment doesn't seem to address why auto-substitution isn't a reasonable alternative. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with this. If an editor decides to substitute the template at an article they frequent, they shouldn't be knee-jerk reverted, especially by an editor with little to no contributions at that article. There are various comments above by both sides that these templates are optional and serve primarily as convenience. Let's continue to treat them that way. There's more than one way to write the prose. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    The reverse could be argued too though (I'm not), if the same text as the prose templates at the point in time is used, then the prose could be replaced with the template by a frequent editor of the article. That principle goes against MOS:VAR, retaining established style, in this case translcuding or not the template. Indagate (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    It's probably arguable whether the use of these templates or not qualifies as a style choice. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    Use of the template {{Metacritic film prose}} is absolutely a style choice. It is the preferred style of literally one specific editor (since banned), who changed it without discussion in April 2021 [(diff)]. It did not copy the style of text frequently used in Wikipedia film articles before that point. It was not based on any discussion Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators or consensus. Allegedly from what I was eventually able to find out it apparently follows the style of prose it follows the style of how Metacritic was use on Wikipedia music articles. (As they are both review aggregators I would have preferred if Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic prose had been written to be more consistent with each other.) So is there any chance of this becoming a substitution template this time or has the discussion died again? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    Regardless of definition, the principle of whether it's established seems fairer and better for avoiding edit wars etc than a frequent editor being able to add or remove it, especially as can easily have two frequent editors who disagree. Indagate (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or subst-only per my previous !votes. Izno (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete As per my comments in the previous three discussons. * Pppery * in solidarity 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Require substitution as a compromise of the comments above and to bring use more in line with existing guidlines. Additionally, the substituted output should go from 
    On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 100% of 900 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 10/10. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great."
    to 
    On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, {{Rotten Tomatoes data|score}} of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|count}} critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|average}}. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great."
    which will I think address some of the concerns or maybe misunderstandings expressed by editors regarding the change. –Chowmein 🥡 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Require substitution. The prose in these templates are a solid baseline for a Reception section, and in that regard they are incredibly useful. However they should not be a universal standard. Therefore, all current and future uses of these templates should be substituted, and editors should achieve consensus via normal editing as to whether or not to leave the template prose as is or to modify it appropriately for the article context, on a case by case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete — Οἶδα's arguments are convincing to me, and I do not understand why we should bend the template guidelines in order to force the obfuscation and pointless standardization of perhaps the kind of content that requires the most editorial oversight in articles where they are used. These practices also give a massive weight to whatever is written on these platforms, which I am honestly unsure why anyone would think that is a good idea, because of how clearly problematic the very concept of average ratings and summary of critical reception are, let alone the flawed selection or inclusion criteria they use. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete or require substitution. Per previous argument, WP:TG, and that hiding text in templates is an impediment for new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors. Not everything needs to go by the rules, and imo it makes more logical sense to keep it this way ~2026-35909-87 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't need to be deleted, let us not try to "fix" what is not broken. Munter He (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Really don't know why we don't have a side table for these for film but rather a spelled-out sentence. Look, the reason rating side-tables for games and albums exist in the first place is because it would be so awkward and not as simple and concise to present the ratings of reviews in prose form where you'd have to spell it out in several words "Roger Ebert gave the film 3-out-of-four stars", for instance. The prose is where a WP:SUMMARY of why critics thought a piece was bad, good or middling exists, with a simplified presentation of the ratings on the side only complimenting each other.
And on a side note, because I'm not bringing this up on the music WikiProject talk pages because I want to get this out there to people that don't work in them, it is so awkward to see those "Accolade" sections with a "select" table of "best" rankings, only for the prose to list out far more of them, like on GNX. The obvious instinct is to either get of the rid of the tables entirely (because it's all already regurgitated in the prose) or to put them all in the table. But because these best-of-the-year lists from The A.V. Club, Billboard, and the fricking Associated Press and Pitchfork were called "clickbait" by a community that doesn't know what the word means and doesn't know how these year-end lists are put together (the editors and writers of the source, not the publisher of the source, determines the rankings, so they're not "self sourced", contributor I'm not going to name), and because they honestly think that a ranking of the best of a whole fricking 12 months is the same as a review rating that can either be 8/10, 4/10 or 6/10 or some equivalent, they decided that keeping these tables that make up the entire screen with a limit of ten was a logical solution. As a person who summarizes reception all the time, I would prefer either prohibiting the tables entirely or making a side-template for them that makes up 10% of the screen to reduce article space. But I'm only bringing all of this up to show how little logic some of our contributors, even experienced ones, have. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 18:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. No one is obliged to use the template. If it is limitative (and conflict has arised in a page due to its use), it should be discussed on the film's article talk page instead. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 19:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

June 12

Drainage basin succession templates

I am nominating all of the templates in Category:Drainage basin succession templates (and its subcats) for replacement with {{drainage}}, which I created to centralise all of the 2k templates into one easy-to-update template. This means that if a new drainage basin is needed, a single template can just be edited rather than having to create yet another template. There will be no visible change to any article; code-wise it will simply be changing (for example) {{PAchelous}} to {{Drainage|Achelous}}. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are two functionalities that will be lost by replacing the R- and P-templates with this new template. First, the R-templates categorize the articles that use them into a tributaries category, for instance {{RMeurthe}} into Category:Tributaries of the Moselle. Second, the system of interlinked P-templates implies that only one P-template ({{PWeser}}) has to be modified if the Weser article is moved to for instance Weser (river). In the {{Drainage}} template it would have to be changed in 55 places. Markussep Talk 07:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    I'm still working on a recursive version to deal with that; will likely be a module, but if not, the new syntax editor allows for really quick find/replace for something like Weser → Weser (river). As far as the Rs go, we have moved away from templates adding content categories to articles, so the R-names should be deprecated anyway. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why? --Joy (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    About moving away from templates adding content categories to articles, could you point me to that guideline? Markussep Talk 12:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    WP:TEMPLATECAT. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    That guideline recommendation lists many reasons, but it's not clear which of them apply here. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    All of them? The sortkeys one does seem to be handled by the use of PAGENAME though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    For example it says editors can't see it in wikitext. Do we need them to see it, how likely is it that this sort of a thing needs to be edited? Or that we can't remove or restructure the categories - how likely is it that these categories need that to be done? --Joy (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    OK, that's clear, thanks. Markussep Talk 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?
I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
I... did? I made {{drainage}} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous}} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place {{drainage|Achelous}} inside of {{PAchelous}} just to show that they give exactly the same output:
{{PAchelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea
{{drainage|Achelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea
I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
I've used claude.ai to see if Lua can handle the issue that Markussep raised better. The result is at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage (again, this is AI-written). Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Apparently there is an error in the module. When I tried {{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage|chain|Fulda}} (or any other river), I got "Lua error in Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage at line 436: attempt to concatenate field 'Lake Baikal' (a nil value)." It's a nice idea, but I guess it needs good documentation for anluabetes like me. Markussep Talk 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
But I need to emphasis this, this was done with AI so if anything from this is used, the data needs to be verified. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the proposed template works for all current cases, so while I am fine with using a module (which I agree will allow for easier creation of new links) the replacement doesn't have to use the module from the get-go (assuming the replacement proposal is accepted). Primefac (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Agree, but they're not unused (at least the ones I checked, like RLoire, REms, RPo, RAngara), they'll have to be substituted. Markussep Talk 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Ah, those weren't in the unused reports so they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support replacement, this looks like sensible consolidation to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

April 13

Medal templates 2

I missed these in the first go-round (apologies for that), but similar to the rationale in the previous nomination for similar templates, these are basically identical to {{gold medal}}, {{silver medal}}, and {{bronze medal}} (and harder to see the details anyway). Primefac (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  • delete after replacing with {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Replace and Delete. The icons are so small that I can't even see what's pictured inside the circle. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I do see the differences between the templates and think that the difference itself helps to highlight that achievements were won in many kinds of competitions, be they Olympic, World, Continental and so on. CLalgo (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Clearly to see pictured inside the circle and it's necessary to highlight different events, like olympics, worlds and continentals. {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}} can't replace of them. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I added {{Olympic Gold medal}} and its comrades to the nomination which weren't in the category originally, but are identical to the now-deleted {{OG1}} and co. from the first nom. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with @CLalgo and @Stevencocoboy. There should be an alternate template besides {{gold1}}, {{silver2}}, {{bronze3}} to differentiate from World, Continental, and Olympic competitions. {{OG1}} was redundant when {{Olympic Gold medal}} already exists. I don't see a good enough reason to eliminate these. SpinnDoctor (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The most important information to communicate here is what position they came in and using both color and a number like {{gold1}} (1st place, gold medalist(s)) does is preferable to something like {{panam1}} or {{Olympic Gold medal}} ( and Gold) for legibility reasons. Reiterating what type of championship is secondary since that is expressed in plain text as well. For that reason I would prefer delete all of these but at the very least the {{GoldMedal}} (Gold medal) series should go since those don't communicate anything extra like the regional medals do. Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    They're difference to use. 1st place, gold medalist(s) always use for result, like final standing, for example Volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's tournament. Also (Gold and Gold) always use in the infobox of national sport team, for example Italy men's national volleyball team, use Gold in olympics, Gold medal – World in worlds and Gold in european events. We have use it for a long time and many years, to make more clearly and highlight different events. Both of them are necessery and that's why we need to keep them. Stevencocoboy (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to merge them into {{gold medal}}, {{silver medal}}, and {{bronze medal}} and make the variants available as switches? However, the caveat is that alt attributes would be required for the variants. --Minoa (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I put that up as a suggestion in the TFD for the other medal templates and no one said anything in support so I didn't bother this time around, but if folk see that as a reasonable compromise I don't see any issue with it. There are two issues here, one of having many redundant/similar templates and the other being visibility; merging them all into one would fix at least one of those issues (with deletion obviously fixing both). Primefac (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    I haven't seen notices of the previous TFD in relevant Wiki Projects, nor was noticed even as a creator of a template incorporating many of the discussed templates. Perhaps there were other uninformed editor, like me, that could have affected the direction of the discussion. CLalgo (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Minoa, into alts (gold, silver, bronze).--Zoupan 16:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that having gold, silver, and bronze medals with symbols of world, continents (e.g. Europe, Africa), and Olympic rings is advantageous for highlighting different events. I do not see any positivity in replacing them with generic medals symbolism with numbers instead of continents, Olympic rings, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Keep - I Agree with Pofka IPPON01 (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I'll just note (since it was raised a few times) that in neither light nor dark mode can I actually see what is inside the little medals unless I zoom in huge (or rather, distinguish between the variants), which somewhat defeats the purpose in my mind. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't know why you can't while others, such as I, can. That is no reason for deletion. Enlargement? Maybe. But wholesale removal is way too extreme. If you see all images as the same, how will making them actually the same change anything for you? Your situation will stay the same, with identical images as you claim, while those who see the variety will lose it. CLalgo (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    On phone I can't see them at all, On computer I can just about recognize them now that I know they are there. My preference here is solely about us not bring able to rely on these images being recognized by more than a fraction of users while a simple 1 with good contrast can clarify the position for everyone. Trialpears (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    Just noting that "I can see it but you can't so it's your issue" is not a great mentality; an analogous situation is MOS:COLOUR, where "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information". A gold circle with a black "1" in it is clearly understood by everyone. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    That's why templates such as {{Infobox judoka}} do not use these images as "sole visual means of conveying information". Maybe there's a problem, somewhere with some specific usage of these templates. It doesn't mean there's a problem with their existence. Their wholesale erasure is way too extreme an act. CLalgo (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    It's not erasure, it's consolidation; we don't need a different template for every competition. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is erasure. It is to take something that's in Wikipedia and many editors think brings value to it, and removing in from the site, making it impossible to use. You can make the case that in some cases only the generic symbols should be used, but to claim that the specialized symbols should never be used, or in fact that it should be impossible to ever use them – that's an overreach. CLalgo (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and Restore all removed ones. What the heck is going on here? I just noticed this strange discussion now. These templates are nice; I've been using them in articles for years. Maiō T. (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    I support the call to restore all removed ones, as I too noticed the previous discussion only after the templates were deleted. CLalgo (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    DRV is thataway. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
    If any were indeed removed from articles, then definitely they all should be restored. -- Pofka (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, any uses of the now-deleted templates were replaced, not deleted outright. If no one noticed, then my point stands that these are unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    Your point doesn't stand, as I for example have been alerted to the deletion only by that replacement of templates, not notified properly as one who has previously used them. CLalgo (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all - no need for custom medal templates for every different variation. Hinders Usability and makes things inconsistent and harder to read and understand. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all, these are purely decorative and hard to see a difference. We shouldn't be trying to convey different meanings from slightly different medals that are hard to distinguish. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Yeah, these are just walking fails of WP:ACCESS. Delete. Izno (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all: It's not this hard to see the details, but maybe the nominator (who is ALSO an admin) was looking too far away. Would be able to distinguish the medals between articles, especially those related to the Olympic Games or other events with medals. - SimpleObjects-9ei 🌸/🌻/🌞 23:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Izno. Aesthetic appeal always takes a backseat to WP:ACCESS. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all and redirect if/when appropriate respectively to TM:Gold1, TM:Silver2 and TM:Bronze3. Absolutely obvious WP:ACCESS improvement, and really no value in more specific medals looking like a continent or logo that does not even have enough pixels do be distinguished from any other colored blob. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Completed discussions

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.