Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29
December 1 >

November 30

[edit]

Template:Do not create article

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 December 8. Izno (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PRC military sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to main navbox on PLA. All links are featured on the navbox. There is nothing that this sidebar is doing that the navbox can't. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sidebars and navboxes don't serve the same purpose at all, I really don't get why a sidebar and a navbox sharing a topic should merit deletion of one of them. One is there to give a quick overview of a topic and one is here to link basically everything useful on said topic. The fact the sidebar contains everything the navbox does is in no way a problem. Additionally the sidebar helps users make sense of the somewhat confusing PLA org chart with its handy visual design so it should be kept for that alone. Really don't understand where this deletion request came from after the template functioning as intended for like three years now. Andro124 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR. How long a template has been around does not mean its not a reason to keep. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to a review. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The astute reader will notice that the WP you linked is basically a non-sequitur that doesn't have much to do with the content of your argument at all, a favourite of oldhead wiki editors desperately looking to drive away any engagement from anyone not in their clique. Andro124 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't. Considering how many sidebars exists and continue to be created for almost every subject does not mean one is needed in the first place. This sidebar fits into that. Your comment is coming off as a PA. And my linking of a manual of style is not an act of driving away any engagement. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you refuse to engage in any discussion and your entire argument is that you personally don't like the template and that we should somehow trust you as the sole arbitor fit to judge if templates are needed or not per the intentionally vague WP guidelines. Also somewhat unclear why you seem to think this doesn't come off as at minima somewhat arrogant and at worst, actively unpleasant. Andro124 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears sufficiently redundant to navbox, and on People's Liberation Army, is very redundant to the infobox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely redundant to the navbox. The OP expresses very clearly and quite simply his reason for seeking deletion, and I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could rationally define the argument as that he doesn't like it. (And quite aside from that, Andro124's apparent belief that the definition of "arrogant" is "They're trying to delete my creation!!!" is scarcely helpful to their cause.) Ravenswing 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I literally have had nothing to do with this template until yesterday when every single PLA page suddenly broke because of the RFD announcement. Something you could clearly check if you actually took more than 10 seconds to research this, and weren't just here to back up your buddy Judge-Jury-Executioner. Andro124 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're owning this very hard for someone with no stake in it, that's for sure. Perhaps you'll deign to be more civil when you return from your block. The next one will only be for longer. Ravenswing 12:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OWN arguments by Andro124 aside, the nomination is accurate. Just use a navbox. No need to clutter articles with a sidebar. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and massive visual clutter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navboxes often don't show up on mobile and I've personally found the sidebar to be a much clearer and easier (and better looking, with all the handy associated imagery & such) tool for navigating the labyrinth of different PLA branches and figures for my own research, especially for such a hierarchically structured organisation where the very horizontal nature of the standard navbox design can just lead to more confusion as to what the relationships are supposed to be between the different bodies and sub-bodies. The sidebar's layout and presentation is just so much better and it's my immediate go-to for further info, even on the desktop browser version where the navbox is actually an option. I've never found it to be clutter-y in the slightest, and though the navbox is great as a big segmented list of links you can go to if you already kinda know what you're looking for, the sidebar is a perfect and much needed eye-friendly key to understanding immediate organisational relationships as well as a great quick-access gateway for the things you're most likely to want to know about next. Both are necessary in their own way for their own unique purposes to my mind. ~2025-38992-29 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above argument doesn't really make sense as both navboxes AND sidebars do not show up on mobile... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IBC-13 Shows

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic needs of a navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cdx-button

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in September 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no use to anyone. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Module:Bar box/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since anonymous users are starting to act like admins and decline simple housekeeping deletion I will make this a point of sending this to TfD so maybe the declining policy will change and not allow non-admin users to decline admin actions. At least when an admin (or any registered user) declines, you have a "name" behind the action and they are held accountable.

To the matter at hand, this is a simple G6 ("housekeeping") or G8 ("Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page"-esque) as the parent template was redirected. The /sandbox page serves no purpose and even redirecting doesn't add any value or history. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym This is a redirect (that's how Module redirects are formatted by the MediaWiki software). Subpages of redirects that are also redirects are not eligible for G6 or G8 as long as they point to a valid target. This should probably be at WP:Redirects for discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This page isn't a redirect so does not qualify for that. Gonnym (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it in fact is, however while it started as redirect, and I restored it to one, it spent the greatest amount of time as an additional sandbox following [1]. So it would have been entirely proper to challenge the bold redirection and restore that version before listing it here. That was not done but doing it now would cause even more confusion, and the procedural defect is not large. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page I tagged for speedy was not a redirect at the time. I did not notice that between my requests you changed it. I've reverted it. Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect. I changed it back to a redirect at 16:44, you made this listing at 17:04, you restored the sandbox at 17:57 after I suggested that as a possibility. Please do not confuse the discussion with incorrect information, the history is open for anyone to examine. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page qualifies for neither WP:G8, nor for WP:G6, in fact it is a textbook WP:!G6, and User:Gonnym should stop tagging pages under those criteria until they have read and understood them both.
Needless to say this is not the appropriate forum to change speedy policy, and so complaints about non-admin removals are off topic, but since a WT:CSD thread will be snow-rejected and an WP:ANI thread would be closed out of hand (typical case example), the practical difference is nil I guess.
However, while both of the given reasons for deletion are incorrect making this technically eligible for speedy retention under WP:SKCRIT#1 due to the absence of an intelligible deletion rationale, I do believe the potential exists that a plausible case for deletion could be made here, so I will withhold any request for a procedural closure for the time being. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete absolutely absurd that an editor with the experience that Gonnym has is requried to bring such an obvious delete to a full blown TFD. Waste of everyone's time to have a routine delete in the TFD queue, but I guess this is where we are now. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zackmann08 if you believe these type of pages should be eligible for speedy deletion you are welcome to start a discussion to that effect on WT:CSD, but as right now they are not. Failure to list routine deletions that do not fall under any WP:CSD here takes up even more time when WP:DRVs are then needed to reverse out-of-process speedy deletions. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR exists to we don't need to wikilawyer around stupid things. Gonnym (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gonnym if you want to delete a page per WP:IAR then tag with Template:db-reason citing WP:IAR. But do not tag it with a clearly incorrect template which only guarantees wasting peoples' time. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikilawyering. Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gonnym it is no way "wikilawyering" and you need to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on your fellow volunteers. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally the DEFINITION of wikilawyering.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zackmann08 it is not, and you should strike your false accusation per WP:REDACT. Per its own page, it covers editors who "apply a portion of a policy or guideline with the motive to achieve an objective that goes against the intended message of that policy or guideline" (empasis in original). I have not at any point done that, and you cannot and have not provided a single diff of evidence of me doing so, so this is more WP:ASPERSIONS. Spurious ad hominem will not win anyone to your cause, nor will it change deletion policy. You do not like policy go to WT:CSD and get it changed, but do not baselessly accuse your fellow volunteers of wikilawyering because you do not like how it is applied. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll join the "this isn't a speedy deletion" faction; Ahecht and ~2025-31245-28 have made arguments that seem convincing to me. And see also Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#RFC: Updating T5 to account for parent templates that have been merged at TFD. On the merits, weak keep, since I've never seen a convincing reason for deletion buried in this mess - "The /sandbox page serves no purpose and even redirecting doesn't add any value or history" isn't really a reason at all, it's a circular argument.
    This is all I have to say here; I won't make any more comments in this discussion since it's clear from the start and the numerous prior times this has come up that neither side will succeed in convincing the other side so any further comments are futile. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a tracking category. “/sandbox” subpages are used for testing, and we have no reason to block any testing. However subpages of redirects can be hard to track, therefore (if it doesn't exist already) I'd propose that Module:Documentation automatically adds a Category:Sandboxes of redirects tracking category to similar cases (possibly hidden). --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on EARTH would you need a sandbox for a REDIRECT? And adding a tracking category for these? What is the point? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they might be experimenting on how to turn a redirect into an independent template. Or the template already existed, it had problems, it got temporarily converted into a redirect to a similar template, and the sandbox is needed to fix the problems and then turn the redirect back to the template it was. Our task is not to guess if something will never have use cases (we will always fail if we do that); our task is simply that of ensuring that everything is maintainable. The only problem that sandboxes of redirects pose is traceability. And that can easily be solved with a tracking category. --Grufo (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need to keep this module sandbox around. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Progressivism US

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created recently by a now blocked sock puppet. This template is highly duplicative of the more generalised template Progressivism. Although there is a specific page for progressivism in the United States, it is not clear why this needs to be curated in a duplicate structure when the key players are all already covered in the broader template. The sidebars are intrusive and many articles were given two such sidebars, which does not serve the reader well. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that its creation from the blocked sock puppet is unfortunate, and that it was rather duplicative of the original Template:Progressivism. However, Template:Progressivism itself had (and arguably still has) an excessive U.S.-focus, so I think there is a good reason for keeping this Template:Progressivism US as a regional template, and then cleaning-up the original Template:Progressivism to be more internationally representative/less U.S.-focused (un-skewing it). I think Template:Progressivism US can still serve a purpose, especially now that the sock puppet account isn't gatekeeping it/ignorning pointers from other editors about disruptive editing. Aunger67 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aunger67. Ideally the Progressivism template would be modified to be less US-focused. Tenpop421 (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template is a visual nightmare and massively intrusive, and only grows longer by the day as people add every single person to it who may be considered even tangentially related. It is already out of compliance with the guidelines at WP:SIDEBAR and will simply never be made into compliance with it. The scope is too broad for a sidebar which are, per the guidelines, for a small, tightly related set of items, not an entire political ideology. These broad political templates are impossible to maintain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, but what you’re saying seems to apply to all political ideology templates, yes? If so, why aren’t we also suggesting deleting Template:Liberalism US, Template:Conservatism US, Template:Socialism US, Template:Libertarianism US? If sidebars as you say are only for “tightly related set of items, not an entire political ideology,” the logic follows we should also delete all of the aforementioned ideological templates and then some. Thanks for the perspective you gave, and just engaging with you to further discussion here for the eventual consensus.
Having said that, I want to clarify for the thread that I still am of the mind that these specific ideological templates are worth keeping and narrow enough to fit within the WP guidelines. I agree that some editors get fussy and clutter them, but I think they can be cleaned-up and shortened. I have already started working-on trying to simplify and shorten some (and will continue my efforts in the coming days), and I think this can become easier if these templates are all subject to more protection. For instance, I recently put in a request for extra protection of the Template:Liberalism US due to this whole sockpuppet fiasco. Aunger67 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aunger67. As said above, a deletion of this template would imply a deletion of all other US ideology sidebars. Also agreed that more work should go into Template:Progressivism to make it less US-centric. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per several arguments above. Next, I feel like there have been enough contributions besides the sock puppet. Second thought, this is a very notable topic. Especially considering the Progressive revolution that took place with young Democrats challenging established members of their party. An example of this, although not in congress anymore is Cori Bush who primaried a man who succeeded his own father, so did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. If anything, the Template:Progressivism should be improved to be less United States centric and have other notable progressives. Unless progressivism isn't as left wing as say Jeremy Corbyn is? Then is there any reason he shouldn't be on that template? Very notable progressive. Or does he qualify for the socialist template? Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Split modern US progressivism should be better separated from late 19th century progressivism, which have little in common when it comes to policy (like supporting Eugenics, which someone recently removed from this template). They should probably be split in two. — jonas (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your points. Just want to note that the Progressivism in the United States article does point out the difference between these movements (as well as their significant overlap in economic policy). It's also worth noting that the sidebar itself distinguishes between the old and contemp. movements. I'm of the mind that creating yet another sidebar for just the contemporary movement would be overkill/cluttersome. Aunger67 (talk) Aunger67 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many good points have been added here, and I agree with them all, especially the ones made by Aunger67. Billious Bobulous the III (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general, sidebars are comparable to navboxes, but more conspicuous and intrusive. For biographies of U.S. Presidents, navboxes are much more appropriate than sidebars. As a rule, when someone visits Theodore Roosevelt, they are only peripherally interested, if at all, in Progressivism, Conservatism, and American Nationalism, all of which currently have sidebars in that article. So these sidebars are distractions and nuisances, and I am hoping that navbox versions of them can be created, so that I can use navboxes in that article instead.
There is a precedent for having parallel navbox and sidebar versions of the same navigational aid. For example, look at {{Liberalism US}} and {{Liberalism US footer}}. The latter is used in, for example, Thomas Jefferson. I suspect that, if there were a navbox version of {{Progressivism US}}, much of the complaining I see in the !votes above would subside, and people could get back to arguing about the fun stuff, such as what people and ideas really belong here. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. In Thomas Jefferson, we are using {{Liberalism}}, which is the navbox version of {{Liberalism sidebar}}. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it to clutter more than help with navigation. It seems to frequently function as an unnecessary secondary sidebar to pages that already have the modern US liberalism or US socialism sidebars already. Sibshops (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aunger67. Theofunny (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SWTTF collaboration

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This process hasn't been used in 16 years. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Transliterate

[edit]

Unused template with no clear use case where you would need to manipulate a string in this fashion. This is particularly true for the case where you would supposedly substitute the template... Just change the characters before you paste the string. This requires so much more work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We virtually have no alternative ways to do the same on English Wikipedia. The only other theoretical possibility is Module:MultiReplace, however that is the perfect example of what not to do in order to accomplish what this template has been designed for – for instance, create a {{Unicode italic}} template with the following content:
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
	| 3 = 𝘈𝘉𝘊𝘋𝘌𝘍𝘎𝘏𝘐𝘑𝘒𝘓𝘔𝘕𝘖𝘗𝘘𝘙𝘚𝘛𝘜𝘝𝘞𝘟𝘠𝘡𝘢𝘣𝘤𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘪𝘫𝘬𝘭𝘮𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘲𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘷𝘸𝘹𝘺𝘻
}}
    The use case as a substitution template is that of a meta-substitution (i.e. templates for substitution that use this template need to be able to use it as a substitution template). More in general, this template is the way to go when we want two map two different alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah - you could use it, in fact. If you want to transliterate text from, say, Greek to English. But per nom., it is just too much work, and doesn't have any clear benefit over just doing it yourself. That is presumably why it is unused. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't want to write manually
    {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘱𝘴𝘶𝘮 is a lovely sentence}}
    You'd rather write:
    {{Abbr|Lorem ipsum|{{subst:uitalic|Lorem ipsum}} is a lovely sentence}}
    We have no other way to show italicized text or similar things inside the popup message of templates like {{Abbr}}. Italic characters are one example. Then we have monospace characters, then we have bold characters, and then we have—especially in math formulas—fraktur characters, and so on. --Grufo (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again Grufo has found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point of view. I really do. But try to transcend yourself, and think that a person even less skilled than you will tell you one day “We don't need these two apostrophes here you keep using to write italic characters. We don't need to write italic characters. I never needed to write italic characters in a page in my life.” --Grufo (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason we cannot just use <em>Lorem ipsum</em> etc.? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. It simply won't work. --Grufo (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you mean in the tooltip. Well, okay, what you suggest would work, so I'll strike my delete. Not moving to a keep, though, as no one has seen fit to actually use this for such purposes, and as other solutions exist to insert the unicode in such very limited cases (and as tooltips can't be displayed in main text, it is all a bit meta), I'm unconvinced, but neither is it doing any harm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are really many nice use cases for this template, especially in math and languages. For instance, imagine you have the uitalic template above and a template named usup with the following content:
    {{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+-−=()
	| 3 = ᴬᴮᶜᴰᴱᶠᴳᴴᴵᴶᴷᴸᴹᴺᴼᴾꟴᴿˢᵀᵁⱽᵂˣʸᶻᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖ𐞥ʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹⁺⁻⁻⁼⁽⁾
}}
    Then you will be able to write,
    {{abbr|{{mvar|G}}|{{subst:uitalic|G}} is the gravitational constant, i.e. 6.6743 × 10{{subst:usup|-11}} m{{subst:usup|3}} kg{{subst:usup|-1}} s{{subst:usup|-2}}}}
    which will generate
    G
    Of course we can already do that by hand. But do we really want to do it by hand? Then if we move to languages the use cases will go beyond the {{Abbr}} template (i.e. transliterating alphabets, removing/adding diacritics, and so on). --Grufo (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "by hand"? We usually write 6.6743 × 10<sup>-11</sup> m<sup>3</sup> kg<sup>-1</sup> s<sup>-2</sup> to get 6.6743 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. (P.S.: And we could write {{times}} to get  × .) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrisahn: In the specific example in question it is not possible. It will not work. --Grufo (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I got it now. I hadn't understood the main point of your example. {{abbr}} copies the text into the HTML attribute title="...", and HTML tags like <sup> don't work in HTML attributes: {{abbr|Sqm|m<sup>2</sup>}} produces the HTML <abbr title="m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;">Sqm</abbr>, which renders as Sqm, whose mouse hover text is almost as ugly as the attribute content. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're going to need a MOS-compliant example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts says not to use these characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95: I totally agree with the MOS, but I also think that the MOS does not go as far as forbidding the only way to express something in specific situations. Also, as explained earlier, this template is not limited to the superscript Unicode characters and the italic Unicode characters shown above. For instance, I am quite persuaded that the MOS has nothing against the fraktur characters used in math, or against other types of transliterations or alphabets. --Grufo (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Here is a MOS-compliant example (it is a substitution template—let's call it {{subst:bfrakt}}):

{{safesubst:<noinclude />Transliterate
	| 1 = {{{1|}}}
	| 2 = ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
	| 3 = 𝕬𝕭𝕮𝕯𝕰𝕱𝕲𝕳𝕴𝕵𝕶𝕷𝕸𝕹𝕺𝕻𝕼𝕽𝕾𝕿𝖀𝖁𝖂𝖃𝖄𝖅𝖆𝖇𝖈𝖉𝖊𝖋𝖌𝖍𝖎𝖏𝖐𝖑𝖒𝖓𝖔𝖕𝖖𝖗𝖘𝖙𝖚𝖛𝖜𝖝𝖞𝖟
}}

This allows writing

Given ideals {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|a}}, {{subst:bfrakt|b}}}} of a commutative ring {{mvar|R}}, the {{mvar|R}}-annihilator of {{math|({{subst:bfrakt|b}} + {{subst:bfrakt|a}})/{{subst:bfrakt|a}}}} is an ideal of {{mvar|R}} called the [[ideal quotient]] of {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|a}}}} by {{math|{{subst:bfrakt|b}}}} and is denoted by {{math|({{subst:bfrakt|a}} : {{subst:bfrakt|b}})}}; it is an instance of [[idealizer]] in commutative algebra.

which generates:

Given ideals 𝖆, 𝖇 of a commutative ring R, the R-annihilator of (𝖇 + 𝖆)/𝖆 is an ideal of R called the ideal quotient of 𝖆 by 𝖇 and is denoted by (𝖆 : 𝖇); it is an instance of idealizer in commutative algebra.

Source: Ideal (ring theory). Of course the same can be done via LaTeX too. But this applies to most use cases of the {{Math}} template. --Grufo (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resfn

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7 by User:Explicit (note only closing AFTER was deleted). (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 year old template with 1 total use. No need for template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's hard to find a use case. The documentation and the talk page imply that its purpose is to allow reuse of a {{sfn}} - but that is the fundamental point of {{sfn}}, to allow reuse without error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “The fundamental point of {{sfn}}, to allow reuse without error”: Except it doesn't, and this generates an error:
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.{{sfn|Einstein|1907|p=411|ps=: "Hi there!"}} Nulla vel lorem augue. In non ante sed dolor egestas rhoncus ut in quam. Vivamus quis ante rutrum erat suscipit interdum.{{sfn|Einstein|1907|p=411}}
    Whereas this doesn't:
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.{{sfn|Einstein|1907|p=411|ps=: "Hi there!"}} Nulla vel lorem augue. In non ante sed dolor egestas rhoncus ut in quam. Vivamus quis ante rutrum erat suscipit interdum.{{resfn|Einstein|1907|p=411}}
    --Grufo (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So fix {{sfn}} if you've found an error? Don't create a duplicate template... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to fix in {{sfn}}, it is designed to work in that way and that is how it should work. You need a separate template for these cases. --Grufo (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: You don't create a separate template for supposed special cases... You fix the template with over 195,000 uses to work as needed.
    Once again you have found a solution to a problem that does not exist. In the 5+ years since you have created this template it has a great total of ZERO article uses, 1 sandbox use and 1 archive use... Even you have not been able to use it... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: I don't see an error here. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As shown in the documentation, this template is needed to avoid generating errors in the references. --Grufo (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: you created this over 5 years ago and even you have failed to find a use for it as it has zero article transclusions... Once again you have "solved" a problem that doesn't exist. English Wikipedia is not a place for you to dump code that may someday become useful to someone. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time the template was used by me and by others, then the pages that used it have changed. What has not changed however is the the fact that the example above still generates an error and that error is still solved by this template. Find an alternative template and we can remove this one. --Grufo (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: I don't see an error here. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chrisahn: They must have changed the way {{Sfn}} works then! That must be why the template no longer has transclusions. I'll immediately change my vote to delete. --Grufo (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool! I guess this can be closed then. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: or you could save us all some time and WP:G7 the thing. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So according to you I should have monitored the {{Sfn}} template for five years, see if and when they would include the cases covered by {{Resfn}} and eventually WP:G7 this template? The developers of {{Sfn}} were well aware of both the issue and this template from day one, so I guess they either decided to let it be solved here the way it has now, or—as it sounds more likely—they just forgot about the whole thing, as I forgot it too. --Grufo (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but I believe the suggestion is that you can tag it with {{db-g7}} right now, not that you should have been monitoring the situation for the past five years. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo:, Frietjes is correct. Sorry it I was unclear. What I meant was you could save us all some time by not having to go through a formal TFD at this point. Since you are the only contributor to the template (my edit to TFD it doesn't really count here) and you are now in favor of deleting it, this can and should be closed as a WP:G7. Never meant to imply you should have been monitoring anything for the last 5 years... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will never understand the deletion rush over here. Alright, done. --Grufo (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HTML comment

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No use case I can conceive of where you can't just use the HTML markup to insert a comment. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subst templates have always been able to leave comments. See Template:Uw-vandalism1 for example. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym to be fair to Grufo, what their template allows is to insert the Revision ID into the comment (as described above). That behavior is not currently supported. That being said, I see zero use for this. Why would you ever need the revision ID in a comment? If for some reason you need to see when exactly a comment was inserted, use the history of the page... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this template is only for a specific type of hidden comment? Then Grufo, please give specific examples and valid use-cases of where this template would be used. Regarding the above example, that seems like text I'd like to see in the actual page and not hidden. How would an editor know that the template you linked to is from a specific version? With the new discussion tools I almost never go into the edit screen anymore. Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is used by {{AIC status}}, {{Shortdesc there}} and countless other places across Wikipedia. But you cannot see it from the transclusion count, because it is a substitution template. --Grufo (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those examples require your code... Just write a straight HTML comment... It will be transcluded as Gonnym showed with {{uw-vandalism1}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Try to rewrite {{Shortdesc there}} without {{HTML comment}}. --Grufo (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:PermaLink/1325498943. Tricks like <<noinclude />!-- ... --> also work for other examples. {{HTML comment}} doesn't really seem to be necessary. It might make the code more readable in some cases, but I'm not sure about the cost-benefit ratio. Every template we add has to be maintained. Is it worth it in this case? — Chrisahn (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we simply go by the number of characters saved (not a great way to measure code quality, but a rough indicator nonetheless): Template:HTML comment has 547 characters, Template:HTML comment/doc has 1894 characters, the sum is 2441. <<noinclude />!-- ... --> has 25 characters, {{HTML comment| ... }} has 22, that's 3 characters less. The template would have to be used 814 times to carry its weight. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn: We can (almost) always avoid using a template by pasting its source code directly in a page. But we don't go by characters saved, do we? If we remove this template we are asking template creators to know a very niche wikitext quirk. Nobody will know how to do that. But, most importantly, what reason would we have to ask them as much? --Grufo (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a very niche wikitext quirk" – I don't find it any more quirky than all these other <noinclude/> and <includeonly> hacks we use all the time. I think it's easier to understand than some of these. Could easily be explained in one sentence on Help:Template or Help:Substitution. Regarding the reason: See above. Every template we add has to be maintained. Is it worth it in this case? — Chrisahn (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even most people in this discussion don't know how all these <noinclude /> work, let alone a normal user who wants to create a simple substitution template. It is definitely very niche. Some templates require maintenance, others don't. I would say that this template belongs to the second group. Moreover, if people start inserting comments directly the way you have in your example, if any maintanence will be required one day for managing substituted comments, with custom solutions sparse across Wikipedia that maintenance work will just multiply. --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is over a year old. No clear use case that cannot be achieved with a simple link and MAGICWORDS. Only transclusions are in documentation where it was placed by the creator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is over a year old. No clear use case that cannot be achieved with a simple link and MAGICWORDS. Only transclusions are in documentation where it was placed by the creator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Massively used in Module:Params/doc (which was the main reason for its creation, together with its potential usage elsewhere). Its current usage allows to consult Module:Params and Module:Params/doc separately, giving different outputs depending on which of the two pages is being consulted. Removing the template will effectively be disruptive and with no apparent reason. --Grufo (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 13 uses in a doc page you created is not massively used
    2. if the template is removed, the links will be replaced with with either {{tl}} or regular wikimarkup links as is the standard procedure for deletion of a template, which you really should know
    3. you have offered zero explanation as to why this template is needed or what functionality it provides that cannot be achieved with {{tl}}
    4. I will note that every use YOU inserted into Module:Params/doc had to be surrounded by &#123;&#123; & &#125;&#125; thus creating more work for the editor.
    Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've replaced the usages like here. This template makes it harder to understand without any real reason. Look at the syntax difference. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you have replaced is more or less what the documentation of Module:Params looked like before this template was created. Since many examples are subpages, especially the ones inside Module:Params/testcases and Module:Params/doc/examples, the way you want to restore the documentation will bring it back to a less-readable state (and it is already a heavy text to read). --Grufo (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet is having tons of &#123;&#123; in the syntax a more readable state?! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I should have created a {{Relative template link}} too, modeled on {{Template link}} but never had the time (nor, eventually, the will to argue with people like you). In any case, you are talking about readability of the wikitext, whereas here we are talking about readability of the page (which is what matters). --Grufo (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can achieve the exact same result with either {{Template link}} or just plain links with regular wikimarkup. Those are both MUCH more readable in both the wikitext and the page. What you are doing decreases the readability and accessibility of both which is why in the 14+ months since you created it the ONLY person to use it has been you... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me how to obtain the exact same result via {{Template link}}? I can't seem to find the way. As with (almost) every template, of course you can obtain the very same result by pasting the template's content directly in the page. In the case in question, this would mean that you will have to replace all links of the type
{{rel|Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table}}
with links of the type
[[Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table|{{#invoke:path|rel|Module:Params/doc/examples/four cells per row table}}]]
--Grufo (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to be clear, for those who don't know how the Holding Cell works, this template is used a few times in /doc pages where the creator has bulk inserted it into their other creations. If this template is deleted, all those uses will be replaced by other code, most likely {{tl}}, so no broken code/red linked templates will be created. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:EngvarB variant

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{EngvarB}} has been merged into {{Use British English}}, so this template should not exist. I am also not even sure what this template is meant to indicate; the current wording say essentially "try to make edits which do not use any particular variant of English"... which is such a good idea that it is already a project-wide guideline. I would recommend deleting as confusing, referring to a deprecated template, and not worth the banner bloat. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Prostitution in the People's Republic of China

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template. Contains article information that should be added in the main article if not included. I'd argue against subst. Just outright delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing of value for a sidebar here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_30&oldid=1327390381"