Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5
November 7 >

November 6

[edit]

Template:Diplomatic missions of the Dominican Republic

[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 02:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 English entry which is about an attack and not the embassy article. Not useful for navigation. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 6 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.

Culture sidebars part 11

[edit]
(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Andhra Pradesh AND Template:Andhra Pradesh topics should be merged into Template:Andhra Pradesh).
(Clarification: Both Template:Culture of Bihar AND Template:State of Bihar should be merged into Template:Bihar).
(Clarification: Both Template:Life in Tamil Nadu AND Template:Tamil Nadu topics should be merged into Template:Tamil Nadu).
Note: The other states and union territories of India do not have culture sidebars.
Note: Template:Odia culture (footer navbox) should perhaps be renamed Template:Culture of Odisha (currently a redirect to sidebar Template:State of Odisha) after main article Culture of Odisha, but otherwise I would keep it separate from Template:Odisha (footer navbox). I'm excluding this issue from the current nomination, but for the sake of completeness I'm mentioning it.

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing), Culture sidebars part 8 (ongoing), Culture sidebars part 9 (ongoing), and Culture sidebars part 10 (ongoing, see below). NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or convert to a footer pls stop jamming one template into another causing accessibility problems. As per WP:NAVBOX (MOS) "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. " Moxy🍁
Merge per prev noms —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 22:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ontario topics

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Ontario. ✗plicit 02:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ontario topics into Template:Ontario.
Strong overlap: merge. Created in 2007 and 2008, but no significant distinction in scope. Both have 'History', 'Government/Politics', 'Geography', 'Culture', and 'Economy' as groupings, only differing in 'Transportation' versus 'Communities'. Template:Ontario is far better transcluded though, so that should be the merge target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here's the right approach. Moxy🍁 00:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree! NLeeuw (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. Same purpose. Seems so obvious to me that if I had seen this, I would have WP:BOLDLY merged it... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:40, 7 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:Footer Scottish Championship Winners in Soling

[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 02:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one bluelink (except UK ans U.S.) in the grey area, therefore it serves little purpose and I propose deleting. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:03, 6 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.

Culture sidebars part 10

[edit]
Former countries
Subnational divisions

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, Culture sidebars part 4, Culture sidebars part 5, Culture sidebars part 6, Culture sidebars part 7 (ongoing, see yesterday), Culture sidebars part 8 (ongoing, see yesterday), and Culture sidebars part 9 (ongoing, see yesterday). NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't think courtesy pings will be necessary for this one. I notified everyone 3x yesterday, I don't want to overdo it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the question, really, is whether the other 6 are also worth transcluding, and thus transferring to Template:England topics:
  1. National symbols of England: Well, we've already got National anthem of England and English national identity in Template:England topics, so this seems like a good addition. Advice: yes.
  2. Tourism in England: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
  3. English folk music: seems relevant enough for England. Advice: yes.
  4. Glossary of country dance terms: Well, country dance originated in England, and English country dance redirects to country dance. But, I think Template:English folk music better serves navigation on all (English) country dance and English folk music already, and if we're already transferring English folk music, they could find it easily. I think this is too specific and niche for the Template:England topics. Advice: no.
  5. Garland dance: well this quite a small article about a very specific English folk dance. This is a relatively niche topic, which is also already transcluded by Template:English folk music. Advice: no.
  6. Sport in Bedfordshire: With all due respect for Bedfordshire, I don't think it is representative of England as a whole, in sport or otherwise. Sport in England is relevant, but we're not gonna link to every county. Advice: no.
So, if we just transfer articles 1, 2, and 3, I think we can Just-delete Template:Culture of England as well. Although Template:England topics already has 61 transclusions, I don't think adding 3 more is much of an issue. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Wales topics has 138 links (!), and 282 transclusions (!!). I think this is wayyy too much to begin with, even before we ask the question whether we should merge Template:Culture of Wales into it or not. The fact that it has almost double the number transclusions to the number of links suggests that people are dumping the footer Template:Wales topics under lots of articles that they think are of general importance to "Wales", regardless of whether those articles are actually mentioned in the footer itself. That is a sign of poor editing practices. More importantly, 138 links is really overdoing it. Take the grouping "Religion". It has links to:
  • This way too elaborate for a top country navigation footer. Most Fooland topics footers only have a general link to "Religion in Fooland". Moreover, there is a separate Template:Religion in Wales which contains the same links and more (but it is not properly transcluded, with just 17 transclusions versus 64 links).
At any rate, that's a separate discussion. In this case I think Moxy is spot on: the pragmatic solution would probably be not to merge Template:Culture of Wales into Template:Wales topics, but to convert Template:Culture of Wales from a sidebar into a navbox footer. NLeeuw (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I WP:BOLDly fixed Template:Northern Ireland topics to include and transclude the few of the 6 articles that didn't overlap yet. Now, we can Just-delete Template:Culture of Northern Ireland without further fuss. NLeeuw (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That way, we'll solve most issues without creating new ones. NLeeuw (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy @R Prazeres Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for neglecting this: this alternative proposal sounds good to me too. As mentioned, I'm more familiar with the Ottoman template than the others, but as I understand it, the underlying motivation (to reduce redundant sidebars) is accomplished either way. If some are still useful to retain as footer navboxes, that sounds constructive to me and still heading in the right direction. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Northern Nigeria

[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) 22:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete. 2 blue links and 2 red links does not a navbox/sidebar make.

  • WP:ANOEP: Navboxes [are] not to be created [for] A very small collection of articles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand for which that is the limit. I.e. it should be at least 6 links in total.
  • WP:NENAN: A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? (...) If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet. I.e. it should be at least 5 existing articles other than the main article. NLeeuw (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:28, 10 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:Cultures of Somaliland

[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) 22:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, unused and a complete duplicate of Template:Culture of Somaliland, which is already nominated to be merged into Template:Somaliland topics. The only transclusion it did have, Sports in Somaliland, is also already in both other templates, so I removed it. NLeeuw (talk) 15:58, 6 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:RM-BET

[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 14:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:36, 6 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:RM TnG

[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 14:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:37, 6 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:PLUSTransit TnG

[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 14:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued expressway toll payment methods DiaoBaoHuaJian (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of transclusions. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:37, 6 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:Zionism 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly specific template that does not have a single transclusion (literally every entry violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) and shouldn't. Almost every entry included is either incredibly minor or already drowning in sidebars. A poor fit for a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 6 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:Zionism UK

[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 14:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly specific template that does not have a single transclusion (literally every entry violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) and shouldn't. Almost every entry included is either incredibly minor or already drowning in sidebars. A poor fit for a sidebar per WP:SIDEBAR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 6 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:Shared IP advice

[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 14:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer necessary due to the deployment of temporary accounts. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary per nom. Is substing this on all pages it's transcluded on really worth the bother? The template doesn't add any substantive detail and doesn't really need to be on the page, particularly now that no IP user will ever see it again. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:41, 6 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:UNAF U-15 Tournament

[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 14:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Seems to have been replaced with Template:UNAF Tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:41, 6 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:IPA font

[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 14:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after {{IPAfont}} was deleted here. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why isn't this a G8 use case? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:56, 8 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:Self-published source

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 14:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Self-published source with Template:Self-published inline.
The inside/outside <ref>...</ref> distinction doesn't seem to actually do much, and it feels needlessly confusing to have two visually nearly identical tags do different things. Also would prevent instances of the two tags sorting to different categories in the unlikely event the category ever gets changed again. The |expert= and |ABOUTSELF= params might be useful in the other template as well. I think those more or less cover the main reasons I'm requesting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Withdrawing because most of the responses seem to believe I think it's completely identical or that I don't know how it's used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect. Only one is needed. I doubt it even matters if it is in fact a self published source or is not. If it is tagged, another editor along the way will check the tag and either remove the tag or remove the text with the tag. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are pretty harsh remedies. Why remove the text? The complaint is not with the text. It may be correct and valuable to the article, but only lacks complete verification. Why not use [better source needed] if the self-published citation is below standard? If fact, the WP template page recommends, "If you have the time and ability to find a better reference, please do so. Then correct the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." It says nothing about deleting the text. I'm opposed to draconian measures being used against well-intentioned editors. Vicedomino (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These serve completely different purposes. The first is an annotation attached within a specific citation (inside <ref>...</ref>, noting that it is self-published but that it's permissible as a WP source due to subject-matter-expert author or is a WP:SELF matter (or it can be used to suggest that a source is self-published, in a situation in which this doesn't matter enough to interrupt the reader, e.g. because the claim has multiple source citations). This one is mostly an FYI to the few readers who are going through sources in detail, and a means of avoiding editorial dispute about a valid source. The second is a more typical, reader-interruptive inline template, used in the article body (ouside <ref>...</ref>) as a reader-warning and editor-cleanup/dispute template, noting or claiming that the source used is an impermissible self-published one. This one indicates a situation that needs attention and resolution. Just because two templates are superficially similar and have similar names does not mean they should be merged (or we would have tens of thousands fewer templates).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell that it has a different* purpose (in the sense of aim, or intention), but the purpose (as in function, what it actually does) was nearly identical up until, oh, 2017 or 2018 or so. If the |expert= and |ABOUTSELF= params shouldn't be used except inside the ref tags, then sure, whatever. It's possible to just not use them. I don't see why the purpose (aim) of the tags would be served any less well if both names had the purpose (function) of transcluding the same bit of code. (* though "completely" different seems like a bit of a stretch to me)
    As the creator of both {{self-published source}} and the redirect {{sps}} (which is to "self-published inline" and not "self-published source" for some reason) you are obviously an authority on the aim or intention, the why those templates were created. I just don't see a difference in function that isn't served purely by the location it's placed, which means we can just note somewhere "hey, if you don't want readers to pay attention to this you can put it inside the ref tags" and it will do pretty much exactly the same thing. I don't see why having tens of thousands fewer templates would be a bad thing if those templates are like this pair. And, I don't think the actual users of the tag reliably make the distinction (not that there's an easy way to tell except looking through the transclusions to find the times where the wrong one is used, given there is next to no difference between the two). Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. "Self published source" also has an external function, warning potential users of the information that it is not a peer-reviewed source. Student users writing papers are sometimes forbidden to use non-peer-reviewed sources. This proposal seems to me to be another example of doing something for the sake of doing something, rather than to make a situation better. If it's not broken, then don't fix it. Vicedomino (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that it has a function. I believe my nomination and previous comment indicate why I believe the function to be redundant (i.e. duplicating the other template) and what I believe to be broken. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've just used "Self published source" where a source is self published by someone who appears to be a subject-matter-expert. I have no doubt that the content is valid, so I don't want to interrupt the casual reader, but I do want editors and deeper readers to keep an eye out for an independently verified source to support or replace the current one. "Self published inline" tells all readers that the information is potentially unreliable. "Self published source" tells editors that the source is potentially unreliable. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Similarly, I often use this template as intended. Nom seems to not understand how it's used. Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, but I won't belabour the point since it's clearly futile. I'm going to withdraw my nom but I fully intend to renominate given a year or two (I don't expect I'd make enough progress in either Category:Accuracy disputes or Category:Articles with self-published sources for it to really matter much until well after then). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion addresses your inside/outside point. If you do eventually renominate, maybe say more about your “two tags sorting to different categories” point – what problems is that actually (not just potentially) causing and why is your proposed solution the best way of fixing them? --Northernhenge (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two templates are not identical. {{Self-published inline}} is described as: "This is an inline template used to flag statements with self-published sources such as a personal web page or a self-published book". In other words, this template requires the editor to compare the article's text to what appears in the source, which is difficult if you cannot gain full access to the source. On the other hand, {{Self-published source}} states: "citation annotation template used inside <ref>...</ref> to flag a source as self-published and thus potentially unreliable". Finding out if a source is self-published can be found in the publishing data about the source (for example: searching the ISBN of a book, looking at its copyright page or any other available data about it). I just used the {{Self-published source}} template in an article after checking the book on Google Books and seeing the edition details. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 02:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Self-published inline" is used to flag sources that may be self-published, that is, if access to the source requires a paid subscription and only then can you decide if a source is actually self-published. "Self-published source" flags sources that are actually self-published. So yeah, while it may be common for an average reader to point fingers at the two templates and say that there are identical, as soon as you read through the descriptions of these templates, you realize that they are not. harukaamaranth 22:52, 12 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:Matthew Ross

[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 14:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:27, 6 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:Films directed by Matt Ross

[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 14:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:26, 6 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:Bilal Lashari

[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 14:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:23, 6 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:Jennifer Kent

[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 14:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the TV show single episode removal, this only links to two films. Does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:21, 6 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:Léa Fehner

[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 14:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to two films; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:18, 6 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:Pekin Ibrahim

[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 14:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only links to one article; does not meet MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 06:18, 6 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:Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)

[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 14:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After removing a massive amount of overlinking this is a sidebar that is not needed. All links can be found directly on the main Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) article. Plus, more sidebar templates are not needed. The main article is filled with four in the lead. Two more added by me which are related and relevant. Navigation is plenty from the main article and category. Per WP:LEADSIDEBAR - not every article subject warrants a sidebar and I think this is more clutter than it needs to be despite best intentions. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably can be merged into Template:Campaignbox Hezbollah–Israel conflict? Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless sidebar. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's reasons. nothing more needs to be said! -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:57, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_6&oldid=1323624667"