Templates for discussion (TfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether a template or Lua module should be deleted or merged. Nominated templates are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus.
If you want to nominate a template or module for deletion or merging, follow the instructions below. The discussion could result in an outcome other than the one you nominate it for (e.g., a merge nomination can result in deletion).
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
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.
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 discussion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be nominated on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
Stub templates – Stub templates and categories should be nominated 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 nominated at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Policy or guideline templates – Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be nominated at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline.
Nominate a template
You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an template on your own.Your account isautoconfirmed. This means you canuse Twinkle to easily nominate templates!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate templates, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.
Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a template for deletion or for merging into another template. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related templates at once, nominate the first template using one of the methods below, preferably the §Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional templates into the existing nomination.
You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the template should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, such as merge or redirect, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. For desired outcomes other than deletion, the statement typically starts with '''Propose merging'''[[Template:...]] into [[Template:...]].
Only registered users can nominate templates for deletion or merging. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate templates. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.
Methods
Twinkle
How to nominate a template at TfD
After enabling Twinkle, navigate to the template you want to nominate
Simply fill out the form and click "Submit"!
The easiest way to nominate templates for deletion or merging is using the Twinkle tool. To install and use the tool, follow these steps:
If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the §Twinkle method to nominate templates at TfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.
Step
Instructions
Step 1
Tag the template
Paste one of the following notices to the top of the template page:
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 discussion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
Related categories
If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, paste {{Catfd|name of the template}} to the top of any categories that could be deleted as a result of the TfD, replacing template name with the name of the first nominated template. (If you instead nominated multiple templates, use {{Catfd|header=name of the first template}}.)
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_October_26#Template:template_name.css */
For deletion:{{subst:Tfd2|name of the template|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging:{{subst:Tfm2|name of the template|name of the other template|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can optionally 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/merging nomination of [[Template:template name]].
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|name of the category}}
Nominate multiple templates
If nominating similar templates for deletion or merging, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition. However, if a template in the group has a significantly better chance of standing on its own merits, it should not be bundled—nominate it separately. For the sake of clarity, nominations should only be bundled near the start of the process, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following a couple other editors' comments.
Nominate the first template, preferably using Twinkle
To do it manually instead, follow Step1 above. Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=name of the first template}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of the other template|heading=name of the first template}} instead of the versions given in Step1, but still not changing the PAGENAME code.
List the template
To do it manually, follow Step2 above, paste the following code instead. You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters |).
Multiple templates for deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|name of the first template|name of the second template|name of the third template|title=name of the first template|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
Multiple templates for merging: {{subst:Tfm2|name of the first template|name of the second template|with=main template (optional)|title=name of the first template|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= as shown in the example above.
After nominating, notify interested parties
While listing a template at TfD is sufficient, 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, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant template policies or guidelines, and please provide a link to the TfD discussion page itself.
Deletion sorting lists
After nominating a template, you can optionally inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "Deletion sorting lists", such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or specific countries. Since many people watch these sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, adding your recent TfD nomination to one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. If you do it, insert {{subst:delsort|topic|~~~~}} as a new comment at the bottom of the TfD discussion, to let others know.
Notify 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.
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the templates that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template, use the Page History tool, or use Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed. To notify them, you can ping them in a comment on the TfD discussion, such as {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Notifying contributors to the templates. ~~~~. Alternatively, you can send them a talk page message using {{subst:Tfd notice|Name of the template}} (if you nominated it for deletion) or {{subst:Tfm notice|Name of the template}} (if you nominated it for merging).
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning. People will sometimes 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 XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
It's rather atypical to have navboxes for video game publishers because their games are all very loosely related, and typically developed by drastically different teams. A list, such as the one currently on the publisher's page, would be more appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I created this template to provide a standardised infobox specifically for 11-a-side field hockey tournaments held at the Olympic Games and continental multi-sport Games. Its purpose is to support consistent presentation across men's and women's tournaments, including team participation figures, confederation and association information, medalists, and the appropriate national-team flag templates. It also accommodates youth field hockey competitions through configurable team templates and age parameters.
I acknowledge that {{Infobox Olympic event}} can display much of the same general event information, and I understand the concern about the limited current use of this template. My intention was not to duplicate an existing infobox unnecessarily, but to provide a format tailored to team-based field hockey tournaments. Xandercorvus389 (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete if other boxes can do the trick and display the same information without issue, then avoiding template duplication has to take precedence over subjective harmonization within a discipline. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Unused new track listing template containing article content and no parameters. We no longer create track listing templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I followed Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples, where it states "An album track listing may be added to infobox song as long as the following criteria are met: 1) the article does not have a navbox in which the song appears; and 2) a majority of the album's songs are linked to WP articles. Currently, three different approaches to listing album tracks are found in infobox song." Cheromaniii (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
The track listing was used in every Iceman song, but all my edits adding the template were reverted...? Cheromaniii (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, track listings in infobox are redundant clutter, and I believe this kind of template fails the first general WP:TG, as it collapses and obscures article content. however, if we no longer create track listing templates this should probably be reflected in the documentation of Template:Infobox song, because right now it would be quite natural to think they are still the norm. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
"Templates should not normally be used to store article text that may need to edited, as this makes it more difficult to do so. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader."
All songs of Iceman are already made, they are most likely not going to be edited in the future at all unless an article is moved.
"... [A]s it collapses and obscures article content"
That is the exact reason why there is conveniently a collapse and expand button, and why the template is normally collapsed.
"[H]owever, if we no longer create track listing templates this should be probably reflected in the documentation of Template:Infobox song,..."
This just sounds like your opinion on the track listing templates in general, not this specific one. Unaware what this contributes to the Iceman track listing template.
"... [B]ecause right now it would be quite natural to think they are still the norm"
Nothing indicates that it is not the norm, I'm unaware why nobody uses this template on albums that have good content on every song's individual article on an album.
You are free to say you do not like the template guidelines, but that does not make them simply irrelevant to the discussion, you know. This just sounds like your opinion on the track listing templates in general, not this specific one. Yes, it is? This forum is called "Templates for discussion" for a reason. The goal is to figure out not only what to do with every entry listed, but also what is best to do in general. And regarding your last point, Nothing indicates that it is not the norm and nobody uses this template seem pretty contradictory to me. Choucas🐦⬛ 15:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Used on fewer than 5 pages and its content is insufficiently complex to need its own template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, they're certainly similar, because no-one has yet died or resigned. But it's not "basically the same". There has been a defection and a change of party leader in the first few months and, judging by previous sessions, there will be more to come. As per navboxes for previous Senedd sessions, it records changes of party/personnel during the course of the parliament. In my view it's better to maintain it in mainspace, rather than someone's personal 'sandbox'. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Unused template subpage, created a few months ago. I marked it with speedy T5, and the creator removed the speedy tag (the speedy template did not warn against doing so; didn't it do so in the past?), writing "This should be history merged then." So here we are at TFD. If a history merge needs to happen, User:AndreJustAndre can let us know the details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
It was used previously. It should be history merged into whatever page is being used now. Or userfy it. Andre🚐 18:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
It was extracted following a collaborative discussion and used on the real page for a period of time of yes, around 4months, and presumably its design and implementation used as the basis for the subsequent module refactor, therefore deleting it would lose history. Note that since editors can request undeletion, and I removed your CSD tag, you could have discussed this with me directly rather than jumping to a TFD listing, but that's fine. There is nothing to prevent merging a subpage into a template, but it would commingle the histories, which may be undesirable. I do not know if it is possible to have a normal template be merged into the history of a module. As an alternative please userfy the page so the history isn't lost. Andre🚐 18:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. When I turned that template into a module, I followed the design of the template's infobox as closely as I could (except for a few small changes). So I would prefer that you keep it to preserve its history 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 12:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions. No longer used on pages like Longton Bridge railway station that it might apply to. Possibly superseded by another template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or incoming links explaining why it was created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep i just haven't gotten around to using these yet but they will help with consistent formatting for the election composition boxes i plan to put on the local election articles im doing TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Unused template with confusing name. Redundant to {{music|natural}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as template creator - we have Template:Sharp and Template:Flat. And while there are other things that the word natural could refer to, sure, someone calling for the template will probably be looking for the symbol. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions or documentation. No link in the template or the documentation to whatever "Move+" is. Appropriate documentation may make this template not need transclusions all of the time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as template creator. Used for WP:MOVE+, to allow other editors to pause a link-correction run. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Out of thousands of names that include 'von', this template is used on 49 pages. It is often included as a footnote in the middle of a person's name which looks jarring, e.g. Heinrich Gottfried Otto Richard von Vietinghoff genannt Scheel. In any case, I think it is unnessary and should be removed. Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
References
↑‹The templateGerman title von is being considered for deletion.›In German personal names, von is a preposition which approximately means 'of' or 'from' and usually denotes some sort of nobility. While von (always lower case) is part of the family name or territorial designation, not a first or middle name, if the noble is referred to by their last name, use Schiller, Clausewitz or Goethe, not von Schiller, etc.
This is only found on the Algeria page and it is easier to edit if this table is just there. It is not like this extra layer of red tape to edit it is helpful. It may be detrimental because this table is very disorganized and bad. JaneFootball (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem useful. Most of the links are red, a couple are redirects, and the remainder probably wouldn't survive AfD (as some have already been deleted there). LittlePuppers (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
In over a decade since being created, this Infobox has accumulated a total 108 uses in articles. There simply is no need for a custom Infobox for such an uncommon sport. (I want to be clear, NOTHING against the sport of Bandy). All uses can and should be replaced with {{Infobox sportsperson}}. The large number of career parameters (youth, senior, national and managerial) were obviously copied from another template. NO use of this template comes anywhere close to needing such high numbers. The info in those parameters should be placed in the body of the article and all transclusions converted to {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The first edit summary explains why @Awesome Aasim created it: create template that generates links to appeal blocks. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The reason I created this template is so that it is easier to link to the appropriate unblock preload from block templates and in places like H:B. I do think it has potential use and the fix would be to actually use the template rather than argue that because the template is unused it is pointless and thus be deleted. Aasim (話す) 19:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Ingenious. I think it looks useful, do you intend to use it yourself, or to make others aware of it too? All the best: RichFarmbrough 19:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still unused. Is it going to be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a template that I would like to discuss rather than nominate strictly for deletion (though I am advocating deletion for the subpages). Currently this template has about 1k subpages, each with a colour profile for a specific political party. We already have Module:Political party though, so like {{party color}} and similar this should be a wrapper for it. In other words, I think we should be changing {{party shading/XYZ}} to {{party shading|XYZ}} and get rid of all of the subpage nonsense. This allows for near-infinite expansion and is more (to quote from the nomination that prompted this) useful ... for editors who are not fluent in creating templates, as all that is needed is to update the module if a party isn't in it. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone really wants me to mark all of the subpages for deletion I will do that, but I'd rather get at least some indication that this move would be ideal before doing so (i.e. I don't want to make 1k edits if it's a SNOW close or similar). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Probable merge to {{party color}} in some way, or to a similar template. These many subpages appear to be redundant to the party color template, which uses shared modules. I note that the Party shading templates produce output of the form style="background:#AACC99" while {{party color}} produces output of the form #E41C3E, so we might need a new merge target. I'd like to see a quick-and-dirty demonstration. This reminds me of the Module:Adjacent stations merger, which greatly reduced the number of railway color and link templates; this merge should be a lot simpler. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
My thought is to make {{party shading}} be coded as style="background:<pseudocode to #invoke:Party color>"; this is essentially what the submodules do with hard-coded colour values and (as demonstrated above) would require a one-character change in any existing template calls. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Er, I would never say there's a huge difference in ease for people (newbies) to edit Lua module code compared to editing Mediawiki template code. At the same time, in this specific case, both options seem to be set up with not a huge amount of regard for editor usability.
The individual templates with subpages seem relatively easy to navigate to, but at the same time there seems to be next to no documentation, so that's horrible. Once you find a party's entry, the relatively short portion of template code seems a bit too complex, too.
On the other hand, the module sends one to check one index page per starting letter, which is pretty large (the two examples I checked were both were quite slow to load and probably intimidating by default). When you find the entry in a list, it looks good, but it can't be edited from there, you have to open the whole thing and find it inside. The line formatting is less complex, so that's better.
It's a good thing these things relatively rarely change so this is not a big deal either way. --Joy (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting that the module has ~15k parties listed. The shading template currently only has ~1k, but someone could theoretically make the other 14k pages that aren't currently in existence (it's actually one of the reasons the module was made, as there were that many subpages of {{party color}} at one point which have since been deleted). These subpages are probably not really watched by anyone and thus changes are very unlikely to be noticed, much less contested. 27 subpages are a lot easier to watch than 1k! Primefac (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean given that it has a strict format, we could technically envision a system where a user edits this through a UI that just gives them the option to edit a single entry and doesn't even allow them to randomly break the formatting for the rest of the ~1/27th of the system. --Joy (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
comment, it's my understanding that the "party shading" templates return lighter colors (suitable for a background color) vs. the "party color" template. it would be really cool if the "party color" system could automatically generate a lighter version similar to how Template:Lighten can generate a lighter version. that way we wouldn't need to keep track of both the color and the lighter version. I hope that makes sense. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
{{HexShade}} could be used on the returned module values (other than the coloured values like red, which would probably need their own fix). Not impossible to do in a new version of the shading template directly, but probably a lot less work than adding in an extra colour value to the module itself (unless the module could recognise a |lighten= parameter and make the change based off the stored colour value...). Either way, lighter values should be possible to manage. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The documentation explains how this template works and its purpose. It is part of a tool I have been developing on Toolforge but have not yet finished creating all elements of. This template is also helpful in testing how it would interact with the tool, even if it is not ready for a wider deployment. AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge I am admittedly not knowledgeable in biscuits company brand structure, but having all of them in the same navbox seems sensible to me. Choucas🐦⬛ 11:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
merge per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution, and has no significant likelihood of being used. It has only been used six times that I could find, and at least one of them was a typo (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dine) BlueStaticHorse(talk🌸) 23:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and mark with Template:Humor. This thing is harmless, and I would expect it to be used substituted, which would not show in transclusions. Maybe it was used more often a long time ago, though it does look like a niche inside joke. I have no idea where this came from but I do not see a point in deleting. Choucas🐦⬛ 11:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
There was consensus to replace this template with {{German title hatnote}}. I have replaced around 500 transclusions and now no transclusions in article space remain. Joe vom Titan (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, template is now obsolete and already fully replaced. Choucas🐦⬛ 11:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Both of these templates now rely on {{Current leader}} to operate so they are now unnecessary as {{Current leader}} can be used directly. Since the last nomination {{Current leader}} has become more established, it is now considered to be fully released and it has been implemented other templates and a few other pages and so far met no opposition.
During the last nomination there were concerns that {{Current leader}} was "too complicated" but I really don't think that's the case. using it with popes can be done with {{Current leader|VAT|pope|format=short}} (for {{Incumbent pope}}) or {{Current leader|VAT|pope}} (for {{Incumbent pope 2}}) which I don't think is partiality hard to remember, its certainly less complicated then other templates editors frequently deal with. If you are concerned that updating is too complicated, both templates already rely on data from {{Current leader}} so updating would not become more complicated.
If my proposal is rejected, I also want to raise the possibility of combining {{Incumbent pope}} and {{Incumbent pope 2}} together as there individual jobs could easily be done by a single template. PharaohCrabspeak𓀁works𓀨 17:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Replace and delete, both templates have indeed been superseded by Template:Current leader. I appreciate that the documentation of the new template explicitly refers to both use cases that were covered by these two obsolete templates. Choucas🐦⬛ 11:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The template is already a wrapper, so there is no code to maintain. The existing template is much easier to type and remember. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Removing it might cause some disruption to pages that use it. All in all its a useful template. Matt0513⬜️🟥-🟥🟨 13:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
These templates link to web sites that have stopped working, one at least four years ago. It does not appear that there is an alternative site for this information. These templates should probably be deleted as no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete if the sites are dead then it is a no-brainer; if they were not I would still advocate for substitution, because these kinds of formatted external link templates do not really serve a purpose in my opinion. Choucas🐦⬛ 11:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
per this discussion and this discussion, the "col-5" template is rarely used and can be replaced by "col-break" or other column templates. large numbers of non-wrapping columns is bad on narrow screens. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment if Col-10 to Col-7 were gotten rid of in one discussion, Col-6 in another, and now we are talking about Col-5, does it not make sense to consider the fate of Template:Col-4, Template:Col-3 and Template:Col-2 since we're here? Because unless I am missing something the arguments are the same, along the lines of Template:Col-break just does it better. I must note however that Template:Col-2 is used on a colossal amount of pages, several orders of magnitude more than the other ones, so that might factor in what to do here. Choucas🐦⬛ 21:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
yes, the rationale here is (a) rarely used and (b) large numbers of non-wrapping columns. personally, I think most non-wrapping column templates are going to be bad for narrow screens, and recently had that discussion, which continues here and has been at least partially addressed in the css for mobile. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RemoveRedSky[talk] 14:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Replace and delete I see that the merge has already been done, as all the entries in Template:Sanchore district have been added to Template:Jalore district. I will put them back in alphabetical order. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RemoveRedSky[talk] 14:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
This template is ultimately redundant and has no use at this time. I recently used much of the information in this to create a more detailed table showing each team's results in New Year's Six bowls year-by-year, and ultimately removed this from the main New Year's Six page.
This template was clearly created to model off of Template:College Football Playoff performance by team and Template:NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament performance by team. However, what differentiates the New Year's Six from the two others is that it is not a tournament where teams advance. While the CFP and NCAA basketball tournament templates provide a quick and easy view for readers to see how far a team advanced in a given year, that isn't the case for the New Year's Six, as, for most of its history it has been a one-and-done thing for every team, whether they win or lose the bowl game. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom as it's unused and would seemingly only have application in one possible place, at New Year's Six. Alternatively I would happily support userfication or projectification if Jhn31 or another editor so desires. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy if @Jhn31 expresses the desire to keep it, otherwise delete. I would have suggested substitution if it had still been on the page but that is not on the cards anymore for now and I understand the nominator's rationale. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above. I'm also fine with userfy --Lenticel(talk) 00:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
This template was heavily influenced by an editor who was POV pushing that neoauthoritarianism and neoconservativism were synonymous. This editor was not using reliable sources and was recently found to be using LLMs. It's now such a mess of synth and OR that I think WP:TNT is needed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Another day, another horrible agglutinative mess of a sidebar. The inherent POV and OR issues with such a sidebar make it unfixable. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I am afraid that it is a mess, a mix-and-match of the specific Chinese political context of "neo-authoritarian" plus things that editors seem to have just ... felt ... were somehow ... new-authoritarian. If a template is desirable here it would benefit from some robust conceptual discussion on the front end. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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).
Oppose. They're not the same sport. It would be like merging field hockey and ice hockey. I see no benefit at all. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with @Doctorhawkes, they are not the same sport; merging would be confusing. By the way, where a player has played both codes, there is a way of integrating the two infoboxes into each other (see Carter Gordon, Ngani Laumape and Tyrone Thompson (rugby) for examples), but where a player has only played one, the infobox for that sport should be used. Ruggalicious (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Doctorhawkes and Ruggalicious: Sorry but Rugby and Rugby league are 2 different sports? Definitely thought they were both Rugby.... Egg on my face. Withdrawing now. Thanks for the explanation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:15, 20 October 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.
Delete unused and unlikely to be used, per linked discussion in nomination. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The template itself looks nice, but sadly, per WP:UGC this template should not be used as the information displayed is an aggregate of user-generated content. It could possibly be repurposed to be an aggregate of critical reviews from reliable sources, however. Digitalfolklorist 18:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2026 October 26. Izno (talk) 05:40, 26 October 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.
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) 03:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Unused template after almost a year. Despite the typos to where the links are supposed to redirect, I found that the only page relating to this template was a draft deleted for inactivity here. / RemoveRedSky[talk] 02:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Unused and duplicative, we have perfectly appropriate infoboxes for such a use case already. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:59, 22 October 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.
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) 03:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete If more than one of all these finalists were not redlinks then inclusion and substitution could have made sense, but as it is it just does not. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:01, 22 October 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.
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) 03:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Unused template, I replaced its sole transclusion with {{Infobox software}}. phuzion (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete unused and duplicative. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:01, 22 October 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.
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) 03:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete unused and duplicative. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:02, 22 October 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.
Propose mergingTemplate:Right-wing populism US with Template:Conservatism US.
The amount of spinoff fork sidebars created in the last few months in US politics is becoming dizzying many, and most of them are essentially superfluous when they essentially amount to little more than rehashes of the pre-existing {{Conservatism US}} sidebar. What's more troubling is that the criterion for including subjects in these sidebar parameters amounts to little more than just the creator's own original research and POV rather than what sources actually describe the subject as. And I'm not really seeing anything extraordinary or necessary about this sidebar either. There's no methodology or standard given for including any of the people in this sidebar, and subjects who aren't described as right-wing populists are being put in here for no reason. As it stands, this sidebar is better off being merged back into {{Conservatism US}}. If the only justification is because right-wing populism is an increasingly significant topic given Trump's... (per the creator), then WP:Not every single thing DT does deserves a sidebar. Jay-Wiki (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the only Conservatism US. The other is hard to define. Oaklandmyhome (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Can we get a list of all such templates? I've long had a problem with Wikipedia being a poorly-connected web of pages that have lots of overlap and can become content forks, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
IMO the templates above show a gap in focused coverage for the populist right (if this was deleted), illiberal right, and not-chiefly-Christian far-right in the United States. They also show that {{Conservatism US}} is asked to cover a lot -- basically everything right-of-center -- which may make it too non-specific. Therefore: Keep, though I might support a rename to "neo-nationalism in the US" or "reactionary politics in the US", depending on where Aunger67 hopes to take it. CopyleftEverything (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge or else just Delete - I strongly disagree with the above !vote that seems to suggest we should keep this because we need templates for every ideological niche in US politics. Per nom., these templates are over-used, and the subject of this one can be contained in a conservatism template. The overlap between them is considerable, and it adds visually intrusive material on pages that are already over-templated. WP:SIDEBARs are for a short collated series. Categories or navboxes should be used for taxonomies.Note also that this template has 72 links. Of these 72 links:
45 are not bi-directional. Only 27 are bi-directional
Everything linked has 2 or more sidebars, and that would be true of most or all of the 45 non bidirectional links.
Right-wing populism has six templates already and it is clearly impossible to support the taxonomical approach there (we'd need another 200 or so to complete per country coverage)
These templates are being added in an unplanned and uncontrolled manner, as any editor may create them without discussion, and they don't scale.
Hi @Sirfurboy: Why should one sidebar (already overloaded with content) cover virtually all right-of-center US politics? Hell, Republican Party (United States) explicitly argues that the party's "conservative" faction is a minority, replaced by populist and neo-nationalist factions. Why not give them a sidebar? CopyleftEverything (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. If you want taxonomical completeness, use categories or navboxes. SIDEBARs are not meant for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Sirfurboy: Doesn't WP:SIDEBAR explicitly state: 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. IMO, {{Conservatism US}} is so broad & inclusive that it loses utility. (It's also worth contrasting the "principles" in {{Conservatism US}} with {{Right-wing populism US}}, which only have ~20% overlap.) CopyleftEverything (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This is not a small well-defined group. It doesn't even have it's own head article, which is another very good reason to delete this. There are currently 72 links in this loose collection, synthesised by editor fiat. As I pointed out before, all the articles linked to already have other SIDEBARS. There's not a single tightly integrated subject here - it is all over the place. This template should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
This is equally broad and inclusive and just as ephemeral. That the conservative one is terrible isn't a reason to make more terrible sidebars. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I've struck my "merge". Discussion has convinced me that the merge is unworkable and that delete is better. What does merging a template even mean? If we merge the entries, we have to add the template to all the pages that were merged - pages that don't even currently have the template for the most part. Better to delete it and allow organic changes to the templates with significant overlap (and, indeed, those templates already include the links). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with nom about inclusion being based on OR and POV more than any process that belongs in an encyclopedia. Inasmuch as some comments above say that there is a gap in the pre-existing sidebars' coverage of parts of the American right, this can be rectified on a case-by-case basis. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
We should delete that one too. That one might be worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Terrible and violative of both common sense and WP:SIDEBAR. Merge would be better than keeping but the conservatism one is already a nightmare as is. That being a nightmare does not make this justifiable, this is just a smaller level nightmare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have a strong position on this but I think we should probably err on the side of trimming. On the one hand, while I get that political positions and "ideologies" and "movements" span a broad range/set of ranges, part of me definitely wonders whether it would be a problem to just condense these into a few sidebars with subsections, like Template:Naming conventions. Template:La Folletteism in particular seems oddly niche. On the other hand, "oddly niche" is arguably exactly what these sidebars are for, instead making these huge, expansive, "Conservatism in the United States" sidebars entirely ill-suited to the task of... what? binding ALL such articles together? binding just a few "main" such articles together? It seems the latter is what it naturally is and has become, which results in some dispute. Instinctively, I'd prefer broader ones with subsections, but I wonder if it might be better to just get rid of the broader ones entirely and only have sidebars for the niche ones. I'm not sure it's helpful to readers to have a sidebar attempting to list "liberal politicians in the United States", for example, when reading the article on Barack Obama or Cory Booker (who strikes me as a horribly recentist/undue inclusion on such a grand list). (Thanks, @CopyleftEverything, for the links.) Blippy1998 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Merge Right-wing populism is a seperate thing to conservatism. Conservatism in the United States has traditionally referred to small government that believes free trade, support for free markets, opposition to protectionism, lower funding for education, lower taxes, support for privatization, opposition to welfare programs, a focus on law and order, with a government budget focused on big military spending, whereas right wing populism often includes support for policies like anti immigration, isolationism, executives who will even use executive orders to push certain policies, and often support for protectionism and tariffs. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree that right-wing populism is largely not synonymous with conservatism in the United States, which is why I propose that this template be merged with Template:American nationalism as opposed to the conservatism template as was initially proposed. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd prefer renaming the "American nationalism" sidebar "History of American nationalism", reducing it down to nationalism before some semi-arbitrary date (perhaps 1918 or 1945?), and splitting the rest to "Nationalism in the post-WW1/2 United States" (still broad, but bound by time) and/or "Neo-nationalism in the United States" (still broad, but bound by politics). CopyleftEverything (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
This isn't what sidebars are for. They are for tightly related topics, which these sorts of broad, ephemeral concepts are not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Procedural comment. As I see it, there's a big problem with trying to deal with this question via TfD. This is a very complicated issue, subject to the AmPol CTOP, that requires an in-depth examination of a lot of content and sourcing. TfD is not equipped to do it, and all that is really going to happen here is editors coming here from other disputes to register their personal opinions, and editors seeing this anew and registering their personal opinions. Sure, this is about templates, but it's also a very complex NPOV dispute in a contentious area, and that goes way beyond templates. I'd feel more comfortable if this discussion were closed with no action, and, in its place, a widely announced (as in WP:CENT) RfC were held, perhaps at a Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tryptofish It is not in any way a fair proposal to allow anyone to make any sidebar with no consensus and then require an RfC to have it deleted. Utterly ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As I just pointed out, this discussion takes place under ArbCom-imposed CTOPs, so your replying to me in that manner is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. Given the range of comments that I'm seeing here, editors are considering many more options than simply deleting a newly created template. And I'm most certainly not proposing that we should start a new policy that all new templates may only be deleted via RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tryptofish In that case - what are you proposing such an RfC be on? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
What's being discussed here: how to handle these templates. I haven't formulated the exact RfC question, and I don't need to, but I'm saying that the TfD question raised here should instead be dealt with by a larger cross-section of the editing community, under CTOP. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tryptofish But that's my question: what do you mean by "these templates"? All navboxes? Sidebars? CTOP sidebars? AMPOL CTOP sidebars? I think they all have different considerations and I'm not sure which is making you want an RfC. There are multiple questions addressed in all of the comments above. For some of those options I'd agree we probably want some kind of RfC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't start this TfD, and I'm raising a concern about it, not taking the role of starting an RfC to resolved the TfD issues that I didn't raise in the first place. I'd certainly think it would include the two templates nominated at the top. Whether or not it would also include some or all of the others discussed subsequently would depend on what the editor opening the RfC would want to address (and I imagine other templates would also be mentioned during the RfC discussion). I would not expect it to be about all kinds of templates, or all templates in a topic area – only those that are disputed in this discussion at TfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I think it would actually be a mistake to see this discussion as anything more than a discussion about templates. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by opening the discussion to content like that, which is just not warranted. The question is, are these templates viable by the standards we apply to every other template we have, or are they not. WP:SIDEBAR and WP:TG give us all the elements we need to come to an informed decision here. Deciding that TfD is outright not competent to reach the correct outcome for a template discussion simply does not make sense to me. An RfC listed at CENT is vastly overkill for a discussion that is not about article titles or even content per se. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
No, I think this is too narrow. This can't be just about these two templates because they don't exist in a vacuum; they exist as part of an ecosystem of American political templates and those need to be managed together. We need a framework (which can later be applied to any one of these in a simple manner – it wouldn't be an RfC every time once the first one is complete), and discussing it in the context of only these two templates is not really appropriate, as @Tryptofish wrote. Making sure editors interested in the other templates happen to see this discussion is far too difficult and so it should indeed be centralized. @PARAKANYAA (Also, idk if this is just on my end or because this isn't in a "Talk" namespace, but I cannot "subscribe" to a topic here like I can on other talk pages.) Blippy1998 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
These two seem to me to be completely different, and right wing populism only really seems to be a 2016 onwards Trump type thing. I think merging the two together wouldn't be correct. Reagan and Trump had very different ideas, etc. SeizureSaladdd (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Right wing populism is different than conservatism as it is traditionally known. This seems analogous to merging Democratic Socialism to say Communism. They are two different things, though related. Bill Heller (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both. I expected that I would advocate for cleaning up the Conservatism one and deleting the Populism one, but there is just no way to fix this. Sidebars are already a difficult thing to make without them becoming a horrible WP:COATRACK mess, which means we should be conservative (eh) with their creation and use. But in this case, no amount of WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments can save us from the fact that there is no way we can follow even a minority of the good practices listed at WP:SIDEBAR, and that is even without getting into the massive WP:BIDIRECTIONAL failure. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, really quickly I would like to discuss template:American nationalism which is almost identical to the conservative template, while a proper debate may be needed for right-wing populism, I do not see any need to keep the American Nationalism sidebar, and suggest merging that prior. Jzcsolm (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: As an ideology, the difference between conservatism and right-wing populism seems to be significant enough so as to deserve its own template. Maayaaaaa (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, oppose merging. There is no main article for this sidebar, there are a handful of paragraphs on this subject, so clearly violates the 4th principle of SIDEBAR: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Ideally there would be some sort of editor filter that warns/prevents users from creating sidebars when there is no main article, because obviously it is not due for creation if there isn't one. Oppose merging which would just be further OR/NPOV violations by merging a bunch of unrelated subjects to Conservatism template; there is no doubt nothing that needs to be added to that template, only trimmed of coatracks if anything. Unlike other !voters I'd consider myself 'pro-sidebars', but this one is simply ridiculous. At least create a standalone topic that can create the necessary bidirectionality before creating new sidebars please, as all this example does is turn even more editors against sidebars due the problems that arise with them. This is why we can't have nice things. CNCin solidarity (talk)
Keep. As per Bill Heller.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Template has absolutely nothing unique that sets it apart from {{Infobox person}}. If you examine the code, all it does is set a number of aliases... These aliases actually violate MOS:INFOBOXNAME as they do not match the label (example) and need to be removed anyway. A quick bot run (which I will happily do with ZackBot) and this can simply be redirected to {{Infobox person}}. Was tempted to simply be bold but felt this warranted a discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The documentation and usage is significantly different, and that would be lost if this is deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: what is actually different about the usage? Every unique parameter in the wrapper violates MOS:INFOBOXNAME and is going to be replaced, regardless of the TFD. For example: {{Infobox classical composer| flourished = "Flourished" | notable_family = "Notable family" | list_of_works = "List of works" }}. Despite using |flourished= the label displayed is NOT flourished, but is "Years active". Same thing with the use of |notable_family= and |list_of_works=. These all directly violates MOS. Can you be specific about what usage and documentation is important to keep and why can the exact same result not be achieved with {{Infobox person}}. Seriously if you can provide an example of what cannot be achieved with {{Infobox person}} I will withdraw this TFD... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
|flourished= is one such example. It is not intended to be a synonym for |years_active= as typically deployed within {{infobox person}}, but rather, as the documentation indicates, as floruit - an alternative to lifespan when those dates are unknown. "Flourished" (plus or minus a link to floruit) would be a more appropriate label.
It appears that the undiscussed conversion to wrapper introduced a number of other parameters that shouldn't be there; that should be undone, rather than used as a rationale for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Duplicating this from the narrower discussion on whether to restrict parameters, since it is also relevant here:
1) The family/relatives guidance harmonizes well, I think.
2) The list-of-works approach doesn't match. Deleting infobox composer may mean having to preserve/reconsider/migrate this guidance to WikiProject advice, probably with the proviso that MOS:INFOBOX and ONUS/DUE WEIGHT ultimately govern disputes. Perhaps list of works could be added to infobox person.
3) Flourished vs. years active: the former is narrower in a way that is subtle but important. Perhaps flourished could be added to infobox person. MONTENSEM (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't get why "list of works" would need to be added to infobox person when "works" is already there. If you look at Lady Gaga (a featured article), you'll find that the "works" field is her infobox person, not the embedded infobox musical artist. Wouldn't that just duplicate the field? I'm aware of the difference between coverage of classical and contemporary musicians, but I'm unsure how exactly these fields differ in a significant way. (And that's without mentioning that infobox person also has "notable works", so that would be a lot of works-related fields.) Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 15:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I'd keep {{Infobox classical composer}} for historic reasons. It may be known that Project:Composers was sceptic of infoboxes at all, afraid of overly large boxes. In 2010 the project ran an RfC (mentioned above, link to one of several closing proposals) that disapproved all infoboxes for classical composers. Infobox classical composer was created (beginning in 2008) to limit parameters for a compromise. - People like myself were not much impressed and made infoboxes for composers like for other people anyway. In 2026 (!), the project changed its mind in a new RfC: the guidelines were changed, and hidden messages, requesting to find consensus before adding an infobox, disappeared. You will find them only in the articles of a few editors who still want to keep their articles free from an infobox. I use {{Infobox person}}. Infobox classical composer is not needed, but presents in its short version a decent subset of parameters. Why delete part of our history? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: you are missing a number of key details
The history would not be deleted... The template would be redirected and the page history retained.
Keeping a separate set of code just for historical purposes makes no sense and helps no one. Do you go back and look at revisions of a page from 2008? What is the reason to keep this around... Redirecting it resolves the need to maintain separate pages that are duplicates.
I think what you missed in my reply was that I use infobox person all the time. But I respect others and their view that classical composers are a completely different kind of subject than the rest of Wikipedia biographies, although I never understood it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
But the code being used is identical... There is no reason to maintain a second page just to have a custom name... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect Classical composers are not so unique and distinctive that a customized wrapper should be needed just for them. Template:Infobox artist is perfectly appropriate for editors who want to use a more specialized wrapper of Infobox person. Choucas🐦⬛ 16:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
You are right but there's Contentious topic infoboxes, and if you look where the "contention" is, it's not infoboxes, but those for a few classical composers and a few other liberal arts people. Take a look at the 2010 RfC (linked twice above) and you know how much energy some users have put into this topic. Two discussions are ongoing but if I name them I'll be accused of canvassing. (Check my talk if you are curious.) I'm not able to understand the resistance to mentioning birth and death data and provide a link to a list of works (less even than infobox classical composer suggests), but that stance has earned me the response that I did much damage and have to live with that. Any movement to achieve at least mutual understanding in the dispute is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It is not what can be achieved, but rather what should not be tried that distinguishes these two Infobox templates and makes the composer template valuable, as @Gerda Arendt and @Nikkimaria go some way toward explaining. I'm in very firm agreement with both them and @Quiddity. MONTENSEM (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@MONTENSEM: Your argument makes no sense, The code is identical. I would ask you to please name one thing that distinguishes these two Infobox templates... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The argument makes perfect sense. I appreciate that you feel that only the code matters, but that is not a view that everyone shares. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Note to closing admin I would ask that you please consider the fact that every single keep !vote above fails to grasp the fact that this is a wrapper in name only that achieves not a single thing but to add aliases to parameters that directly violate the MOS (see MOS:INFOBOXNAME. For example, the fact that |flourished= displays as "Years active" directly violates the MOS. Keeping this template just because classical composers are special is irrelevant. So are photographers (Template:Infobox photographer), journalist (Template:Infobox journalist) and film directors (Template:Infobox film director) and all three of those redirect to IB person because there is nothing unique about what is being displayed there. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
That flourished is mislabelled as years active is not something that requires deletion to fix. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Reply to Zackmann, also formulated as a note to the closing admin Composers don't have a separate template because anyone is making an argument about composers being special, but because a separate, tailored, delimited (i.e., non-identical) template keeps editors from violating a hard-won, longstanding, uneasy consensus around infoboxes specifically as they apply to composers. MONTENSEM (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Your comment makes no logical sense... A separate, identical template is not needed because of some supposed consensus that exist for composers.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Not only, per Nikkimaria's argument, is "flourished" non-identical, but moreover, it is precisely the lack of parameters relative to the more general template that is desirable in the more specific case of composers, and this lack constitutes a meaningful, substantive, and functional difference precisely because it prevents editors from adding information to composers' infoboxes that has long divided editors in a counterproductive way (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Biographical_infoboxes, including footnote "a"). MONTENSEM (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Infobox classical composer has been in its current form (identical to {{Infobox person}} since December of 2022. In 4 years this supposed issue of flourished not displaying has never been addressed. The templates are identical in everything except for MOS violating aliases. Links to discussions where people have debated other issues are not relevant here. From a technical standpoint the ONLY purpose of this wrapper is so that people can say they are using a custom template for classical composers. It displays not one thing that is unique from {{Infobox person}} and therefore should be redirected as duplicate code. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I keep reading identical or identical except for ..., but the full or long person template has 58 more fields than the full or long composer template. That's not a small or technical difference, and it is more than enough to constitute non-identity without semantics. MONTENSEM (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@MONTENSEM: I would encourage you to investigate how Module:Template wrapper actually works as you seem to have a profound missunderstanding. Every one of those 58+ fields on {{Infobox person}} works on {{Infobox classical composer}}... The ONLY difference between using {{Infobox person... and {{Infobox classical composer... is the ability to use the MOS violating aliases: occupations:occupation, flourished:years_active, eras:era, list_of_works:works and notable_family:relatives. Other than that, there is zero distinction between the two templates. No added features in one that the other doesn't have, or vise-versa. None. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Be that as it may, those parameters' readily apparent absence from Template:Infobox classical composer#Examples strongly implies their intended non-usage for composers, and this is how I think most or many editors would and have long read it naively on its face.
The question is whether the distinct composer infobox was intended to be distinct from the person infobox as a matter of consensus.
Reading the last deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 20#Template:Infobox classical composer), there is note of "a compromise painfully achieved after a long and tedious debate" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC and clear support for that interpretation in remarks like "The appropriate content is so different that the templates should be kept separate". (Maybe our current disagreement merely recapitulates that one, as the rejoinder, "It is only different in being a subset of", is what I've read your objections as saying.) There are repeated references to the compromise mentioned at the outset.
The compromise includes remarks like "If infoboxes are used in some classical music articles, they should be simplified versions of the plain person infoboxes with no possibility for fields which are anachronistic, unsuitable for the genre, subjective, or foster misleading over-simplifcation." And the composer template was considered against the person template at "Any final thoughts?" and also below (e.g., "To be fair, no one has rejected Infobox person. However, that box is perhaps too generic for the needs of the articles where an infobox is desired so we do need to think carefully about the choice before us").
The deletion proposal was construed, in the deletion discussion, as a way of evading that compromise.
So to me it is obvious that these 58 differences, or, if you will, these instances of non-identity, were clearly intended—by many, tantamount to a consensus or at least in the reasoning toward the consensus—as meaningful limits on the excessive parameters of the person template in an enforceable manner (even if they do not technically function as preventive in an automated manner). MONTENSEM (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Because there is so much to read through, I'll highlight, with emphasis added, the following from the closing remarks of the composer infobox RfC, which includes mention of this intent or conception of the composer infobox:
Some editors remain opposed to infoboxes in all cases, but many have relucantly come round to the idea that a suitable infobox is needed to prevent inappropriate ones being used. ... There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
In fact I believe that the original intent, was not a template wrapper. In fact, I think reversion to a pre template wrapper version would be good. Techie3 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. For the reasons cited by Nikkimaria and Gerda. These infobox discussions are already complicated enough without deleting something that editors painstakingly put together through hard-fought compromises. Things can be modified if needed, but deleting is too far.
@Barbarbarty: there are no hard-fought compromises in this template if you were to actually look at it... It is a direct duplication of code... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
"In this template" is doing a lot of work here, but maybe there is a difference between the template page and the code, or do you deny that too? MONTENSEM (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. If there's an intentional choice to keep an infobox slimmed down for a purpose, I think a "labeling" type infobox is legitimate. SnowFire (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Intentionally keeping the infobox slimmed down would be fair, but this is not what this is actually doing. All this does is make 3 otherwise identical parameters be named slightly differently. All the various infobox person parameters are still there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Is this gap between intention and realization simply due to the December 2022 edit to the code, an edit that would have appeared merely technical and unsubstantive, and that was summarized by the editor as technical? MONTENSEM (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
It's the entire structure of how the template works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not a direct yes or no to the question, which I can narrow and ask here to anyone who may understand this: Is this gap between intention and realization simply due to the December 2022 edit?
I ask for this clarification because @Nikkimaria locates the problem specifically in "the undiscussed conversion to wrapper", which "introduced a number of other parameters that shouldn't be there" and "should be undone". @Techie3 writes that the original intent "was not a template wrapper" and favors reversion to "a pre template wrapper version". Both imply that the template once worked more restrictively before being rebuilt on Module:Template wrapper, which @Zackmann08 dates to December 2022.
This question needs to be answered clearly here. If that December 2022 edit is reversible (it has not been more longstanding than what preceded it), then the template, code, or what have you should reflect consensus, not undermine it in a way that can later be used to the circumvent consensus.
In other words: Did the December 2022 conversion of the composer infobox into a template wrapper cause it to stop enforcing the restrictions intended by the original consensus?
Apologies —- I didn’t realize the level of controversy for the 58 parameters. No one objected when I updated the template and its documentation. How about we go back to WT:WikiProject Classical music and see what the current consensus is, and if the consensus is to remove the 58 parameters, we can revert my 2022 edit? — hike395 (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Hike395, and thank you for chiming in so helpfully. I do like the idea of adhering to some kind of collaborative, substantive, consensus-based or -generating process like that. Some might say that this issue shouldn't be revisited, but who are they to stop you? MONTENSEM (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Started a parameter discussion here. Please feel free to join in! — hike395 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The original change to wrapper was around 2015 with @Pigsonthewing converting it into a wrapper. Would recommend keeping it if the consensus still holds, but migrating it if not. Techie3 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Some editors have suggested reverting to the "slimmed down" version of {{Infobox classical composer}} that existed prior to 24 December 2022, but this makes no sense because editors are under no obligation to use {{Infobox classical composer}} for classical composers. This is clearly stated at WP:CMINFOBOX: If there is a dispute over whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, or which parts of the infobox to use, it should be resolved through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. (A similar statement is found at MOS:INFOBOXUSE.) If editors want to use parameters that are not permitted by the "slimmed down" version of {{Infobox classical composer}}, they can simply use {{Infobox person}} instead, so keeping {{Infobox classical composer}} is pointless. Khiikiat (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
"Which infobox to include" is ambiguous language: does it mean versions or drafts, as I would likely read it (especially given that some talk page disputes revolve around versions or drafts of the composer template), or templates, as you are reading it more expansively? The discussion does not exactly clarify this in a way that was or should be interpreted as permitting the deletion of the composer infobox, though the closer answered a request for clarification from @UpTheOctave!, who tentatively discussed it further here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#c-UpTheOctave!-20260503195300-Infobox_guideline_wording. I have less of a determinate view myself than a desire to see this asked openly and collectively determined, not assumed quietly or individually interpreted, because this is not a small change: I doubt it would rest on the lack of an objection were it presented more openly. MONTENSEM (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Administrator note After a brief chat with Hike they started a discussion on their 2022 changes. This could influence the outcome of this TFD so I'm bringing it here for attention. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment/elaboration on my keep vote and some of the reasoning above.
I think editorial usefulness is sufficient to justify keeping the template. In response to the early challenge, "If you can provide one example of what can be achieved ...", I would point to subject-specific editorial guidance.
In my personal view, somewhat distinct from the old consensus, a template's purpose, in ordinary language, is to provide a concrete, ready-made, fillable example of how information about composers should be presented, which complements merely describing the desired approach in the abstract.
Here, the differences between a subject-specific template and a more general one are concrete, identifiable, and numerous.
Nor does this guidance need to be enforced at the code level to be effective. The template and its documentation are more than the wrapper, which can be overcome even if undone by using a different infobox. These are all technicalities as far as I'm concerned. It does not follow from a wrapper that the template is identical or does not provide editorial guidance. It does not follow from non-restriction that the template does not show a desired subset, even if this is not mechanically enforced in the template's code.
What remains is editorial guidance even when non-binding and open to discussion. That is a useful function in its own right, and a reason to keep the template. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
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".
" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
