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_31#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.
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Why does this keep getting relisted? It seems like it's all there. The original grounds of deletion aren't even valid anymore. I say keep. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 00:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually, I rescind that. I wouldn't mind keeping it as there's already an article on the 2028 Championship, and I find that the FIVB is very serious about their scheduling it seems, so I'd say it's almost certain to happen; this contradicts BALL. I wouldn't mind keeping it as it would be helpful for future Wikipedians writing about the event & to serve as a roadmap for future articles. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 22:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Template is not in accordance with MOS:TIME, and also unused. It could be edited to become accordant in an elegant manner, or deleted. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 15:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@PseudoSudo, Ed Poor, and IagoQnsi: yinzes have template substitutions, any thoughts? (IagoQnsi, yours is from your old acc here.) Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 15:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh boy that's a throwback. Feel free to delete; I'm not concerned about that ancient user page. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Navbox with no blue links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I am not sure it can even be called a navbox at this point. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete What's the point of a navagation box if it doesn't have any links? That's like giving someone a blank map. Magikarp fan,Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 15:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Very important addition to discussion: the creator, User:MariaIsmene made it because she is working on the articles listed and seems to plan to finish them soon considering the template was created just earlier today. If she does not publish the articles soon, I would simply move it to userspace until she does. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 15:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi all, I already have the Template in my user space, I will try my best to pipe out the pages as soon as I can. MariaIsmene (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I will bloodsea the template for now, but I think it's safe to say that deleting the template is unnecessarily punitive as it was just created. Get to writing a draft soon please, but don't work too quickly! Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 19:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
delete, only navigates between drafts. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The template is now my userspace , for the time being MariaIsmene (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Propose mergingTemplate:Site active with Template:Active.
Upon comparing each template and their transclusions, they share the same code and appear to be used for the same purposes. For instance, "Site active" is used on some location pages, with "Active" also being used on those types of pages. Also, since "site" has multiple definitions, it could come off as confusing to some. LazyLune (talk•edits) 11:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
RedirectTemplate:Site active to Template:Active. At first I thought it was a wrapper but that does not seem to be the case apparently; we do not need two identical templates. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect pernom. Wonder if this was convergent evolution? Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 22:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, both templates seem to serve different purposes and I see very little overlap between them. One is about media, and one is about lore; maybe they could be refined to remove the overlap, but I think both serve a distinct purpose. Choucas🐦⬛ 14:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, same; great idea here. One was created over 10 years ago, and the other nearly 20. Established precedent & function deserve a more refined treatment. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 22:42, 30 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)
yes please merge both SparrowQ (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No, I oppose merging Template:Jalore into this one as well. @SparrowQ, are you familiar with WP:NAVBOX? In general we do not create overbroad navigation templates like this, so while a template about the district and its subdivisions makes sense, something like that trying to cover every possible aspect does not really. Choucas🐦⬛ 19:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, template parameters, or incoming links from discussions. This looks like stable article content that may have been copied into relevant articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
delete, yes, I merged it here. Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Template containing only a single existing article despite being created eight years ago. Serves no navigational purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This is not an infobox; it is an AI-generated biography of a dog. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or move to Draft space without leaving a redirect. The latter is what I would have done if there had not already been a TFD template on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose to delete this template because it is extremely limited and I don't think much other items can be added either. Doesn't server a great purpose for navigation or giving an quick overview of a large topic. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I see no reason why this cannot be included on the main 2026–27 Bundesliga page Yoblyblob (Talk):) 01:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - this is transcoded to multiple articles. Usually we wait until the season is over, the table is complete, and then subst and delete. This is too premature. GiantSnowman 18:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
merge and delete, this reduces the need to do complicated attribution when substituting at the end of the season. uses in multiple articles can be addressed using the method approved by WP:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, in agreement with GiantSnowman. It's better to keep a separate template and ensure there is no vandalism. Templates like these are likely to be used in many pages and should be kept. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - per GiantSnowman, and to save against vandalism. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:55, 31 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 speedy delete. Sohom (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Deletealmost useless, as you can only cite wikipedia in a couple wikipedia-related articles, and we generally don't have a template for every single website, if you must cite Wikipedia, just use Cite journal. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 18:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Nobody should be encouraged to cite Wikipedia. People use {{cite web}} too much already to violate WP:CIRCULAR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 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.
Entirely unused template phuzion (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. No transclusions, no documentation. The only incoming link is from a proposal with no content explaining why this template would be needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
That category is more or less dedicated to developer studios, not publishers. Publishers, where they differ from the developers, have no or little creative input into the game, and may publish just about whatever. Izno (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Functionally, though it might appear otherwise, this navbox fails WP:NAVBOX #3 and #5, and more weakly #1. Delete. Izno (talk) 00:34, 27 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)
Delete per Choucas. Οἶδα (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Used on only one page. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Izno should we merge the last few nominations? Noting that there are more in Category:Honeycomb templates, though I have not checked how much they are used yet. Choucas🐦⬛ 10:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I generally dislike batched noms unless the reason is precisely the same for each. I deliberately did not nominate the entirety of the category. Izno (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Subst and delete, single-used content template. Choucas🐦⬛ 13:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Subst and delete per above. Οἶδα (talk) 18:01, 30 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)
A history merge is not appropriate per WP:PARALLEL. Izno (talk) 20:51, 30 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)
It looks like people want to keep this unused page for reference, so I have marked it with {{historical}}. I'm fine with a TFD closure of "Keep and mark as historical". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 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)
Unused navbox with no blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - This team will enter the league in 2028, meaning all throughout next year more names will be added to the template. It is not unused given it already is storing information about currently signed players and coaches for the team and some of the signed players could potentially already be eligible to receive pages.
Unused article content with no template parameters, documentation, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete for now. Template:Tasmania Football Club already serves as having enough information. It will be needed eventually, but since it is unused, just delete. I will also support something like a no WP:G4 clause if we can unofficially implement it if it is re created after 1 February 2027, or if it is had more than one blue link. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I would argue that it is needed, It will have blue links soon enough and it can most definitley be checked if any of the currently signed players are currently eligible for a wiki page. However this is a team entering the league in 2028 meaning all through next year, names will be added to this, but I do agree that the AFL squad template may be the only one required at this point in time.
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)— Blocked sockpuppet of HerrHeulsuse.
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)
Delete. This article content template is no longer used. It has been replaced by a much nicer table in the one article that was using it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:17, 27 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)
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)
delete after substitution. it is not being substituted per this search. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 30 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)
Keep. It is used on over 4000 pages, unless there is way to create a redirect from {{Incumbent pope}} to {{Current leader|VAT|pope|format=short}} and from {{Incumbent pope 2}} to {{Current leader|VAT|pope}}, I think we should leave it as is. DOSA Catholic (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
there won't need to be redirects. If a bot simply replaces all the templates. PharaohCrabspeak𓀁works𓀨 21:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I would still keep the existing template for ease of use. I do agree to combining {{Incumbent pope}} and {{Incumbent pope 2}} together as there individual jobs could easily be done by a single template i.e. {{Current pope}} ({{Current pope|1}} = Leo XIV{{Current pope|2}} = Pope Leo XIV). DOSA Catholic (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The template is widely usedNoel baran (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Keep. also per Bill Heller. Aunger67 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Do either of you have any policy based arguments to go with that? CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Per the reasoning of Servite et contribuere, and Bill Heller. The two groups are ideologically distinct. Minnastronomer (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. As per Bill Heller and Servite et Contribuere. ~2026-57410-79 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Right-wing populism is quite broad and distinct from traditional conservatism in the US. --AwakenedAmerican1776 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Moderate keep
Jay-Wiki notes The amount of spinoff fork sidebars created in the last few months in US politics is becoming dizzying many. I agree sidebars should not be superfluous/introduce clutter.
CNC notes that WP:SIDEBAR says There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. This sidebar's existence is clearly a violation of that stipulation. By this reasoning I agree the creation of this sidebar was premature.
However, if I may make several observations:
Conservatism in the United States and Right-wing populism in the US are ideologically distinct concepts, as far as I understand the two ideologies as described by RS. Namely, my understanding is that conservatism invokes the ideology of the Republican Party during and prior to the Sixth Party System (namely paleoconservatism, neoliberalism, and libertarianism), whereas right-wing populism better describes the ideology of the Republican Party during the Seventh Party System. My understanding is that neo-nationalism, neoconservatism, and obviously MAGA are ideologies that gained significant traction during the transition between these party systems, which strongly align with populist currents - a departure from their more constrained ideologically "conservative" predecessors.
While it can be argued that right-wing populism is a subset of conservatism in the United States (I would partially be inclined to agree), I also think this is an oversimplification, analogous to conflating socialism with communism, or conflating neoliberalism with capitalism. Of course we should always balance theory with practice, i.e. the WP:READER should always come first and technical distinctions of interest to more serious readers might not always guide the principles that should dictate our decisions about how to frame events.
That being the case, I think despite right-wing populism being premature per CNC, the principle of WP:BEFORE also applies - that we should first see whether the sidebar should instead be improved. For that reason I think improving the sidebar by creating an article would be more appropriate than deleting the sidebar in its entirety. Alternatively, I would strongly prefer a move to a navbox, as an alternative to deletion, because there is clearly a phenomenon here that we ought to acknowledge as significant.
It may also be the case that we should recategorize how we think about these sidebars based on chronology, rather than ideological categories. Conservatism in the United States has been pretty philosophically consistent throughout the last century, and the rise of populism marks a departure from what Wikipedia editors correctly classified as an era of pure conservatism in the Republican Party, where differences between previous party systems like the Fifth Party System and Sixth Party System were much less exaggerated than the changes we are currently witnessing (aside from how old conservatism gradually accepted progressive perspectives that entered the mainstream as time progressed). That so, maybe we should have an American Right article (in lieu of the current redirect), corresponding to the corollary American Left, and the new American Right article could be broken into subarticles about pre-sixth party system (old) conservatism and post-sixth party system (new) conservatism. Then we could recategorize the conservatism in the US sidebar as being specifically about old conservatism, and we could categorize the right-wing populism sidebar as specifically being about new conservatism. That said, the main thing this would come down to is whether people, provided this proposition is accepted, are willing to take on this endeavor at this time. That said, I really don't like the principle of WP:RECENTISM guiding our decisions about what to do in our writing practices (if recentism is indeed a concern), because this assumes we are not smart enough to sufficiently distance ourselves from ongoing political phenomena such that we are able to objectively assess and categorize RS.
That's a bit of a tangent, but I believe it's a relevant line of thinking if we're serious about going forward with this concept of keeping a right-wing populism sidebar.
3. Seriously expand the current article ecosystem to better detail the American Right and its chronological progression from paleoconservative/neoliberal/libertarian currents to populist currents during the party system transition
4. Make the Template:Conservatism US sidebar one of the following: A) a broad overview of the entire history of conservatism in the US (basically keep its current scope unchanged) like CopyleftEverything suggested, or B) rebrand it to be about old conservatism before the transition to right-wing populism by the American Right (my preference to reduce duplicativeness)
5. Make the right-wing populism sidebar specifically about new conservatism in the US; this would allow duplicativeness between the right-wing populism sidebar and the old conservatism sidebar to continue to exist only if we do not narrow the scope of the old conservatism sidebar, which I believe would be a necessary sacrifice. The main distinction would be a difference in temporal specificity and breadth of chronological scope.
This I think is the best path forward if we're interested in being maximally efficient at presenting these ideas to readers in a way that is both precise and accessible. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
To clarify, BEFORE is in referance to AfD. As this is a template and not an article, the equivalent guidance is based on WP:TFDHOW, and otherwise WP:TFD#REASONS. In the latter, Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. is invoked. This I don't see as applicable as unless there would an unnatural split of Right-wing populism#Unites States into Right-wing populism in the United States, then the sidebar continues to violates the sidebar guidelines. If, for example, the section has been expanded and was due for splitting I would accept the compromise of draftify, or otherwise if the page had been legitimately created I would retract my delete !vote (or, in absense of that, my argument would be null and void). Unfortunately, based on the edits since this nomination, none have contributed to the U.S. section of this article. Instead editors have argue to keep a template in violation of the respective guidelines, overwhelmingly without any P&G rationale. In light of that, the template should unquestionably be deleted. My only concern is that 'keep' editors have mistaken the notability of the subject as a rationale to keep the template. There is no question on the notability of the subject, only whether at bare minimum the template respect WP guidelines, a threshold that hasn't been achieved so far. CNCin solidarity (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both per Choucas. After reading through the above, I remain convinced that there is no good way to fix this in the form of a sidebar template. Οἶδα (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete both — Per Choucas and Οἶδα. The conservatism sidebar has been too much of a battleground in recent years and I doubt that it serves much of a purpose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Template:Trumpism sidebar. Much of the content in the populism sidebar is less representative of right-wing populism in a historical context as much as it is about individuals and organizations associated with the ideology of Donald Trump (himself a right-wing populist, as acknowledged by the article on Trumpism), which already has a sidebar with an article on the subject and is thus compliant with WP:SIDEBAR. I believe that merging to the Trumpism template also satisfies the sentiment by editors in this discussion who believe that the right-wing populism is too distinct from standard conservatism, and does so better than simply keeping the right-wing populism template because of the time period that defines Trumpism (see how much of the individuals and organizations in the template are, historically speaking, influential within a relatively recent period of time, particularly under Donald Trump's 2nd administration). I could see this template sustaining itself better some time after 2028 or with a thorough expansion into other periods of US history, however I do not see this realistically happening in the near future. UppercutPawnch (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Per Sirfurboy above, can you describe to me what merging entails, given the issues with lack of bdirectionality that already exists? If anything, I think Trumpism sidebar should be merged into Donald Trump sidebar, given RWP predates Trumpism by many decades. There is otherwise only one paragraph on Trump based on the subject, thus is clearly undue for a sidebar. CNCin solidarity (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Sirfurboy. It fails points 1, 2, & 3 of WP:SIDEBARButlerBlog (talk) 01:01, 31 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)
I can go into more detail, but to try to be extremely concise, simple, and quick:
A parameter like "works" must be interpreted, which is why that example is interesting: it interprets "works" in the broadest possible sense.
"List of works" doesn't require interpretation: it is a link to a list of the person's (composer's) works. It would have a more streamlined, clear appearance. It presents the thing clearly, rather than redundantly answering/interpreting the "works" parameter/question with "List of works." This approach is recommended in the composer infobox documentation precisely in order to avoid the thorny problem below.
The person infobox, in its short form, privileges "notable works". What is more, the most recent RFC close on the composer infobox made a point of suggesting it be used, not because this point was discussed, but because it was in the person infobox. (See how templates provide guidance?) This strikes me as somewhat subject-naive (the same closer might've called me "tribal", the term they applied to suggestions that this be decided by people more familiar with the subject). But many, if not most, composers wrote many works, many of which may be notable (often are notable in the most important cases). A notability evaluation depends on the criteria and context, and in many of the most important cases, these would be contentious and would likely differ across reliable sources (and across time, place, and other criteria: there are different kinds of significance). MONTENSEM (talk) 18:34, 26 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)
Keep: per Gerda Arendt and Nikkimaria. No need to walk all over compromises that others fought to hell and back over. Chloe (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Completed discussions
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
