Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Tfd)
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 21 82 103
TfD 1 0 3 42 46
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 22 29 7 58
RfD 0 0 0 46 46
AfD 0 0 0 51 51

Templates for deletion (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).

How to use this page

edit

Reasons for nominating a template

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

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help. Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

What not to nominate here

edit

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:

Nominate a template

edit

You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an template on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use 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

edit

Twinkle

edit
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:

  1. Open your Gadgets preferences, find and enable "Twinkle", then click Save
  2. Go back to the template, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
  3. Select your desired outcome from the list (delete or merge) and write a short nomination statement
  4. If you want to nominate more than one template, follow these additional steps

Manual method

edit

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:

Note:

  • If the template is protected, request that the TfD notice be added on the template's talk page using the {{editprotected}} template, to catch the attention of administrators or template editors.
  • If the template is designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Example: <noinclude>{{subst:Tfd}}</noinclude>
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
  • Before saving your edit, preview the page to ensure the TfD notice is displayed properly.
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_July_22#Template:template_name.css */
Step 2

List the template

 Edit today's TfD log and paste the following text to the top of the list:
  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|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

edit

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  Step 1  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  Step 1 , but still not changing the PAGENAME code.
List the template
To do it manually, follow  Step 2  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

edit

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.
Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will result in the article being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
Notify substantial contributors to the template
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

edit

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

edit

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.

Current discussions

edit

July 22

edit

Template:Iraq squad 2023 AFC U-20 Asian Cup

edit

Long established consensus on WP:FOOTY and per the outcomes of previous TfD discussions (example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), international squad navigational boxes should only exist for the senior men and women's: World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and each continent's top level competition. None of these templates are for such a competition, but rather are for youth, regional or friendly tournaments, and therefore should be deleted. Nearly all of these competitions already have a squads subpage too, so information on the squad lists is still retained. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

edit

Template:National men's basketball team under 2

edit

All the functions of this templates can be done by main templates - these are the ones that don't have a "2" at the end of the name. Unused, unnecessary. Maiō T. (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect templates for WikiProjects

edit

I am nominating all (but one, see below) templates in Category:Redirect templates for WikiProjects for merging into their non-WikiProject equivalents (example: Template:R ME from former name into Template:R from former name). These templates have no reason to exist, as they directly duplicate specific rcat templates; besides, redirects can already be monitored by WikiProjects using the TM:WikiProject banner shell. This follows consensus established at a previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5#Redirect comics templates. I actually planned to nominate these WP:Comics rcat templates I see in WP:Capricorn, but the entries seem to be vestigial, likely because User:Wugapodes/Capricorn/RedirectTemplates.json has not been updated since last discussion, and they seem consistent with what was merged before. One exception: like in the previous discussion, I am not nominating Template:R comics naming convention because it has no equivalent and therefore serves a dedicated purpose, independent from its relation to WikiProject Comics. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that I am saying "merge", but in this case "delete" might be more appropriate, since the "merge" would simply involve tagging all the relevant pages with the equivalent non-WikiProject template and then removing them. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC Pieno žvaigždės current roster

edit

No players or coaches on navbox. Hasn't been edited since June 2025 so obviously nobody keeps up on this. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete club is now defunct anyways so there is no need for this anyway. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC Wolves current roster

edit

This club is defunct. A current roster will not exist. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale of nom. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

edit

Template:Infobox United States presidential transition

edit

This is basically a duplicate of {{Infobox organization}}. Delete and replace with that. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "basically" a duplicate of inbox organization. Many unique parameters, which are the MOST important pieces information to have in the infobox for a presidential transition. The parameters that render "Date of election", "transition start", "inauguration date", "president-elect", "Vice president-elect", "outgoing president" "outgoing vice president", "chairman of the transition" are examples unique parameters that only need to be utilized in articles for presidential transitions.
This template is in use in nineteen articles. SecretName101 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the rationale of SecretName101 which makes great arguments that I agree with. Especially considering that President of the United States is basically both the most powerful and most famous office in the world. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Searchmenu

edit

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Premature, there is an open edit request that would add this template to system messages. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured article editnotice

edit

No transclusions, categories, documentation, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I felt sorry to be notified. Template_talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Main#Edit_request_30_May_2026 Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 04:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this could be used on a case by case basis for featured articles on topics which garner controversy. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * in solidarity 22:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JMJ Records

edit

Template:Big DS

edit

No releases with articles, doesn't navigate anything. --woodensuperman 15:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romania national under-21 football team results

edit

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or blue links in this faux sidebar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Naval Service rank insignia

edit

Unused article content with no documentation or incoming links. Created in 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FL Legislative 27

edit

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or template parameters. This appears to be article text that was substed where it was needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically not needed whatsoever. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kind of Blue

edit

July 19

edit

Template:Infobox Major Historical and Cultural Site of China

edit

This Infobox (which is a DISASTER on the code side) has been around nearly 4 years and has only 2 uses. Neither of which are really needed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colortable

edit

This would be a G7, but it is in use on a couple of pages and should be substed first. jp×g🗯️ 17:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unitarian Universalist sidebar

edit

JokaiGeistundFeuer (talk · contribs) is seeking to have this sidebar deleted, but went to AfD to do so even though this is a template. The rationale they gave follows:

I am nominating this sidebar for deletion because it tries to cover Christian Universalists, Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians together. These groups are, however, wholly distinct; Most contemporary Universalists are Trinitarian, so there is little sense in grouping them with Unitarians. Furthermore, the Unitarian Universalist association is a religious organization, whereas Unitarianism and Universalism are distinct non-institutional movements. It is entirely possible to be a Trinitarian universalist, or to be a Unitarian who belies in universal salvation without being a member of the Unitarian Universalist association, or, as the Unitarian Universalist association is non-creedal, to be a member of the Unitarian Universalist association while being neither a Universalist nor a Unitarian. For this reason, I believe that a common sidebar for these movements creates far more confusion than it helps clarify, and may create the false impression that there is some link between being a Universalist and being a Unitarian.
— User:JokaiGeistundFeuer 10:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

DanielRigal (talk · contribs) made a comment noting the misplaced nomination, but also added:

I think this nomination is extremely premature anyway. The nominator has not attempted to discuss it anywhere else. No proposal has been made to split the template. Nuking the whole thing is clearly not the correct solution, even if there is a problem and I'm not sure that there is.
— User:DanielRigal 15:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I take no position on any of this (only concurring that AfD was the wrong process for this TfD) and am neutral in this procedural nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there is a plethora of evidence to support keeping. Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists are almost alwayd grouped together due to their common history—no one is claiming they all share the same beliefs. Simply consult Britannica or about any academic religious studies journal and you’ll see a common thread here if grouping them together.
Distinctions between these 3 are already noted in the sidebar (not to mention the inclusion of 3 different symbols in the heading of the sidebar).
Furthermore, I absolutely concur with @Wcquidditch that this was an entirely misplaced deletion nomination and with @DanielRigal that this is an exteremely premature nomination that did not try to consult feedback from others (or IMO tolerate dissent…) Aunger67 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists have long and interconnected histories, and this template sidebar serves our readers well for navigational purposes while neatly distinguishing between the three groups it broadly represents. The fact of the matter is that these three groups are inextricably linked to each other, and outright nuking the navigational template would do more of a disservice to our readers than a benefit. If there are any specific issues regarding the template's structuring that users would like to address, then they can and should be done so at Template talk:Unitarian Universalist sidebar. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steward protect

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. G3: Vandalism, G5, creation by blocked user ASUKITE 23:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This editor has created only pages for things that do not exist here at the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Reasercher topicon

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled, and there is no such "privilege" as "researcher". This editor has created only pages that don't make sense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as an unused template whose title is misspelled to boot (Researcher -> Reasercher). There is in fact a user role called "researcher" (see Wikipedia:User_groups#Researchers), but there are no users with this role. Duckmather (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G5, creator globally locked as a sock of Wibl9. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Badminton at the 2028 Summer Olympics

edit

Sidebar with no main article, no transclusions, documentation, and no blue links in the body. This editor keeps creating these unusable templates. No prejudice to recreation when it is actually usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per rationale of nom. Also agree that recreation is fine when it is actually usable. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: can I suggest either expanding this to include all of Category:2028 Summer Olympics event sidebar templates (16) or withdrawing and re-nominating all at once? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are used and have blue links in them, so I don't see a valid TFD criterion for nominating all of them at once. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emojus

edit

This misnamed template appears to be redundant to the more comprehensive and feature-rich {{Emoji}}. Replace all 71 instances with the original template, using |name= as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge while actually adding the functionality that it provides to the recipient template. The emoji template either demands codepoints or aliases; it doesn't mention in the documentation whether these aliases are compatible with the Discord aliases. It is therefore useful for anyone who wishes to use emojuses on Wikipedia without interrupting every comment to look up UTF-8 codepoints (?) or memorizing another set of hundreds of slightly different aliases for what glyphs go to which names (since the alias lookup table for {{emoji}} is not made to provide parity). But this can be decided later, and any disparities fixed afterwards; I will just delete the code I wrote and make it a template wrapper for {{emoji}} because I am not interested in arguing about whether it should be easier to do stuff on Wikipedia. It's fine, we can just have it go back to being inconvenient. jp×g🗯️ 17:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The unicode standard provides official names for emojis. If Discord or {{Emoji}} is using non-standard names for any emojis, they should be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think we are authorized to push code to Discord's servers 😅 jp×g🗯️ 02:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ewoks

edit

Proposing deletion, as this is a redundant and oddly specific category created by a blocked sockpuppet. The entries are already covered at {{Star Wars}} and {{Star Wars universe}} where appropriate. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 13:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tofan cabinet table

edit

Single-article content with no documentation or template parameters. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Borders of Vatican City

edit

Navbox with no transclusions, no main article, and only one possible link in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of three countries that are an enclave of another country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:"Dryosaurus" grandis

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

The result of the discussion was speedy close. Nominated template does not exist. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:"Dryosaurus" grandis with Template:Dryosaurus.
This article covers information that I believe can be summed up in a single section of the main Dryosaurus wiki page. Additionally, "D". grandis has few mentions in literature and little information overall. AFH (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Country data Mars

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G3. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of several made-up flag templates for extraterrestrial places created by GeniusElephant678 (talk · contribs). At least for Mars there are reliable sources proposing flags, so I'm not inclined to use {{db-hoax}} like for most of the others. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G3 applies here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

July 18

edit

Template:Fiction set in year category

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I have a solution that doesn't require deletion. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow-usage instance of {{Category series navigation}} that is obsolete because all of these categories were renamed or merged into "Works set in $1" as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 22#Fiction set in $YEAR. These templates cause the merged categories to be subcategories of themselves: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Incomplete_cleanup_by_JJMC89_bot_III. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We encountered a snaggle at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Replace_a_template_at because with {{Category series navigation}}, the parent categories have to be added manually. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox writer/Wikidata

edit

Barely used subtemplate of {{Infobox writer}} that has not been maintained to the level that the main template is. A quick check of a dozen of the uses of the /Wikidata version shows them only pulling a few pieces of information from wikidata such as birth date and language. These values are not going to change and therefore there is no need to maintain them in sync with Wikidata. I see no reason to continue to try to maintain two versions of this template independently. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into {{Infobox writer}}. The template doesn't just fetch dates from Wikidata, it can fetch occupation, image, awards, family, etc. I don't know how feasible this is since I don't know a whole lot about how infoboxes are coded, but adding a fetch from Wikidata parameter to Infobox writer could solve the maintenance problem while still giving the convenience of fetching from Wikidata. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

edit

Template:Round in circles

edit

On pages where this will likely get used, it just adds to banner blindness.

Like look at Talk:Czech Republic; there are 8 banners on that page. If a newbie who does not know how Wikipedia works and rightfully finds the community verbose and complicated shows up to this page, do you think they're going to read all 8 of those banners? They won't and don't (in some sense rightfully; many of the banners will be irrelevant to them, sometimes banners are about GAs and pageviews etc). Look at the continued repetition on that talk page.

Another example: Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. 10 banners; ridiculous.

Other templates fulfill enough of the role of this template. Users should also point people to the FAQ/archives otherwise. I know repetition is annoying, but adding another banner to like 9 is not a solution.

Also, transclusion count currently is 620; apparently a few years ago it was 5000? If that many uses got removed imo it's pretty telling about how useful people think this is. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this. I think it should probably be used more often, and that it would be helpful to encourage people to use this template add more specific information (e.g., links to key discussions in the archives). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on banner blindness? People clearly don't read all these banners grapesurgeon (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My main thought is that we don't need people to read most of the talk-page top matter. For example, I think Template:Talk header is a waste of space, but that's because I've seen it tens of thousands of times. (The code at User:WhatamIdoing/common.css#L-11 now hides most of it for me.) I don't read it (now), but some newcomers may actually read it, and some of them may find it useful.
Ditto for the less-common ones, such as this. Newcomers may read it, and people may read it if they're uncertain about the situation at a particular article. We could change the color on a few of these (e.g., {{FAQ}}) to make the custom ones stand out a little more, but mostly what I want to say is: It's clear that most people don't read all the banners. It's also clear that some people read some of the banners. We shouldn't take beneficial information away from everyone just because only some are getting the benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't take beneficial information away from everyone just because only some are getting the benefit. two thoughts: 1. what information of note is being taken away when other templates or people already fill this role and 2. if a tree falls in the woods...; I think the number of people who benefit from this is so low that it's not worth making banner blindness worse. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a gradual phase-out: Whatever is currently served by this template would be better served by {{FAQ}}. That this template declined from 5000 to 620 transclusions in just three years is sufficient justification. {{FAQ}} is way more useful because:
1) it explains the issues commonly discussed with a brief summary.
2) it can include links to the particular discussions in question.
3) it could discourage users from spamming the talk page with the same few issues.
4) it does not force users to search for themselves.
All in all, this template is useless and should be manually replaced by explanatory {{FAQ}}'s as soon as possible.
Due to technical limitations, this template cannot be deleted until {{Round in circles}} is fully phased-out, one page at a time. SVG-image-maker (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per User:SVG-image-maker. In my opinion, we can definitely explore replacing this template with {{FAQ}}. But I also understand why this template was created in the first place (some topics just are more contentious than others), so I think until it is fully phased out, we should keep it for the time being. Duckmather (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for individual elements

edit
List of templates nominated
The individual element infoboxes listed above are just wrappers of Template:Infobox element with nothing special added to them. Although there has been an initiative to merge infoboxes with similar parameters, these should not even be merged, but instead should just be substituted onto each relevant article. The current situation is like having "Infobox Canada", "Infobox Russia", "Infobox Sweden", and so on as wrappers of "Infobox country". SVG-image-maker (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one similar example of template consolidation. At one point, we had hundreds of different IPA templates, one for each language. However, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_27#IPA-xx_templates, those were replaced with a single template with a parameter for language. Using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, substituting all of them. No need to have a separate template for each one. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; shouldn't be individual templates. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, have you considered what it would be like to edit the resulting article? There are about 100 parameters in these infoboxes, and a dozen refs. You'd open the article to fix something in the lead, and the first thing you'd have to do is scroll down through 125 lines of wikitext, just so you can find the first sentence. That's bad enough on my laptop, where it's four screenfuls, but this would be actively hostile to someone editing on a smartphone. We might as well put a sign on the article that says "Thanks, but no thanks: we don't need anyone editing the lead of this article ever again." We should keep these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, now that VisualEditor is default for most editors. It's 2026 and we have the visual editor separate from the wikitext editor, which easily allows one to switch between the two modes. For the "many parameters" argument, there are plenty of counterexamples to this, including compounds such as p-Xylene, military conflicts such as Russo-Ukrainian war, countries like Georgia (country), politicians such as Keir Starmer, and many others. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this "visual editor"? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP has used the visual editor for only 15% of his mainspace edits, and he's never used the mw:Mobile visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, so it's an opt in editor, not a default. It's WYSIWYG, except templates are form fill-in. But if the template is not documented, full fail. Thus Visual Editor fails to edit the Boron infobox because {{infobox boron}} is not documented, but it works on Hydrogen infobox because of the subst change.
    One unfortunate side effect of unpacking the {{infobox hydrogen}} into hydrogen is the edit of the introduction now starts with a bunch of template. Or maybe this is a benefit, may scare off some editors... Johnjbarton (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are a good way to package a chunk of code to make editing easier. Visual editor is already slow enough without having to load a large template call. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the nominator SVG-image-maker please subst one of these to show the result. That can be reverted later if the result here is keep. Take, say, the first item {{Infobox hydrogen}} and subst it at Hydrogen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous TfD's in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what Double sharp said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we just redirect each doc page to tm:infobox element/doc? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you mean, but the rationales for having separate template infoboxes for each element could theoretically be applied to every BLP, every country, every chemical compound, and so on. The principle of infobox consolidation is that infoboxes with similar parameters are best merged into one. As for the argument "it would take some scrolling", the template {{Infobox country}} as used on Armenia has 109 lines of wikitext. Whereas {{Infobox beryllium}}, for instance, has only 92 lines of wikitext. SVG-image-maker (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the templates are substituted, they should be redirected to preserve attribution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not seem like there actually is any maintenance across the overwhelming majority of them...the content of each is essentially static. Spending time documenting each seems like a waste (though no prejudice against someone wanting to spend their time that way). Further, each is just the specific details against a central template, so the way to help maintenance is to make sure that {{Infobox element}} is documented, in line with Johnjbarton's comment. That would be equally true if all the element-specific templates were subst'ed or not.
    This static nature of the content, unlike many details in many other infoboxes, is an overlapping but specific reason to keep these infoboxes out of the main article. It avoids cluttering up the editor with things that nobody is going to be editing. Contrast that with the Armenia infobox, where my quick glance is that about a third of the fields, which are spread throughout the source lines, are likely to be edited periodically forever. The first general guideline of WP:Template is "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." but this is not content that is likely to be edited, and guideline beats the essay on consolidation. But if we're talking consolidation, that suggests you' like a single template that is passed an element and generates the infobox for the requested element. So that single template would have all the data for every element, which is a lot harder to manage and edit correctly. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DMacks who provided a lucid and convincing explanation of why these infoboxes are helpful—they contain complex yet static information that would only obfuscate the article wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that none of these were tagged. * Pppery * in solidarity 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ModeratePage

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template was nominated for WP:G3, but I don't think this is vandalism. However, I think it does fall under WP:DEL10, and possibly WP:DEL13 as it doesn't really follow Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as navigation aids, formatting, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors should not appear on article pages – use the article's talk page or other non-article namespaces. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 17:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And we have the creator making lovely edits like . I stand by my original G3 nomination. Lynch44 18:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

July 16

edit

Template:Restaurants in Manhattan

edit

An editor suggested deleting this template entirely when I closed an RM. I have no opinion on the deletion myself. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the RM. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would actually say this meets all five of the WP:NAVBOX criteria to some extent:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject - They do.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article - It is (most of the articles say they're "restaurants in Manhattan" or something to that extent).
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent - Many of the restaurants do refer to each other.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template - Not an individual article, but List of restaurants in New York City#Manhattan.
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles - This is still happening despite the template's existence; some restaurants are being listed in the see also section of each other's articles.
– Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Epicgenius. Very much a useful Navbox considering the large number of restaurants it has. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Threadstatus

edit

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in April 2026. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unused template that also seems entirely duplicative in function to the Template:Done/See also family of templates. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes should be deleted. Enmingyan (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused template with seemingly no purpose. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collectivist anarchism sidebar

edit

This is another one of the recent influx of anarchism sidebars that I don't think is necessary. Collectivist anarchism was a relatively short-lived niche political tendency during the 1870s and 1880s, and doesn't have much in the way of being a broad concept requiring more accessible navigation between relevant articles. The "Concepts" section appears to have more to do with various things Mikhail Bakunin wrote, rather than specifically relevant to the collectivist tendency (confusing Bakunin's general throught with "collectivist anarchism" is incredibly misleading). The Economics section mixes together obviously related subjects (like collective ownership and contribution-based distribution) with tangentially- or completely unrelated subjects. The "Practice" section likewise mixes together related and unrelated concepts, even including concepts that the collectivists explicitly opposed (i.e. "propaganda of the deed") and concepts that came after collectivism as a tendency had died off (i.e. "syndicalism"). The literature section goes further to show just how much Bakunin's thought is being mixed together with "collectivist anarchism", as Statism and Anarchy is a primary source about the First International and God and the State is a work of political atheism; neither of them even mention collectivism. Only the "People" and "Organisations" sections are more-or-less correct, but the former is mostly a list of people involved in the anti-authoritarian international, while the latter is a list of orgs related to the AAI and the Spanish organisations that kept the collectivist tendency alive.

While this isn't quite as bad as other sidebars, any informative and verifiably correct version of it would be much shorter, to the point of being unnecessary. As I don't think this is inline with the guidelines for navigation templates, and as I don't think it can be, I'm nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian anarchism sidebar

edit

We've been dealing with an influx of poorly-conceived anarchism sidebars lately, but this one might take the cake. To start with, Christian anarchism isn't something I'd think of as a broad concept that would require a navigational template; it's really just another way of interpreting the Christian Bible. But the contents of the template itself are also just wall-to-wall novel synthesis: the "core concepts" section is a grab bag of tangentially-related anarchist and Christian concepts, none of which mention Christian anarchism in the target articles; and in the "movements and groups" section, only the Catholic Worker Movement is verifiably related to the subject. Only the "People" section has any clear relevance to the subject, and I think this is easily covered by the category for Christian anarchists.

As I don't think this sidebar follows the guidelines for navigational templates, and a version of it that did would be incredibly short and uninformative (rendering the need for a sidebar pointless), I'm nominating this for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Athletic Conference men's soccer coach navbox

edit

There is no content in this template anymore. The WAC has been rebranded as the United Athletic Conference, which only sanctions women's soccer. So the deletion of information was appropriate. As such, this template needs to be deleted. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AfC notice holder

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Speedily deleted per WP:G7. No objections to deletion, not even from the page creator. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template conflicts with AFCH. Until there's consensus to update AFCH to support it, the template should be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#AfC reviewers removing old decline notices on several occasions for context. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just disrupts the already overloaded AFC/ its routine ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a discussion to propose updating AFCH to account for it so that reviewers will no longer accidentally empty it whenever they decline or reject a draft that transcludes it. My decision to invent this was inspired by {{banner holder}}, which does the same thing with talk page banners. I don't see how a collapsible decline holder can be considered any less necessary for drafts than a collapsible banner holder may be for talk pages. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPersonHumanGuy: you need to establish consensus to change an established process before its implementation. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but if the template is deleted, it and its source code would no longer be publicly available to be presented at an AFCH-related discussion. Starting a discussion to seek consensus to alter AFCH to account for a nonexistent template would be like trying to get a permit-granting organization to approve a new building without being able to look at any of the blueprints. Without blueprints, the organization can't be sure whether the new building would be up to code, and they may be hesitant to grant the required building permit. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You were told you needed consensus to adopt this template. You did it anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I wouldn't mind the template being removed from all drafts until consensus is found for it. Thankfully, only 19 drafts transclude it as of the time of writing. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've gone ahead and removed them all. Along the way, I restored historical decline notices that reviewers had removed because of the template. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers didn't remove anything. The script did because the script wasn't configured for your template change. This is like walking into a business and changing their filing system without talking to the administrative people. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that putting draft decline notices under collapsible banners without taking AFCH into consideration was like secretly modifying a neighbor's microwave (without their permission) to cook at higher temperatures, blaming the neighbor for burning their food when they heat it for the amount of time that they've always heated it for, and expecting them to figure out new cook times for all of their microwaved food. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, ever since I modified the decline holder in August 2025, I have no longer wanted {{AfC submission}} or its variants to be changed in any way, so if my unsuccessful proposal to add a wide parameter to those notice templates was put up for discussion again, I would oppose that change because I realized that it was never necessary to begin with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is wondering what those 19 drafts were, here they are. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contrary to the established AfC workflow and process; purporting to solve a problem that in my experience doesn't actually exist. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark as historical (per my blueprint analogy above) until a consensus is reached on whether AFCH should be reconfigured so the script won't erroneously blank it anymore whenever a reviewer declines the draft it's transcluded on. In the meantime, editors can be discouraged from adding it to any more drafts, and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:AfC notice holder can be used to ensure no more drafts transclude it.
If consensus is found against reconfiguring AFCH to account for this template, then I wouldn't oppose deleting the template anymore. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a collapsible box. I think editors can figure out what that looks like without a live template. Again, you were obligated to seek consensus before creating and implementing your template. Marking a template historical that was never actually used by anyone other than a single editor is not appropriate either. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry- was I the only editor using this template? Because I definitely used this template multiple times. I might be the one adding all 19 uses of this template for all I know. If it's causing problems, fine, but mass removing it from drafts before the deletion discussion closed was definitely premature. guninvalid (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I used it on some drafts too, so we both share the fault. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete per nom/Voorts. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I believe the small versions of the decline templates could be smaller, this just hides them completely which is no use at all. If we were going to contain old declines it should be done more like {{WikiProject banner shell}} with a line visible for each decline. However, that would require consensus first and then planning to make sure it does not break other tools and procedures. KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like this? (similar to {{old XfD multi}} or {{Multiple issues}})
It would be a matter of figuring out how to get decline notices to appear like this when placed within such a banner. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPersonHumanGuy: this is not the place to make proposals. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

July 15

edit

Template:2026–27 WHL Western Conference standings

edit

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Canada

edit

Oversized template, partitioned and no longer used in mainspace Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 21:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the partitioning is done. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox museum/wikidata

edit

Delete and replace with {{Infobox museum}}. This sub-template is barely being used (146 articles vs over 12,000 by {{Infobox museum}}). It is also wildly out of date compared to the base template. There is not need to keep a separate sub-template just to pull a few values from Wikidata. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to see us keep this template, at least for now. The aim of this version of the template is to demonstrate Wikidata integration within infoboxes, and it's served that role well over the years for the articles where people have deliberately opted into using this version of the template rather than the manual one (and that people have been using this in preference to the main version is impressive given that the main version doesn't even link to this one). It would be straightforward to update this version to use the latest base template version and, given the developments over the years, to expand it to use many more Wikidata properties (I'm happy to do this, but it probably doesn't make sense to do that until this discussion has concluded). This approach is particularly valuable for museums located in countries whose native language is not English, since there is often more data available for those on Wikidata than we have on enwiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That information can easily be imported from Wikidata... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

edit

July 14

Template:Demography/Potenza Picena

[edit]

single-use template now merged with the parent article Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 NHL Entry Draft (WHL draftees)

Template:Davis-Salt Lake Community Connector

[edit]

No transclusions, no incoming links to explain why it was created, and no main article. This bus route isn't expected to exist for at least three years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neurodiversity

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neurodiversity with Template:Autism rights movement.
There is strong overlap between the two. I believe that there are two obvious choices: A) Merge Autism rights movement into Neurodiversity. B) Refocus Autism rights movement to be about the Autism rights movement and not the Neurodiversity paradigm. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate MEP lists D66

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_31#Template:Candidate_MEP_lists_GL: On pages such as List of candidates in the 2024 European Parliament election in the Netherlands, there are already templates that link to the articles included in this article ({{MEP lists Netherlands}}, {{European Parliament, (Netherlands)}} and {{Candidate lists in elections in the Netherlands}}. The nominated template makes the page chaotic, in particular in the app where it is harder to see what is a table and what a sidebar. This obviously also applies to the same templates for other parties. Dajasj (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MEP lists Netherlands

[edit]

There is already Template:European Parliament, (Netherlands), which has the same goal but on the bottom of the article Dajasj (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hungarian conflicts

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving Hungary already exists. --Joy (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Czech wars and conflicts

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving the Czech lands already exists. --Joy (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish wars and conflicts

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving Poland already exists. --Joy (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russian conflicts

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving Russia already exists. Also, people already complained about this weirdness in 2009 and 2012 on Template talk. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ottoman battles

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an empire, which seems vaguely coherent, but when we see the time span, the scope is too vague and wide. (There's a separate template for the same empire 20th century already - {{Ottoman battles in the 20th century}}.) The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of battles involving the Ottoman Empire already exists. There's also occasional overlap with {{Major Ottoman sieges}} as well as with campaignbox navigation templates. --Joy (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be a single country, which seems vaguely coherent, but when we see the time span, the scope is too vague and wide. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the Lists of wars involving the United States already exists (notice plural lists!). There's also occasional overlap with campaignbox navigation templates. There's numerous comments on the Template talk indicating a lack of direction. --Joy (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox library/wikidata

[edit]

This sub-template is barely used with only 28 article uses at the moment. It is also not being maintained to the level that {{Infobox library}} is. I see little value is a second sub-template just to pull a few values from Wikidata that are unlikely ever to change. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox theatre/wikidata

[edit]

As {{Infobox theatre}} just redirect to {{Infobox venue}}, this should be deprecated and removed in favor of using that Infobox. The few data points imported from Wikidata can be manually ported over. Should be noted that a preview of this template is FULL of errors. I will also note the only value ever really likely to change on the 26 pages using this is the website and {{Official website}} is already setup to pull that from Wikidata. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete. Replace with {{Infobox venue}} (without merge) and then delete template (without leaving redirect). Since these are only 33 pages, any new parameter should be requested at the talk page and see if it is actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup pool tables

[edit]

Single-use article content. 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup is over, so this table is stable. Copy-paste this into the article and delete the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the template is now trancluded in three articles. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 00:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb

[edit]

Suggesting replacing with {{Infobox historic site}}. Very low use count here and I would argue that every Egyptian tomb is a historic site. The only things lost don't (IMHO) meet MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE anyway. Notably a description of the layout of the tomb and the tomb decoration. Put that in the body of the article, not the Infobox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb as that infobox is no longer being used or being used less in any English, and would concur with the use of Template:Infobox historic site in its place. Xander Wu (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Xander Wu The Infobox still is very much being used... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost 300 pages use this infobox so not what I would call a "Very low use count", this infobox template also has several features and parameters that cannot be replaced or replicated by Infobox historic site such as a header showing who the tomb was for, and links for the next and previous tomb in a series. I would also argue that the layout and tomb decoration do meet MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as they do not require much explanation.
I may be in favor, however, of a broadening of Infobox Egyptian tomb into simply Infobox tomb as it could still function properly if used for tombs outside of Egypt. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 03:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ancient Egypt has been notified of this discussion. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 03:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not delete it, though I wouldn't oppose a merger, though. UWMKEgypt (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aquatics at the 2016 Summer Olympics

[edit]

No consensus to merge template into all disciplines. See similar discussion Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Template has over 60 uses. No clear reason delete it. Lack of WP:BEFORE by nominator. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably not be kept in its current form, hence the link to the WikiProject talk page discussion. This template was expanded and moved without consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lithuanian wars and conflicts

[edit]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this template is way too busy. Most articles within it do not relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject of the template seems to be not a country but an ethnic group, which doesn't really usually wage wars and battles as a whole, so the scope is too vague. The articles most often do not refer to each other, because the time span is huge. Nobody in their right mind would be inclined to link many of these articles in See also. I don't see the point in this bottom of the article spam especially as the List of wars involving Lithuania already exists. --Joy (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It matches the WP:NAVBOX requirements of a good navbox: there is a single article and there is a single, coherent subject - the List of wars involving Lithuania. As the creator of this template, I just overhauled it to be more coherent, succinct (as much as over seven centuries of military history can be), and pleasing to the eye, compared to other similar templates, such as Template:Hungarian conflicts, Template:Czech wars and conflicts, Template:Polish wars and conflicts, Template:Russian conflicts, and more. The subject of the template is Lithuanian military history and that also includes the two uprisings of the 19th century that sought to re-establish the state of Lithuania, so it seems rather relevant to include them in the template, as they're also mentioned in the article.
Considering that many more such military history templates exist, I see no reason for the Lithuanian one to be singled out and deleted. — 𝓓 𝓮𝓽 𝓟 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this works that way - make a list and then immediately reformat it into a navbox. That sounds like a cheap excuse :)
Thank you for adding to the list of more of these templates that should be reviewed. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAVBOX as much too busy and not useful for navigation. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I nominated all the others and some more last week, and nobody came to speak up for them yet. --Joy (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lead letter in the Latin script

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the creator of the template. I'm not familiar with the deletion process for templates. Why is it being discussed?  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 15:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Templates that are not used are typically deleted. This template has no uses, and no indication of why and how it might be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used but it's always substituted. The documentation is lacking but it says what it's for. Of course, one could argue a template for something like this is not necessarily useful, but I look forward to discussions on this.  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 17:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undocumented and unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox castrum

[edit]

Replace all instances with {{Infobox historic site}}. There is way too much going on in this Infobox that violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE along with multiple red linked labels which makes no sense. Anything not in Infobox historic site should be in the body of the article if at all. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No explanation what to do with the numerous unique parameters. ~300 usages is a lot just to dismiss. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fox Sports Radio stations

[edit]

While there are stations branded Fox Sports Radio or that air all Fox Sports Radio programs, FSR provides affiliate lists on a per-program basis, so it would be impossible to make such a list. For this reason, I excised the affiliate list from the article last month. It is also a terrible use of a navbox to link 128 entries. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Om Parvat

[edit]

Protection expired a long time ago, and I just removed nearly all the Hinduism-related content because it had zero sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

[edit]

This template is used in 99 articles, almost exclusively Eurovision-related such as Eurovision Song Contest 1973. This template is really distracting, and unnecessary for something that readers would quickly realize when reading articles with interlanguage links, which aren't that uncommon. Skyshiftertalk 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a situation where it would be useful and it takes up a lot of space. Paditor (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the template page at first I thought this was a talk page banner and therefore mostly useless; but now I realize this enormous banner is actually in the middle of articles? This is just plain disruptive to the reader. Our interlanguage links are intuitive enough as they are, and if they were not it would need to be addressed by changing how they look, not putting these enormous disclaimer chunks of non-contents in the middle of articles. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this "warning" could be useful. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. — Ætoms [talk] 21:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States Department of Defense

[edit]

CT editnotice related to an expired page protection. No opinion on the BRD restriction, but that is presumably expired as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ə, kæn jū stɑp? Mmov9287 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant templates

[edit]

All these templates (listed at Category:Consonant templates) go against the very first general template guideline, as they are used exclusively to store article text that is consequently not cited inline. Some are used on dozens of pages, some are very short and little used, while some others are much more consequent, such as Template:Affrication of Fricatives in Adyghe dialects. There is no obvious need for the standardization they bring, and therefore I do not believe an exception should be made. As such, I propose that they all be substituted and then deleted. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close, this just f'ed up essentially every consonant page (e.g. Voiced alveolar approximant#Features, Palatal ejective stop#Features, Voiceless velar fricative#Features etc.). Their standardization is quite obviously beneficial. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, let's not exaggerate, it just displays a small header while making the bullets appear slightly different; not exactly the kind of disruption that warrants a speedy close. Since I said it was not obvious to me in the nomination, I would appreciate if you explained why you think it is, and especially how it warrants ignoring template guidelines or forgoing inline citations on all this content. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A la WP:BLUE, they have no need to be cited. They are repetitive and basic definitions that are better to maintain as one than per-page; if they ever need updating, one only needs to do this once, instead of dozens of times.
I think you need to better articulate (no pun intended) exactly how they ignore template guidelines. Some of these templates have been around for 15+ years without issue.
It broke bullet listing and interrupts the basic reading of these sections; looking at any individual consonant page, it is rather plainly disruptive. It is not just one small header, it is several in a row.
As a side note, an equivalent set of templates exists for vowel pages, as well. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what needs to be articulated further, as I linked WP:TG in the nomination and am referring to the very first line, but I can quote it if need be: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.
Regarding the age of these templates, it is frankly irrelevant; 15+ years templates with a bigger footprint than those get deleted/merged/etc. all the time here at TfD.
Now, I am actually really confused at your invocation of WP:SKYBLUE: this is an explanatory essay about how some simple statements likely to be easily and universally understood irrespective of background can escape the core of WP:V, being Statements that may be challenged require inline citations to reliable sources. Many of these templates are not mere statements, some can be paragraph-sized, or even section-sized for the example I mention in nomination. To take a random example from the list, do you genuinely believe writing in an article about a given consonant that Its manner of articulation varies between approximant and fricative, which means it is produced by narrowing the vocal tract at the place of articulation, but generally not enough to produce much turbulence in the airstream. Languages do not distinguish voiced fricatives from approximants produced in the throat. is a "basic definition" that has "no need to be cited"? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 21:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
do you genuinely believe writing in an article about a given consonant that ... is a "basic definition" that has "no need to be cited"? Yes, actually. Although the wording is technical, such a feature is rather unanimously recognized in the field, and is an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact; it is hugely verifiable, and then some. Nothing in WP:BLUE says anything remotely about needing to be understood irrespective of background or escaping WP:V; the point is that some things are so verifiable as to be redundant.
All that said, the template that you picked out happened to only be transcluded to a singular page, [ʕ]. I just replaced it with the direct text, so now {{approximant-fricative}} does actually have grounds for deletion, being unused. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oklopfer – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wonder whether these sections are really necessary. Wouldn't linking the individual parameters of articulation be enough? If you want to go through and replace all of these sections with e.g. "/dɮ/ is a [voiced] [pulmonic] [alveolar] [lateral] [affricate]", then you could request the templates for deletion due to them no longer being used. But as long as we give lists of definitions across multiple articles, we should use these templates to keep them consistent. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it would be MOS:JARGONy to only provide the linked words; adding the definitions mean that most readers can have at least a vague idea of what each consonant sounds like. While those of us into linguistics know what voicing is or what an affricate is, most readers won't and MOS:JARGON says editors should seek to write articles accessible to the greatest possible number of readers. I think that's what these templates are achieving. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That goes against MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though. Snowman304|talk 18:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would it be so difficult to simply change the transclusions to substitutions with an AWB run? Maybe even leave behind comments that inform future editors that the text is standardized. I question the utility of "it's easy to update if they ever need updating" as a justification for keeping these. If they are indeed so uncontroversial and basic (which I agree that they are), then why are we making provisions to keep them so updatable? They shouldn't, don't, and won't need any updating. This is clearly the precise kind of template that WP:TG warns against, and I don't see any justification for why that should be ignored in this context. Kisseran (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't, don't, and won't need any updating. There is always more copyediting to be done; and ensuring that their consistency is not disrupted post-substitution is easier said. ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do think that {{Affrication of Fricatives in Adyghe dialects}} should be nominated separately. I would support substitution and deletion of that template, but it is erroneously grouped with the others here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template definitely requires substing, but the text is rather suspicious and in any case is not compliant with the MOS. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would agree. That's a lot of content shared by only 3 articles; that's clearly against the spirit and words of WP:TG1 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close per oklopfer, including their comments about basic definition citations and standardisation of wording. Also, as well as making the bullets appear slightly different, the deletion notice messes things up for screenreaders and assistive technologies, and makes it harder to read for people with degraded eyesight (like mine). — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; if the layout of the articles about the individual speech sounds need to be changed, this can be debated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics or similar page. As long as this text is copied at every relevant article, it's useful for the templates to exist. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KansasHandKinesiology

[edit]

Links, usually within 'see also' seem irretrievably broken & do not appear to add significant value to the pages they are on. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete broken and pointless. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Tommy Cash (rapper)

[edit]

Editnotice about an expired semi-protection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed the editnotice to {{Contentious topics/editnotice|ee}} since the CT portion of the notice still applies even if protection has expired. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The template is now unused though, as Talk:Tommy Cash (rapper) has the standard CTOPS notice; what is the point of keeping this specific template? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2026

July 12

[edit]

Propose merging Template:File copyright request with Template:Di-no source no license-notice.
Outdated. The template to be merged with it is the most highly visible used template now. And this template has no pair with a file deletion tag so pointless to keep this template. Beyhive Navy 🐝🪖 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:File source

[edit]

Propose merging Template:File source with Template:Di-no source-notice.
Same reasoning of why the file should be nominated for deletion, as it explains it has a missing source. This template may be older but is reasonated to have a merge. And now warnings have the same file tags with prefix "Di". Beyhive Navy 🐝🪖 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

Comment. I asked at WP:RM/TR recently for TM:PDB link to be moved to TM:PDBsum link and the leftover redirect be retargeted to TM:Protein Data Bank link.
TM:PDB link (now TM:PDBsum link) creates external links to the PDBsum database, which is currently unavailable and likely will remain unavailable for some undefined amount of time going forward. In the interim I thought it would be best to store the template at a similar/less ambiguous name and redirect the ~750 transclusions to the similar TM:Protein Data Bank link, which handles the same input.
I was not aware of TM:PDB3, which handles similar inputs that link back to PDBsum (though with a different URL construction to TM:PDBsum link). TM:PDB3 also suffers from PDBsum being down and live articles would benefit to linking to a live database (There seem to be 145 transclusions). If it were up to me I would do something similar again. ⇌ Synpath 21:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Topic nom failed templates

[edit]

Common practice is now simply to remove Template:FTCmain or Template:GTCmain from the talk page. With both these templates only being featured on a few talk pages, there is no longer a point to either of their existences. JHD0919 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No obvious reason why this was deprecated while Template:FailedGA wasn't. It is at least as important as a part of a page's edit history. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-palatal

[edit]

Article content with no transclusions or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is worth noting that this template was transcluded on several palatal consonant pages just a few days ago, and was removed from them after I did some reorganization of those pages. It is in line with others like {{palatal}} and {{velar}}.
Perhaps keep is the best course of action for now, given how recent this was, with no prejudice against a reassessment at a later time. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused, or auto-substitute if it gets used again before closure per the very first bullet point of WP:TG, that is crystal clear that this is not a valid use of templates. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wl

[edit]

No transclusions, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. This template name is inscrutable and should probably be salted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is documentation, one can show how wikilinks work with this. BTW the title "Wikilink" is already taken, thus wl. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xmark-present

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the edit summary and supposedly it's for some other template, but I don't know if this is needed when {{cross}} '''Present''' would suffice. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 06:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DLRexits2025

[edit]

No transclusions or incoming links to explain why it was created. Created a little over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series, used on London station infoboxes. Needs to be populated with latest year data. MRSC (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MRSC, why does this need templates? The National Rail statistics are populated with numbers rather than new templates that get CfD'd every so often. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 12:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Template:Tfm notice

[edit]

Propose merging {{Tfm notice}} and {{Tfr notice}} into {{Tfd notice}} and {{Template for merging}} into {{Template for discussion}}.

TfD uses 3 different talkpage notice templates based on the proposal: {{Tfd notice}} for general "for discussion", {{Tfm notice}} for merging, and {{Tfr notice}} for renaming. For consistency with similar templates, and for ease of maintenance down the line, they should be merged into one like what has been done at {{Afd notice}}. See {{Afd notice/testcases}} for how a similar arrangement works. The {{Tfm notice}} and {{Tfr notice}} would become wrappers of {{Tfd notice}} in the same way that {{Merge notice}} is a wrapper for {{Afd notice}}. I've already made a small attempt at this in this diff, which changed the wording of the header and the icon based on the nomination.

The same applies to {{Template for merging}} and {{Template for discussion}}, there's no need to keep two duplicate templates: the former should become a wrapper of the latter. See {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases}} for how it can look: instead of having 4 different templates at AfD, we simply have one which changes with a parameter. Much easier to maintain. Also, "Template for merging" doesn't really exist, there's only "templates for discussion". That would be like calling AfD "Articles for draftification" based on the nomination. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So meta :D
But in seriousness no objection to such a merge. I see one template easier to maintain than four. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along the lines suggested in the nomination, this consolidation makes sense to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup

[edit]

Only useful links here are three: the main article, pool A, and pool B links. The rest are redlinks (WP:EXISTING), repetitive links to main article: 'Qualification' and 'Awards', while teams are WP:OVERLINK. In general, this navbox is not really useful per WP:TG. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎← 13:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polite-afd

[edit]

This template is useless. {{Afd notice}} has improved a ton in the 20 years since this template was created, and now it's arguably more polite than this template. FaviFake (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping if you need me. FaviFake (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Lightly-used template redundant to {{webarchive}} - I don't see the need to stick multiple archives for the same link in. * Pppery * in solidarity 17:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom nailed it... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep. I checked all current uses of the template (about 50 or so) in articles. They all use a single timestamp, which means the unique selling point of the template (multiple archive timestamps) is never used. The template also has a date-format parameter that {{Webarchive}} doesn't have, but we can simply use the ISO format (or the format specified for the page). — Chrisahn (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw that {{webarchive}} also allows multiple URLs. That's useful in some cases, e.g. Dunblane massacre (additional archive on government site), The Batman (film) (site changed a lot), RAND Corporation (archived article series). So as far as I can tell, the differences between {{webarchive}} and {{link with archives}} are:
  • {{link with archives}} only handles links to archive.org, {{webarchive}} has specialized code for many different archive sites
  • {{link with archives}} also displays the link to the original page, but with {{webarchive}} the link has to be added manually
  • with {{link with archives}}, one only needs to specify the URL once, and the archive URLs and the dates are generated from the timestamps
  • if no archive timestamps are given to {{Link with archives}}, the template displays a link to search for the URL on archive.org
  • one can specify link titles with {{webarchive}}, but {{link with archives}} always uses the date as the title
  • {{webarchive}} has a date parameter for each archive URL, {{link with archives}} has a date-format parameter that is applied to all archive timestamps
I think {{link with archives}} might be useful. It should be relatively easy to convert it from Module:Params (to be deleted) to Module:For nowiki. I'll change my !vote to keep. I don't feel strongly about it though, the differences between the templates are not huge, maybe not enough to justify the redundancy.
— Chrisahn (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I converted it to Module:For nowiki, no more Module:Params. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{webarchive}} per nom. The variadic functionality can be added to the target module. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 04:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chemical structure

[edit]

Barely used and way overly complicated. Simply insert the image using standard image syntax... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. The purpose of the template is to generate the image syntax without having to dive through Commons or fiddle with finding a page that has the relevant image. It doesn't solve the issue perfectly, but it is better than manually navigating the bulky wiki ecosystem (at least for me).
Barely used is still used and I couldn't get a number for the times it has been substituted (likely not too many times). Also, part of WP:TFD#REASONS #3 is that there is no likelihood of it being used, and I like to think that if it works for me it can work for others.
If the template is over-complicated that could be solvable through editing and a talk page discussion. ⇌ Synpath 00:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Template:Infobox heat event

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox heat event with Template:Infobox weather event.
Should create a new sub-template for weather event that would allow for a heat event. This definitely qualifies as a weather event. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No, they are different. ~2026-38663-27 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are completely different I'd say. Ieditarticles (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close per above, and this shouldn’t really be a discussion. Not to mention the merge text now incorrectly appears on all hurricane/tornado/flood articles which looks unflattering. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is how TFM discussions work... And his shouldn’t really be a discussion? I get that you have a different opinion, but heat events ARE a type of whether event. Saying that this shouldn't even be discussed is absurd. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Heat isn't just about weather... it can refer to any type of heat. But generally saying, i still oppose the merge XxNick118xX (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close
@MarioProtIV Which WP:SK criterion does this discussion meet, in your opinion? FaviFake (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are different. Sheldonville (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - theres no good reason to actually merge this ZonResearcher (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose and speedy close per everyone else's replies here ArcherAndVance (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I see no reason why heat events should be treated differently than, say, storms or other large scale weather events. As proposed, a sub-template would need to be created, but that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. Renerpho (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is something that I oppose, but not on the grounds that others would say about how "these two are different". When I initially built {{Infobox weather event}}, it was made to cater to tropical cyclones which had an incredibly out-of-date infobox format. This scope expanded to other events that cyclones had a similarity to, i.e. practically anything that involves the fast movement of wind. The reasoning for this is because there's a lot of similarities in how these events play out: a weather system forms, it does something, it dissipates. We also have a bunch of different "authoritative" sources whose info would usually fit in the infobox, hence why it's built to be modular. A few years back, heat index labels got added onto Module:Storm categories, which this template uses, so it implies that the weather event infobox should also cover heatwaves. However, I've never been a fan of having heat indexes (nor solar storms?) be included in the scope of that module, nor this infobox. I don't think heat events should be under the scope of this infobox (despite its name) as it greatly increases the complexity and scope of the infobox, and we should ideally keep it split from {{Infobox heat event}}. No prejudice, of course, to having both templates actively maintained as part of WPWX. Chlod (say hi!) 16:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is also why I thought we shouldn't have {{Infobox weather event}} also replace {{Infobox flood}}, back when it existed, because floods aren't normally something that have "max winds" or similar). Chlod (say hi!) 16:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But the weather consists of more than just wind. There's temperature, too. If infobox weather event is only supposed to cover storms then it is very badly named. Renerpho (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see a reason why heat events can't be added to {{Infobox weather event}}. // Kakan spelar (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I heavily disagree about it being merged as severe weather and heat are 2 different phenomena as a whole. XxNick118xX (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also disagree. ~2026-38700-01 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know heat is a part of weather as I have been watching the weather around the world for a long time by now and I can say that this wouldn't be a good idea. Even though heat waves are a part of weather they are very different to other types of weather. This would be like merging the winter storm infobox with the heat event infobox because they are both weather. Hurricane Jacob (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This TFD has shown that we have to ask ourselves the question, what fields would we want the infobox heat event to cover that the infobox weather doesn't already or can't be easily manipulated to cover? I would imagine that the infobox would cover stuff like the duration of the heatwave/hot weather/drought, areas impacted, deaths and damages attributed to the heat. When I look at how the heat event infobox is deployed at the moment, the only additional parameters I am seeing are highest_temp_c, highest_temp_location, and highest_temp_date. As a result, I don't see why the infobox couldn't be merged, assuming those parameters were added on.Jason Rees (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Heat waves are indeed a type of weather event. It would be easier to maintain these templates if we merged them. FaviFake (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yall please stop trying to merge stuff into this infobox, its incredibly annoying to have the "‹ The template Infobox weather event is being considered for merging. ›" text pop up over every. single. infobox. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is not relevant to the discussion, you have a general concern with how notices about discussions are displayed. Take that concern up in a more appropriate venue, not here. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then where do I go? Because its hella annoying. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would try Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. // Kakan spelar (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Jacob, Sheldonville, ZonResearcher, XxNick118xX, MarioProtIV, and ArcherAndVance: Note for all those opposing this by saying that a heat wave is not a form of weather... I would point to the Wikipedia article for Heat wave (which is indisputably the same as a heat event) which states in the first sentence: A heat wave or heatwave, sometimes described as extreme heat, is a period of abnormally hot weather (emphasis added). SO this idea that a heat event is completely different from a weather event simply holds no water at all. Now if your opinion is that for some reason it is better to keep the template separate, that is totally valid and I would love to hear more as to why they should be separate. I'm open to being convinced on that. But saying that they are completely different things and that this TFD should be speedy close[d] because you don't think heat and weather are related makes no sense at all. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i dont usually come to reply to stuff like these, but where did i say heat waves weren’t a weather event? please don’t mention me because i never said this at all :u ZonResearcher (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ZonResearcher: Apologies. I did NOT mean to put words in your mouth. Multiple people HAVE said that weather and heat are unrelated. I (incorrectly) interpreted your !vote above of theres no good reason to actually merge this to mean that you were agreeing with the previous comments that weather and heat were completely different. Apologies if it seemed like I was trying to put words in your mouth. Not my intent. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
since when did i ever say heat was never weather... what i mainly said was... i opposed the merge due to the fact they are entirely different things and like one person that said something in here: The infobox was originally made for "tropical cyclones" and not heat so there for... actually put your time into reading it before you actually make assumption XxNick118xX (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
dude i literally changed my vote already 🥀 rowanthey/them•contribs 20:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "Oppose I know heat is a part of weather as I have been watching the weather around the world for a long time by now and I can say that this wouldn't be a good idea. Even though heat waves are a part of weather they are very different to other types of weather. This would be like merging the winter storm infobox with the heat event infobox because they are both weather." I didn't say "Heat waves aren't a part of weather" Also adding heat waves into the weather event infobox would be like combining heat and cold. I know heat and cold are parts of weather but they are different from each other. Hurricane Jacob (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please add close template! ~2026-40284-96 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because heat events are types of weather events, an infobox for heat events can belong in an infobox for weather events. I don't see how merging these two would cause substantial problems. BlueForce87 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Template:United States squad 1986 Goodwill Games

[edit]

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

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

June 18

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    that seems like a stronger argument for updating the template

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

  • How is it "extremely specific"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone can watch the templates like they can articles

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

so any edit wouldn't be "undetected"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording used in articles without prose templates can be problematic

Not unique to templates. We do not create prose templates whenever some editors occasionally write poor prose. Again: by that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Οἶδα (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see the validity of removing these templates. The use of both the Rotten Tomatoes and Metcritic templates helps to ensure consistency across the films detailed on Wikipedia.
Such consistency/uniformity across Wikipedia should be sought for as it also ensures parity - one film is not treated as more deserving of more detail than another film in this regard, as all films feature the average of opinion expressed on the same two external film review sites.
In turn, that also helps to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia for treating all films equally in that regard. ~2026-35740-30 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh...why are you convinced that templated text ensures "parity" between articles? Whether a film article uses one sentence or another to present the same data Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic does not mean either film is being treated as more or less "deserving" than the other. You are allowed to present information with different wording. One review aggregator prose template will never change that fact. Equal treatment (read: parity) between articles is the result of us applying the same content policies and sourcing standards to all articles. It does not come from us forcing identical wording across thousands of articles. Οἶδα (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given all the comments regarding recommending substitution, is it at all possible to force it to always be substituted, and if so, would that solution be desirable or not? Assuming this isn't possible/preferable, I would delete the template alongside auto-substitution upon deletion. GooseTheGreat (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. See WP:SUBSTMUST, {{require substitution}}, and {{Format ISBN}} (accidental transclusions automatically substituted by a bot). –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a valid reason for removing these templates. They provide a convenient and consistent way to present commonly repeated Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic information, rather than requiring editors to retype substantially the same prose across many film articles. Concerns about wording, overuse, or replacing existing prose can be addressed through documentation, article-by-article consensus, or discouraging blanket use; deletion seems disproportionate. A previous RfC discouraging use is not the same thing as consensus to delete, and keeping the templates preserves a useful optional tool for editors who find them helpful. Avocadoes (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying you find the template convenient (WP:USEFUL). That does not address why the text needs to remain hidden behind a template rather than substituted, and thus exempted from the basic principles of WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Οἶδα and notwally's arguments. I don't feel that consistency between film articles is more important than having the text easily editable by anyone who wishes to improve the article or change the flow to read better. This is the article body we're talking about, after all, not parameters in the infobox. Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it as it is - I think it serves a clear function - and I think it would be unconstructive to remove it. TheMovieGuy (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. Whether you personally like the template does not address the concerns raised under WP:TG. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. This template, when used properly with wikidata, saves a lot of time and minor edits when a RT or MC score adjusts.
Filmforme (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for using {{RT data}} and {{Cite RT}}/{{Cite MC}}. Updating scores via Wikidata does not require storing article prose in a template. {{RT data}} can be used in any text. There's no Metacritic equivalent to {{RT data}} either way. That must be updated manually. And the same few values are updated in the same way whether the text is templated or not. So that doesn't really save time. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is needed in articles. Now articles about films look weird. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL+WP:LOOKSGOOD. That does not address why the text needs to be stored in a template rather than substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it serves a clear & precise function for the reader. Do not remove it. Valueyou
Another WP:USEFUL argument. Οἶδα (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to presumption against storing article text. It seems the benefits can be retained through templating it out as a widget or something rather than as prose. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this is being listed now as 'Keep' and 'No Consensus' then the awkward Talk page notification banners ought to be removed as well, for example, as it still appears on Killers of the Flower Moon. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This TfD hasn't closed yet. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! Statistics is a fickle field and more often than not I as a mathematician register misleading formulations, especially since RT and MC use categorically different statistical methods. These templates offer participation for editors without deeper knowledge into statistics and their culprits. We in deWiki therefore have followed your procedure for our own handling of this aspect. --Eiragorn (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why substituting the templates or hard-coding the numbers would adversely impact your ability to do this? Nobody's talking about removing RT or MC scores. DonIago (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From my professional experience a lack of statistical understanding is very widespread. When the text becomes editable again (e.g. by substitution) it opens the door wide for misleading wordings. The status quo may not be perfect but is at least statistically sound. --Eiragorn (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The templates as they stand allow for editors to insert numbers without any regard for what RT/MC actually say, so I don't see how this is a valid argument with regard to these specific templates? DonIago (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved my point. Statistics is not numbers but what they mean. And to convey this correctly one has to word carefully. --Eiragorn (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might want to read elsewhere in this TfD, where it seems clear that there are significant issues with at least the current wording of the template. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see that but it's still substantially better than most I encounter "in the wild". And this is yet another reason to keep: the text inside the template can be improved for all articles at once while deleting/subst-ing would solidify the imperfect status quo. And since the majority also among WP editors does not have deeper statistic knowledge these "burned in" wordings would deteriorate even further over time. --Eiragorn (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kind of indifferent, but I do think this template would be significantly more useful if it somehow automated updating RT scores and wasn't just a prose formula... I guess that could be interpreted as a weak delete. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} and associated templates were supposed to address automated updating of Rotten Tomatoes scores, but I cannot say how well that actually worked in practice, those templates always seemed massively overcomplicated to me, and in practice updates seemed to be too slow and some editors would overwrite them and update manually instead. But that is separate from this template and tangential to this discussion. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @~2026-20754-35 @Locke Cole I think User:RottenBot possibly provided this feature, they did with {{RT data}}, but it looks like the last edits were 2021. –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TG and Οἶδα. A template shouldn’t be used to force standardised, formulaic text into articles, and it’s not as if the insistence as it is by some film editors on pushing identical wording into every article enhances the output of our project ("…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike….") Further, the terminology used within the template is contestable and yet by having it locked within the template it becomes almost impossible to challenge; as SMcCandlish has oft commented, "universal acclaim" is WP:PUFFERY that ought to be deprecated site-wide as unencyclopaedic - as a literal statement it is of course impossible to prove or cite, and Metacritic’s use of this term for scores of just 81% or higher is self-evidently absurd. The template confounds this issue by using the sloppy term "indicating" in editorial voice, implying that it’s the article’s editors making this conclusion, when other phraseology might be more appropriate, such as "which according to Metacritic represents…". When I have introduced such changes into the odd article it’s always reverted on the grounds that there is somehow consensus for reciting the same formulaic text in every single film or TV article. That isn’t how WP is supposed to work. Indeed, it’s only the scores from RT and MC that represent actual data - are editors and readers not able to draw their own conclusions from a score of 90% and not have wording generated by a formula, which adds no new information or value for the reader, forced by rote into every article? MapReader (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we're on the same page anyway, but in case other editors see this before expressing their views...I feel I should be clear that I never wanted to be the one to bring this to TfD; I don't have a lot of experience with these, and I don't trust myself to word arguments about these sorts of things well. The tipping point for me was when I substituted the template on a few articles, figuring that would be seen as a reasonable compromise and true to the spirit of the closing comments of the RfC, only to have my substitution reverted. When there are editors who won't even allow other editors to depart from the template, there seems to be a significant problem that needs to be discussed. It's now bothering me that a number of the "Keep" responses above haven't even opined on the question of substituting the templates, instead treating this as a binary "keep" or "delete" scenario, even when my opening message was very clear that other options were available and might be worthy of consideration. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"…received widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike…." isn't included in the prose templates so that's misleading, one of the benefits of the templates is avoiding mention of audience's which goes against WP:UGC as had to remove when templates not used, e.g. . "Universal acclaim" has been discussed before. e.g. here at WP:FILM where no consensus for removing that so please WP:DROPTHESTICK, the exact same wording including "indicating" is used regularly regardless of template so not a linked issue to these templates, it's only quoted from Metacritic and not said in WP voice, not for us to judge whether Metacritic is "absurd". Please focus on points related to the prose templates in this discussion. Indagate (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the 'acclaim' wording is to illustrate a point and not in itself at issue. I'm not aware that there is any consensus about having to use the same formulaic wording in every article, despite your long history of reverting any departures from it, and the issue with the template is that it hard-wires this into articles contrary to WP:TG. That there hasn't previously been consensus to remove misleading PUFF terminology such as "universal acclaim" does not prevent the matter being raised again, as clearly it is pertinent. The word "indicating" inside the template (or when used otherwise) is very clearly in editorial voice since it is never placed in quotation marks. MapReader (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    deletion of the template introduces far more issues than it solves

    Such as...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    likely be more examples but not easy to find

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

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

    "shouldn't be edited"? Huh? That is the very point under discussion here and the source of all this disagreement. Why "shouldn't" the prose be edited? That's just begging the question, Indagate. Again, per the MoS: "There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required." If multiple formulations are acceptable under MOS, which they explicitly are, then there is no basis for treating one particular wording as fixed boilerplate that ought to be protected from normal article-level editing. Because, again, no consensus has determined the template wording itself is uniquely preferred or superior. And if it's "boilerplate" then that also applies to just about an endless amount of article text across Wikipedia that could be templated on the same basis. But the perceived convenience of using a template to deal with such repetition is not sufficient reason to hide article text behind a template. Nor is the notion that you have "not seen an actual reason to change the text". Article text doesn't require evidence of a need for future edits to justify its continued existence at the article level. Οἶδα (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my past thoughts on this from previous discussions. At the very least, these need to be substitute only templates. The vast majority of the "keep" comments (not all but most) to me just boil down to "I like how this is used on film pages", which doesn't seem like that strong of support for keeping them. The prose should be easily editable for any editor on any page that uses it to make adjustments, not locked behind a template. I prefer outright deletion, but at the very least, subst'ing them will help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or alternatively modify to remove the prose element. These templates include useful data (percentage positive reviews, number of reviews—important for contextualising the percentage—and average rating) with more structure than {{RT data}} This gives a reader helpful encyclopaedic information about how the film was received by critics. But there's no reason they need to be presented as prose, and I think the consensus summary should be added intentionally and manually where it is actually informative, rather than mechanically and universally. Compare {{Music ratings}}, which uses a more structured box-score format. I think shifting this template to a box-score format (or replacing it) would preserve what is valuable while addressing the reasonable concerns about the prose. For the same reason, I'm against subst-ing it. Boilerplate prose is terrible; boilerplate prose that can incrementally drift from the boilerplate is way worse. Polonius (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please can you all stop messing with wikipedia - the rotten tomatoes section is directly useful for quickly assessing a movie's reception and changing the template is unnecessary - deeply dislike the new ways rotton tomoatoes is being written ~2026-36696-89 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments raised above, I think it's a useful tool for editors and beneficial for readers. If the prose element is a specific concern, then fine with modifying as well. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That the prose element is the concern is the reason they need to be deleted. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USEFUL. Again, this isn't {{RT data}}. The prose element is entire point of contention here. Please familiarise yourself with the TfD you are participating in. Because modifying doesn't solve anything. Οἶδα (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Οἶδα: Your participation in this discussion is coming very close to the line of WP:BLUDGEONING (in my personal opinion the line is very far behind you), please don't bludgeon the process. Nevermore27 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence why I indicated that I was only further responding below because I was specifically invoked and misrepresented. Otherwise, I'm done. I am now only responding because you specifically pinged me back here and lodged an accusation: This TfD is about whether article prose belongs in templates, not whether the templates are useful. Your original comment "If the prose element is a specific concern" suggested you fundamentally did not even understand what this TfD is about. So yeah, I'm going to respond to that. Unfortunately you chose to charge me with crimes instead of actually respond to what I wrote. Not responding further here, lest I be accused of further crimes by editors who would rather discuss my participation than the substance of the matter. Goodbye. Οἶδα (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Crimes" please get down off the cross you put yourself on. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you Nevermore27. Glad somebody spoke up about it. ~2026-40232-80 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you personally find a template limiting your options, don't use it. It's not an argument to delete it for everyone.Beaumain (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about individual decision. That would be an argument to keep an auto-substitution template. The argument to delete it for everyone is that storing article prose in a template is inconsistent with WP:TG and there is no strong consensus for these exceptions. if you don't like it don't use it. does not address that issue. And the specific text that the template produces and then hides rather than including it directly in articles, thus making it uneditable, is decided upon at the template level. Not locally at the article that an individual editor made the decision to add it to. Unless we're somehow now arguing that editors specifically chose the template because they prefer its wording to be centrally controlled. That would be... far fetched. Most editors add it because they find it a convenient way to add these aggregates to articles. Not because they've reached consensus that storing article text in these templates is clearly justified. It's only about convenience. And that convenience remains the same if the template were auto-substituted. Οἶδα (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors add it because they find it convenient, it only makes a stronger point for Keep to me. Beaumain (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly the same for me. The prohibition on "useful" as defining worthiness for inclusion is for content, not tools. The entire point of templates is stated as "to help maintain consistent formatting and aid navigation between articles" - i.e. they are intended to be useful. The movie ratings template does exactly that. Templates are designed to be of a wide-ranging, uniform system across Wikipedia. If it was an infobox or stub this wouldn't be an issue and I guess it could be replaced by a simple chart type graphic with 4 boxes for review count, percent score, average rating, and space for 1 sentence of consensus summary - but I'm totally fine with it being 2 sentences with consistent formatting across every movie article instead. ~2026-37134-63 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I'm sympathetic to arguments that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content" from WP:TG, I really don't think this text is text that needs editing. The consistency is a net benefit to readers and at worst a minor drawback to authors. Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it. I've seen some interesting arguments from Οἶδα about (1) the wording ("universal acclaim") or contents (including average critic rating) and (2) substitution as an alternative. While I understand that we as editors want to have more freedom (especially when the template doesn't match our preferences), I think most readers actually prefer consistency over that. Substitution would make it harder to be consistent, and also make it harder to change the articles if RT/Metacritic do make broad changes. Arcinati (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding because you've specifically invoked me and misrepresented my points as being largely about "universal acclaim" or including the average rating:

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

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

    The consistency is a net benefit to readers

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

    Many frequent authors of film pages enjoy using it.

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

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

    As I stated above: this supposed maintenance "benefit" based on hypothetical future changes is WP:SPECULATION any way you cut it. Content added to articles remains stable until it is not. If RT changes its features, that creates maintenance work at the article level like any other significant change. That is something that will have to be dealt with when or if it occurs. Not speculated about and used as a rationale for templating prose in articles. By that logic, vast portions of article text could be templated. Wikipedia already handles large-scale updates to sourced content without templating article prose. The difference is that those fixes are actually seen at the article level... you know... where the text is actually seen by readers and watched by editors. Οἶδα (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because these are useful templates and obviously can be used to quickly summarize the prose and maintain the consistency among articles. I see no reason to delete them. M. Billoo 17:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was it an acceptable use of a template to standardise the text used in multiple articles? MapReader (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't really know about this discussion but I think it would be good to decide something soon as the current appearance in articles means loads of them have this huge indentation, a big line and some little text, interrupting the article. I always like seeing the reception in percentage form, I'm not sure the website description is needed. ButterCashier (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is precisely that interruption in thousands of articles that drives all the participation in TfDs like this one. This is especially true when the template appears in the running text of articles, resulting in these huge indentations you mentioned. Generally, I have found TfDs to be the most widely and aggressively advertised discussion on Wikipedia. The sheer visibility of that interruption ends up attracting participants who often have little understanding of the underlying policy questions. They are mainrly reacting to the notice they've been bombarded with while reading any one of the thousands of articles using it. The discussion then gets filled with confused statements or comments that effectively amount to saying the template is useful, convenient, familiar, or performs some function (of course it does). NO PLEASE DON'T REMOVE IT. I LIKE IT. IT'S USEFUL. IT LOOKS GOOD. IT DOES [FUNCTION]. I USE IT. OTHER PEOPLE USE IT. IT SAVES TIME. I SEE NO REASON TO DELETE. KEEP. *reply*. *exit discussion*. Meanwhile the actual questions under discussion receive comparatively less attention from those participants. I don't fault anyone for participating, but it objectively makes it much harder to achieve consensus on the specific policy issues raised when most participation is only loosely connected to that. The way the discussion is advertised encourages more responses to the template's visibility and familiarity than about its compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In part due to the comments expressed in the message immediately above this one, and in part due to having received an email from another editor I respect expressing similar concerrns, I've submitted a request that this TfD be closed. DonIago (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close and keep. No-one is obliged to use them, they are not complicated, save editor time and promote consistency. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]
    There seems to be an implicit pressure to use them when, when I substitute them on a handful of articles that I was already watching (i.e. I was not on a fishing trip), I'm reverted and the templates are reinserted. If the templates are optional and no-one is obliged to use them, then I don't see why they should ever be taking precedence over equivalent (in that I literally just substitituted them) prose. Also, your comment doesn't seem to address why auto-substitution isn't a reasonable alternative. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. If an editor decides to substitute the template at an article they frequent, they shouldn't be knee-jerk reverted, especially by an editor with little to no contributions at that article. There are various comments above by both sides that these templates are optional and serve primarily as convenience. Let's continue to treat them that way. There's more than one way to write the prose. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverse could be argued too though (I'm not), if the same text as the prose templates at the point in time is used, then the prose could be replaced with the template by a frequent editor of the article. That principle goes against MOS:VAR, retaining established style, in this case translcuding or not the template. Indagate (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably arguable whether the use of these templates or not qualifies as a style choice. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of the template {{Metacritic film prose}} is absolutely a style choice. It is the preferred style of literally one specific editor (since banned), who changed it without discussion in April 2021 [(diff)]. It did not copy the style of text frequently used in Wikipedia film articles before that point. It was not based on any discussion Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators or consensus. Allegedly from what I was eventually able to find out it apparently follows the style of prose it follows the style of how Metacritic was use on Wikipedia music articles. (As they are both review aggregators I would have preferred if Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic prose had been written to be more consistent with each other.) So is there any chance of this becoming a substitution template this time or has the discussion died again? -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of definition, the principle of whether it's established seems fairer and better for avoiding edit wars etc than a frequent editor being able to add or remove it, especially as can easily have two frequent editors who disagree. Indagate (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst-only per my previous !votes. Izno (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my comments in the previous three discussons. * Pppery * in solidarity 00:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Require substitution as a compromise of the comments above and to bring use more in line with existing guidelines. Additionally, the substituted output should go from On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 100% of 900 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 10/10. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great." to On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, {{Rotten Tomatoes data|score}} of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|count}} critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of {{Rotten Tomatoes data|average}}. The website's consensus reads: "Perfect: The Movie is great." which will I think address some of the concerns or maybe misunderstandings expressed by editors regarding the change. –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC) withdrawn/replaced 06:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion: I just noticed there is also relevant discussion from 2021 by WikiProject Film about automatically updating these values. It really seems like the numbers stored and updated off-project would be a great use for Wikidata (maybe with assistance from WP:WPWD). Nardog suggested almost this same format (see context) that I suggested just above. –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete the |consensus= parameter as a compromise of the comments here. Keep per Sdkb but remove the fourth parameter per the problems noted by The JPS and SMcCandlish and others. Encourage editors to omit specifying parameters 1, 2, and 3; encourage instead adding the values to Wikidata and defaulting to the template's fallback auto values. Emphasize in documentation that the use of the template is optional and may be removed by editors. (Eventually there should be a broader discussion of the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes consensus summaries anywhere, not only via a template.) –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC) edited 04:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Require substitution. The prose in these templates are a solid baseline for a Reception section, and in that regard they are incredibly useful. However they should not be a universal standard. Therefore, all current and future uses of these templates should be substituted, and editors should achieve consensus via normal editing as to whether or not to leave the template prose as is or to modify it appropriately for the article context, on a case by case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Οἶδα's arguments are convincing to me, and I do not understand why we should bend the template guidelines in order to force the obfuscation and pointless standardization of perhaps the kind of content that requires the most editorial oversight in articles where they are used. These practices also give a massive weight to whatever is written on these platforms, which I am honestly unsure why anyone would think that is a good idea, because of how clearly problematic the very concept of average ratings and summary of critical reception are, let alone the flawed selection or inclusion criteria they use. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or require substitution. Per previous argument, WP:TG, and that hiding text in templates is an impediment for new editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors. Not everything needs to go by the rules, and imo it makes more logical sense to keep it this way ~2026-35909-87 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't need to be deleted, let us not try to "fix" what is not broken. Munter He (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really don't know why we don't have a side table for these for film but rather a spelled-out sentence. Look, the reason rating side-tables for games and albums exist in the first place is because it would be so awkward and not as simple and concise to present the ratings of reviews in prose form where you'd have to spell it out in several words "Roger Ebert gave the film 3-out-of-four stars", for instance. The prose is where a WP:SUMMARY of why critics thought a piece was bad, good or middling exists, with a simplified presentation of the ratings on the side only complimenting each other.
And on a side note, because I'm not bringing this up on the music WikiProject talk pages because I want to get this out there to people that don't work in them, it is so awkward to see those "Accolade" sections with a "select" table of "best" rankings, only for the prose to list out far more of them, like on GNX. The obvious instinct is to either get of the rid of the tables entirely (because it's all already regurgitated in the prose) or to put them all in the table. But because these best-of-the-year lists from The A.V. Club, Billboard, and the fricking Associated Press and Pitchfork were called "clickbait" by a community that doesn't know what the word means and doesn't know how these year-end lists are put together (the editors and writers of the source, not the publisher of the source, determines the rankings, so they're not "self sourced", contributor I'm not going to name), and because they honestly think that a ranking of the best of a whole fricking 12 months is the same as a review rating that can either be 8/10, 4/10 or 6/10 or some equivalent, they decided that keeping these tables that make up the entire screen with a limit of ten was a logical solution. As a person who summarizes reception all the time, I would prefer either prohibiting the tables entirely or making a side-template for them that makes up 10% of the screen to reduce article space. But I'm only bringing all of this up to show how little logic some of our contributors, even experienced ones, have. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 18:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not need tables, we need WP:PROSE, it is a fundamental principle of this encyclopedia. Not only that the long standing consensus of Project Film was against using such side tables, so much so that template was deleted twice. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never knew it was a template, but it is nice to see movies using this same format without looking different every time.
Mtjaws (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't fully formed an opinion yet, but I will say that I find the WP:TG arguments to be profoundly unconvincing. Many editors are citing that guideline to basically imply that the existence of text in the template automatically means the template should be deleted. The guideline (not a policy) states Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. If it was a total prohibition, the text of the guideline would read "should never be used", not "should not normally". Whether or not this is a reasonable exception to the advice of the guideline is a legitimate dispute, but I don't see a consensus here as to whether or not this template fulfills that. Katzrockso (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Οἶδα and also because it privileges two websites in the reception section when both provide very little valuable information or replace with a tabular template which gives merely the figures. Str1977 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address any virtues that the templates have over straight prose (that could, for instance, read exactly the same way as the templated text), much less why the templates can't be substituted. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean quantifying, which is what RT and MC scores do, and quantifying critical opinions via some opaque distillation of the value judgement of each review is simply pseudoscience. Walkersam (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rotten Tomatoes is an effective website, but Wikipedia editors have turned it into something that it is not: a diagnostic tool. The less emphasis on RT's percentage the better, particularly in movies that predate the website. The RT templates exacerbate the problem by bloating the copy and giving the website undue weight. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In your humble opinion. I use this. A lot of people use this. Keep it as is. You wanna add something to it fine. But don’t delete it because you think there is something or some way better to present this data. ~2026-37724-88 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TG. If this automatically pulled up-to-date data I could see an argument for it, but as is it just facilitates data being out of date by complicating editing it. Having a particular sentence formatted exactly the same in every movie article should be a non-goal of WP (that's what infoboxes are for), and we should not be encouraging the status quo of relying on RT/MC standards for judging the notability and "score" of prose reviews. In 100% of cases pull quotes from notable reviews are more useful than these arbitrary "scientific" review scores. Walkersam (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed (substituted) #NewOutput (above) and a bot like RottenBot could be a way to keep the prose up to date. –takeawaybox 🥡 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from compelling arguments made by Οἶδα and what was raised by Walkersam just above me, I specifically want to address the comment from Katzrockso as a reason to delete. While their point about the language "normally" is I think a good one, I think the valid counter is the widespread use of these templates (despite the discouragement to do so as a result of the March RfC and editors attempts to move away from them as noted in this discussion) itself is a normalization of the use of text in templates - for example, RT alone is used in 6,700 pages (per its template). With the volume of votes and comments in favor of keeping based solely on the usefulness of the template, the wide adoption of the template, or the user's preference to use it without regard to policy, guidelines, or even the points being discussed, I'm concerned any middle ground will simply have us back here for the same issues in six weeks time, or that a substitution will simply result in gradual changes until we reach critical mass again Darquis (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this comment by ~2026-35909-87 sums it up best: "i dont see the point of having to rectify tons of articles that could be affected over a deleted prose that was specifically designed to make writing more professional and easier for the editors." When you have millions of articles, some of them on similar topics are going to have similar prose. As Indagate says above, "I haven't seen an actual reason for different wording in any specific article." That's just the nature of having a comprehensive encyclopedia with a limited number of volunteers. I don't want to spend my time trying to come up with new ways to phrase "this got a 78 on rotten tomatoes", and if you can come up with a brilliant new way of saying that, god bless you and go ahead and don't use the template. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just randomly came back and saw a comment under my keep vote, but I was not notified. Just took a quick look and basically what I understand is that the nominator and the "delete" supporters are enforcing a line from WP:TG, and calling out WP:ATA. And thus I am confused from where should I begin with, because I consider that each of my defence argument would have a counter. For now, I am still supporting the keep and opposing the delete.
  • I believe H:TQG says, "A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. It usually contains repetitive material that may need to show up on multiple articles or pages, often with customizable input. [...] Among other things, templates are used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way, to add boilerplate messages, and to create navigational boxes." It nowhere says to have non-acceptable use of a template to standardise the text used in multiple articles. Thus the comment under my vote should not be the concern here because many templates have been used for consistency since as early as possible.
  • It may be correct that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." as per WP:TG. But, isn't the article text written in an encyclopedic style of language? At the Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose, it is obviously by name a "Rotten Tomatoes prose" and definitely by its use itself is also a "Rotten Tomatoes prose". So it is not an article text in wikivoice, but an externally quoted text complying WP:INTEXT.
  • Also, it is not only a prose, but a logic gate template, which can categorize the films by its rating, and help in identifying the critical reception. It is definitely not a WP:NPOV or WP:OR violation as well.
  • Manually copy-paste cannot always replicate. In the era where we witness AI-generated articles by various editors, it would create an unnecessary burden over page patrollers to check the film's reception when there would be wikivoice statements violating WP:SYNTH as well. Beside RT or Metacritic, there can be any other reference as well that can also be used with INTEXT ATTRIB to identify film reception overall and avoid biased statements. Additional wordings can still be used outside the template when properly sourced.
  • RT or Metacritic are still critical reception only, while audience reception can be anything from fans or haters or xyz, just as similar as above WP:ATA concerns, with vague or extreme statements. We witnessed it with Snow White (2025) review bombing at the IMDb as well. And that is why we do not input fan reviews, but only critical and reputable reviews.
  • I was one of those who still supported the use of averageRating when RT itself stopped displaying on its main page but continued using it in its source code. Since I was able to verify and prove it at that time as well, I considered it not a WP:V violation back then, thus complying WP:ONUS as well. But that is still only an optional parameter and we are only looking for compulsory parameters like the number of critics and the %age of approval as quoted by RT and are not in wikivoice. Though it is still visible for Barbie (2023) at its RT source code. 
    "criticsScore":{"averageRating":"8.00"
In short, these templates are two of the quality control tools and are being used in thousands of articles. Deletion is not suitable option because it would still create a manual or automated bot job to remove it from pages. Similarly, substitution or replacement choices can vary from editor to editor and from article to article, MOS:VAR definitely forbids others from changing if there is one consistent formatting within a set of articles significantly edited by any reputable editor. Similar can be the defence arguments for MetaCritic as well. There can still be a counter to my arguments. Thank you! M. Billoo 06:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency - besides, deleting this from thousands of pages would be useless spam considering the text will end up almost the same everywhere.. NotAGenious (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Avocadoes, Harmenator, Tbhotch, Beaumain, and others. I think uprooting this template from thousands of articles is more trouble than it's worth. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or subst. Article text shouldn't be in templates. Simple as. That editors can change the meaning of all articles by editing the template and not having to go through each article individually is bad. You should not be able to change an article without looking at the article text in it. An editor made the conscious decision to add the language displayed by the template in the article, not a choice to use the template regardless of which wording it might use. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these optional templates are genuinely useful. They save me and other editors time by providing quick, clean, and consistent RT/MC summaries (especially for new or low-traffic film articles) and allow easy updates if the sites change their data presentation. WP:TG says "normally," so this is a reasonable exception. The RfC didn't call for deletion, and MOS:VAR goes both ways. Forcing substitution or deletion would create far more work for minimal benefit. Keep both. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful templates, provides consistency, saves time. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skdb in the first RT discussion template TfD. The arguments to delete are unconvincing as well: pointing to WP:TG is unconvincing because this is a reasonable exception to that general rule: templates may make sense to use in cases where useful information is formulated similarly across many articles. Complaints about the wording or presentation, like average of rating reviews, ought to be fixed by editing the template; we ought to respect the consensus-making process instead of removing something that can be fixed (however frustrating it may be and however valid these concerns are). There also might be issues with people substituting the template for existing prose, but that's a behavorial issue that should be treated as such. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 04:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a straight-up policy and usability violation. Prose doesn't go in templates and these templates have been a long-standing violation of this. The only possible reason to do this in a template might be if there truly was One And Only Correct Way To Do This, but that's not even close to true in this case. I wrote in the 2022 TFD that "unfortunately the use of a template will encourage certain editors to "fix" articles to one particular wording when actually many wordings would be fine, and some might even be better based on context", and, well, that absolutely came true. We shouldn't dismiss the usability violation either. As a reminder, new editors join all the time, and the process of editing text vs. what's displayed should be intuitive. Going to edit an article and being unable to find the text you just saw, because it's "hiding" in a template, is pointlessly unintuitive, and for what? Nothing. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating myself... Honestly, I'd be okay with the templates being substituted as a way of allowing editors who feel the templates are an easier way to insert reasonable text to do so while addressing the concerns of those who feel dynamic templates that insert prose shouldn't be in articles. And I probably wouldn't have felt forced to escalate them to TfD in any case if my own instances of substituting them after the fact (with the exact same prose they insert, for that matter) hadn't been reverted. DonIago (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AI-Generated summaries are very problematic. They devolve a lot of editorial responsibility without any human evaluation of weight or accuracy. The JPStalk to me 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after substituting all instances. In cases where the template replaced earlier text, it would be preferable to revert to that earlier text but I don't see how to handle that. If a bot makes the substitutions, need an edit summary to indicate a prose check is necessary. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for pretty much all the reasons given above. In short: It produces nonsensical, misleading, puffery claims like "universal acclaim" when a large portion of the reviews were negative and "generally favo[u]rable reviews" when nearly half were negative; this is categorically against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Non-trivial article body text (especially any that may involve judgement or inspire dispute) never belongs in templates, per WP:TG. AI-generated review summaries are problematic (not reliable). Many of these statistics are based on too-small sample sizes, even if we did away with the ridiculous wording and just used numbers; whether the numbers are a useful metric is something to determine on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on the article's talk page. We have no control over how these numbers are generated and we already do know the methodology changes, so these templates result in data being out-of-date in a hardcoded manner that non-expert editors can't do anything about (and probably won't be aware of the need in the first place). The "keep" arguments almost all appear to be covered at WP:AADD, while the very few that are not cannot surmount the problems identified by "delete" commenters (and mostly do not even try to address them, even when much sense can be made of those "keep" comments). "Consistency" is not a principle that WP applies to article text across articles and categories, only within one article, and even then only in certain ways (those covered by WP:MOS in various places, and this material is not). Arguments that amount to "I like it" and "I think it's useful", and "it's already used a lot", and "it's convenient", and "it'd take a lot of work to fix/undo", and "we've been using it for a long time", and so forth are all invalid pseudo-rationales (AADD). Previous RfCs failing to come to a consensus has zero implications for this one coming to a consensus, and that consensus has to be determined on the basis of policy-strength of arguments, not the heat of the voices or the number of "me-toos" that don't provide a Wikipedia-valid rationale. This is not a populist rally and is not a head-count vote.
    If outright deletion is not the result, then second choice: updating the template's language on RT's average-rating update, plus automatic/required substitution, as Lapadite, Οἶδα, and others suggested as an alternative. PS: Reidgreg's methodological suggestions immediately above are sensible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep both, encourage use, do not substitute. I'm disappointed to see yet another attempt to delete these helpful templates. Copying my comment from last time: (just update "two" to "three"):

    This RfC is essentially a rehashing of the two prior TfDs hoping for a different result. My reasoning is largely unchanged, so I will copy the bulk of what I previously wrote (with minor tweaks):

    First, the existence of this template does not force any particular wording, as its use is optional, so editors are free to ignore it. Second, standardization is often good. Readers become accustomed to certain aspects of Wikipedia style over time, and when articles are similar, it makes it easier to navigate unfamiliar pages because they know what to look for. Third, templating allows for optimization. When a format is applied over hundreds of pages, it becomes worthwhile to refine small details like whether to use % or "percent" that probably would never have been considered at the level of an individual page. It's particularly advantageous for sensitive areas like critical reception, as it helps us remain neutral—when this template is at an article, it's unlikely to be changed to Film did extremely well at Rotten Tomatoes, where critics gave it a very positive 68% fresh rating. Fourth, removing the template would hamper future improvement efforts. To see what I mean here, look at the example of census data at WikiProject Cities: a long time ago, a bunch of census info was added to city pages, but because it was done via copy-and-paste, rather than templates, updating and improving it turned from a relatively straightforward task into an arduous saga. The same sort of thing could happen here. For instance, it's perfectly plausible that at some point Wikidata will be able to mass-import RT scores on a regular basis. If this template exists [non-substed], plugging those in to the transclusions will be easy. If not, it'll be basically impossible.

    Substing a template like this is an irreversible decision that would hamper future improvements to how we present this information on a mass scale.

    Regarding concerns about the WP:Template namespace guideline, I'd point out first of all that there is plenty of precedent for similar templates with the entire 50+ members of Category:Article shared content templates. Copying my further comment from last time (with minor tweaks):

    Guidelines exist as expressions of underlying principles, not as rigid dogma. In this case, the underlying principle, helpfully articulated in the guideline itself, is that we don't want to make it more difficult to edit the content when it needs to be customized or otherwise adapted to fit the specific circumstances of an article.

    However, in prior discussions those opposed to this template were unable when challenged to name any hypothetical circumstance whatsoever that would require customization. The only issues raised were objections to the template's current wording, which is a reason to propose changes to the wording, not to delete or subst-only the template. (I would also note that, even if there is some circumstance that requires customization this template couldn't handle, the fix is pretty simple — just subst it in that individual instance.)

    Centralizing information that is presented in similar circumstances is the fundamental reason that templates exist on Wikipedia, and the centralized discussion it fosters is core to how our consensus process works. If an editor's potential desire to change the presentation of information out of personal preference (rather than something about the article that prompts a need for customization) was a reason to make templates subst-only, then every template that includes any substantive content would be subst-only. Which would be a disaster, since it'd mean disputes would play out diffusely on thousands of low-visibility pages rather than in a centralized space where they might actually be resolved.

    So foundationally, the underlying principle of the guideline does not apply to this circumstance, making an exception absolutely warranted. Keeping this information templated makes it easier to update scores by facilitating bulk updates via Wikidata, and it centralizes discussion on wording changes, which is exactly what we want in a situation where the circumstances in which information is presented is the same.

    Lastly, I'm going to copy this comment from the 2022 RfC, which at the risk of tooting my own horn I think is rather prescient in hindsight:

    [Several editors] in the keep-but-make-subst-only camp have asked what benefit there could be to keeping transclusions of this, so allow me to present a plausible example. Currently, the Rotten Tomatoes template includes the average critics rating out of 10, a meaningful but distinct number from the Tomatometer score (which is the percentage of reviews which are positive). However, Rotten Tomatoes itself hides the average critic rating, requiring an extra click to get to it. Let's say that they decide in the future to stop reporting it entirely. And let's say that the community decides that given this, we don't want to include it in articles. What happens then? If there's no template, it becomes an arduous slog through every film article on Wikipedia to remove the information. But if some articles have it in template form, it's as easy as making a single edit to the template to stop displaying it. If you dislike that example, you can consider any other possible future change, but the overall principle is the same: having a template allows for refinement and optimization. And it's better to have that in a centralized forum, where it can be given more scrutiny through the wisdom of the crowd, than to have it dispersed over hundreds of individual pages.

    Sdkb talk 05:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said my piece above, but if we're invoking precedent here and mentioning census info, the original effort that inserted census info as normal Wikitext was working as intended, not a bug or mistake. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 28, where an attempt to put census info prose inside a template was deleted, correctly IMO. Basically any use of this technique is a huge usability flaw. Article text needs to live in the article source. That's the proper place for it, that's where users expect to find it. SnowFire (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree - not to mention, ease of use for readers gets brought up early - which is a product of most film (and tv, album, book, other media) having a reception/critical reception section, not specifically the use of these templates (I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where a perplexed user is comforted by the familiar sight of a fresh score) but what is left unsaid is ease of use for new editors, which lies firmly with the text of the article being within the article. Darquis (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The potential for inconsistency without a template enforcing a structure dictated from on high is a feature, not a bug. Article prose should be readily editable in the article itself, not some opaque other place, one of which is actually fully protected and can't be edited. This is annoying for experienced editors, requiring a discussion to change any minor thing, and frustrating and inscrutable to newer editors. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:TG. sjh (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both The argument that the template is optional is moot if the community at large does not perceive it to be optional. We do not need to discuss this as a hypothetical: the template's use in 6700 articles is evidence enough. The argument that issues with the prose can be addressed in the template is a strawman argument. The issue is not with the wording, it is that the exact same prose is pushed to most articles in this category, which is inherently unpleasant to read and inconsistent with quality composition. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Rotten Tomatoes prose but Keep for Metacritic prose. Metacritic summaries are a reliable resource on what critics think of a film, Rotten Tomatoes only does the percentage of positive reviews. I may also recommend a substitute for a prose when it is needed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for both. Fsm83 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for both purely from a consistency standpoint as so many mainstream media articles do actually use these templates (~6,700 for RT from a cursory glance). Tunnelcrawlerwyan (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Drainage basin succession templates

[edit]

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

I've listed them all at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you create an implementation that confirms this is useful first, and then transclude it from those templates, make sure there's no regressions, and only then start a TfD to replace the call sites in the articles?
I never liked the P* and R* names myself, they seem too obfuscated, but that doesn't mean the functionality is bad. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I... did? I made {{drainage}} as a 1-to-1 replacement and plopped it in a few articles to make sure things would work. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked above. For example, the new template should be used within {{PAchelous}} and others, and then we see that it works, and then we can be at ease to ponder the fine details of naming and caller syntax. --Joy (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's.... not how things work? Why would I change the text inside PAchelous when PAchelous itself is the issue? It would be pointless for me to place {{drainage|Achelous}} inside of {{PAchelous}} just to show that they give exactly the same output:
{{PAchelous}} → ‹See Tfd›Achelous→ Ionian Sea
{{drainage|Achelous}} → Achelous→ Ionian Sea
I'm not going to put drainage inside of the other templates to show that the new template works, just so that I can later go and replace the old templates with the new. I'm sorry if I'm still totally misunderstanding what you're going for, but it's not how things are worked at TFD so I guess that's from whence my confusion is coming. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just not used to this method of development where we first make decisions and only then completely verify outcomes. In my mind, this ends up too much of an all-or-nothing experiment, instead of a gradual and safe transition. Obviously, this is all pretty minor and simple and there's only so much that can go wrong with so little code, but the method is still weird to me. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in this particular case I have verified the outcome, but yes, at TFD it is often the case that "we should merge these two templates" is decided first, and then the merge happens. I figured I would show proof of concept because it would be egg on my face if it didn't work. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
General support - Have not read through all the intricacies of this template, but fully support centralizing this and replacing over 1,000 tiny templates with 1 larger, easy to maintain template. Obviously lets make sure all the functionality gets flushed out, but Primefac has a lengthy track record when it comes to template work so I have full faith that they can make this solution work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've used claude.ai to see if Lua can handle the issue that Markussep raised better. The result is at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage (again, this is AI-written). Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is an error in the module. When I tried {{#invoke:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage|chain|Fulda}} (or any other river), I got "Lua error in Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/drainage at line 436: attempt to concatenate field 'Lake Baikal' (a nil value)." It's a nice idea, but I guess it needs good documentation for anluabetes like me. Markussep Talk 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Markussep fixed the bugs. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I need to emphasis this, this was done with AI so if anything from this is used, the data needs to be verified. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, but indeed the output needs to be checked before each P-template is replaced. I think it's not too difficult to add new connections, so I support using this module to replace the P-templates. A maintenance category would be nice. Markussep Talk 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the proposed template works for all current cases, so while I am fine with using a module (which I agree will allow for easier creation of new links) the replacement doesn't have to use the module from the get-go (assuming the replacement proposal is accepted). Primefac (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, delete the R-templates as they are all unused. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but they're not unused (at least the ones I checked, like RLoire, REms, RPo, RAngara), they'll have to be substituted. Markussep Talk 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, those weren't in the unused reports so they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 4/Drainage basin succession templates. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A month later and no additional opposing input, so fully support proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support replacement, this looks like sensible consolidation to me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 300+ river templates starting with "R" appear to have been replaced with something else as part of this as-yet-to-be-concluded TFD, in edits like this. They are appearing at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates, a report of unused pages in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is only vaguely inspired by this TFD; I'm independently following WP:TEMPLATECAT to add categories directly to the page; the fact that the R templates have the category already and I can just subst to get them makes it a lot easier to add them. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Medal templates 2

[edit]

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

Completed discussions

edit

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=1363155798"