Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 21
September 23 >

September 22

edit

Template:Iraqi presidential elections

edit

Propose merging Template:Iraqi presidential elections with Template:Iraqi elections.
Both templates are small. No need to have a separate one for presidental elections. Most of them are red links anyway. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seem to be already discussed here. I'm for the proposal, but I think the matter should be settled first in the linked discussion. If not, this will just be reverted for inconsistency later on. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I wasn't aware of that discussion. That's good to know. TheBritinator (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just delete it and list the elections on Template:Presidents of Iraq; the mess made of the Salvadoran elections template by a similar merge to that proposed shows it isn't a good idea (and why these separate templates existed in the first place). Number 57 16:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not include them on both? It would be odd to have a template about Iraqi elections that does not have the presidential ones (even if they are indirect). TheBritinator (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's giving equivalency between a public election and a vote in parliament. Number 57 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is equivalency between an election of a head of state by a vote of the population and an election of one by a vote of an electoral college. Both are presidential elections, and called as such by sources.--Aréat (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree in cases where an Electoral College has been elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, but not when it is a vote by a parliament elected for the wider purpose of running the country. Number 57 15:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? We've got constitutions, electoral laws and secondary sources calling them presidential election: they fit on a template about their country's elections. The exemples of countries going back and forth from direct to indirect is striking. We've got all the above calling it a presidential election and it's on the template, then suddenly five years later there's still all of them calling it a presidential election, but because it's indirect it vanish from the template. I believe Heads of state and houses of Parliament are noteworthy enough to be on templates when elected, whatever the mean, since the sources do think they are. --Aréat (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, the elections to the presidency and to the houses of parliament should all be included in these sort of templates, regardless of their directness. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as long as these templates only list direct elections they should stay separate. Glide08 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's add these indirect elections then, considering we agree it's better.--Aréat (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't see that much of an issue with the post-merger Salvadoran elections template, the symbols help with navigation just fine. If we must do a merger at all, it shouldn't be redirected to a head of state template - in my opinion the presidential template should be one solely for the individuals serving in the position, and not the elections for the position.
    (For the closer, my vote is a weak keep.) Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 06:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can easily be one box. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RomanConvert

edit

Duplicate of Module:ConvertNumeric#L-215. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biology nav

edit

Hopelessly broad topic for a navbox, with an essentially random inclusion of a handful of articles relevant to the topic, and not even transcluded in all of those articles. Plantdrew (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split, some individual sections (like branches of biology as a research field) could be useful as individual navboxes, but the current one is way too unfocused. It has very generic links such as Scientific theory and Scientific law that would fit better in a scientific method navbox, and very specific links about individual plant and animal systems, meaning it isn't especially helpful for a navigation purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting may look attractive, but "Branches of biology" is already a template. "Research methods in biology" might however work well as a template. The rest is as Plantdrew says, ripe for deletion as hopelessly broad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please stop deleting infoboxes, just cause it’s “broad” or “redundant”! It seems suspicious, really giving off… Heritage Foundation vibes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaijuEditor (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science portalbar

edit

Template not used in article space Plantdrew (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Less than or equal to

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 2. (non-admin closure) / RemoveRedSky [talk] 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Rose Tyler stories

edit

The sheer number of Doctor Who navboxes is a little excessive. See Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. Do we really need a navbox for every subset of character appearances? Shouldn't this be dealt with at the article? --woodensuperman 11:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major character within the series. "There's too much" is the opposite of a reason for deletion. Please try citing a guideline or policy to have a substantial deletion request. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOXCREEP covers the issue. There are NINETEEN navboxes on The Day of the Doctor. --woodensuperman 06:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per NAVBOXCREEP, it details how navboxes can increase the visual size of the article far out of proportion to the importance of the information they provide - for your given example, this is an extremely important topic within its project. It then details how we can use state=collapsed to minimize these templates, which is exactly what your given article does. This is not a reason to delete the relevant content and templates. Is there an exact part of the NAVBOXCREEP essay you'd like to quote? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try the section "Do we really need this template at all" which points out how editors can overestimate the importance of the topic. This seems to be what is happening here, especially as you mention that this is important within the Doctor Who project, but it isn't to the encyclopedia at large. We do not need this many navboxes related to Doctor Who stories, this isn't tardis.wikia.com. --woodensuperman 06:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I mentioned the article The Day of the Doctor, kindly read my posts before assuming you understand what I'm talking about or putting words in my mouth (a common experience). No actual guideline or policy has been cited as to why this template should be deleted, besides one lone article you've pulled from the template, and it helps with nevigation between articles featuring a major character of the series. It "isn't to the encyclopedia at large"? Welcome to 95% of articles on Wikipedia - every article and template is specific to its own project. What a ridiculous argument. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou and Foshan Metro exit table templates

edit

In English wiki, any form of railway station exit table is unacceptable, so these templates are meaningless. Benteds (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the English Wikipedia, there are many instances of acceptable uses of station exit tables, and as stated in your own example (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC) given on User talk:GMB205#Some suggestions about Guangzhou Metro, the editor who made the discussion stated that according the the head-count of !votes, the consensus should've been “No general policy”, and that he was bringing this up only because he was seeing people citing this RfC as a reason for removal. Furthermore, these exit tables provide valuable information about the surrounding area, especially the public transit interchanges. %FJ% (talk | contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconfirmed with 2019 RFC, and the deletion of the exit table is indeed a consensus in the bottom part. What has not reached consensus is the station layout. You mentioned that there are still many cases using exit table. I am only familiar with Beijing Subway, MTR, Taipei Metro and New York Subway, all of which do not use exit table. I would appreciate it if you could provide examples where the exit table is still alive. Benteds (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reason shown above ObbanautYT (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote inline

edit

This mainspace inline quotation template (for <q>...</q> tags) shouldn't be used in articles because html q tags (1) create quotation marks that many browsers do not include in copy-and-paste (e.g., Google Chrome) or Ctrl-F (e.g., Chrome and Firefox), and which search engines like Google do not show in results, and (2) create less simple wiki markup (MOS:MARKUP) compared to simple quotation marks. Use of a tooltip for translation is also less favored than explicit translation per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. Is there some technical reason this was created to solve? Gonnym (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal was to globally standardize the style of inline quotations, in order for them to:
    1. be more consistent in style, as many pages formerly used wrong quotation marks and even italic quotations (deprecated by MOS);
    2. be easily tracked by a maintenance category;
    3. and assure globally-consistent changes in case of eventual MOS updates.
    Commenting just to provide context, feel free to implement eventually-better solutions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The <q> tag can also be styled by userstyles, for example I add a slight green underline: 
    q { text-decoration: underline dotted hsla(125, 61%, 49%, .73);
    That said, personally my use case is to make quotations in references stand out, which doesn't use this template. — W.andrea (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept the |tooltip= parameter should be disabled per MOS:NOTOOLTIPS. The majority of our readers cannot hover a cursor to trigger the tooltip, Rjjiii (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The template doc says The most common use of this is to provide attribution; this should be done inline with the text instead. — W.andrea (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not change the template to do whatever the "correct" way of marking up quotes is? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    The "correct" markup being to just type " before and after the quote (like you and I just did), unless there is need for something special like {{' "}}. See MOS:QWQ (Markup: He announced, "The answer was 'Yes!{{' "}}). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is more complicated, more characters, and more markup to break than just typing "This is a quotation" or "ex machina", and not being able to copy and paste properly (in Chrome, reportedly) or do a find on the page for "This is (in Firefox for Mac, this fails for me) is a non-starter. This template appears to decrease accessibility and usability of Wikipedia prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

    Use of a tooltip for translation

    Where did you get that from? I don't see it on the template doc or in the template itself. Instead, the doc says The most common use of this [the tooltip] is to provide attribution. — W.andrea (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: If a reason is found to keep the template, the template could be changed to not insert quote marks via CSS, and instead quote marks could be inserted manually, like so:
    "<q style="quotes: none">foo bar</q>" → "foo bar"
    However, this is a lot of rigamarole, hence why I say "If a reason is found". — W.andrea (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jenson and Jonesey95. Using quotation marks is easier for editors than using a template or <q> tags and will always be copy and pasted properly. Additionally, MOS:" recommends using simple straight quotation marks. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Came across this TfD while reading, the nomination makes sense to me. I assume we'll mass-replace uses of this before deleting? Toadspike [Talk] 23:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PT

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this template is no longer unused. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/PE

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IS

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/IL

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/FI

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/EG

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/CL

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/AR

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedias, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inflation/TW

edit

Inflation template that isn't being used. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my knowledge there is no policy that states that useful templates that are currently unusued should be deleted. There's a clear benefit to keeping for future editors who want to use the inflation template for this country, and no clear benefit to deleting. Also, we should keep in mind that the inflation template is copied into many foreign language Wikipedia, and it not being used here does not mean a copy of it (which is unlikely to be updated if this is deleted) is not being used elsewhere. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Says it on the main TFD main page. "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." Template copied onto foreign language is not impacted if its deleted. Foreign language Wikipedia's are not of concern to the English Wikipedia. If you or anyone can find this template and others below to for them to be used, then it can be kept. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, in which case I think there is a high liklihood of these templates being used, and certainly not no liklihood - there will almost certainly be editors on this country and the ones listed below who will find this useful in the future. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
high liklihood of these templates being used: after more than 4 years of not being used, that doesn't seem to be the case. Wikipedia is not a git repository for code. If you think some template is missing and create it, use it. If you, the creator, after 4 years, couldn't find a usage for it, then either it's not needed, or no one cares. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added it to an article that it benefits after very little searching. I was not searching for uses for these templates, because they are for the use of editors working articles about these countries. We can quibble over 'high likhlihood,' but there is zero doubt that there is not 'no liklihood' of these or the templates below being used, as for all of these currencies there are outdated amounts that would benefit from the inflation adjustments of the template. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the creator of a template should be the one to use it. If even the creator didn't bother to use it, then the more than likely scenario (and I'm speaking from years of experience in TfD) is that it won't be used. If the bottom templates are still unused, then they will just appear here over and over again. As they should. Do with that what you will. Gonnym (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ECHL profile

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to leave this but it seems logical. The ECHL website has changed its link system which breaks this template. Now, a valid link must have not just the player's ID, but also his full name, which seemingly makes it impossible to fix without editing all player pages with the template one by one. Шахматист2025 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WAM talk 2016

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 1. Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tim "Ripper" Owens

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 1. Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:CF/Content review/Raw0

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 1. Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Uw-custom3

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 1. Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Da Vinci Code

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 October 1. Izno (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_22&oldid=1314659384"