• Template:Minister of Liberation War Affairs timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused timeline and we don't need a timeline templates for ministers of a certain or any governments of any nation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/listify into Ministry of Liberation War Affairs (Bangladesh)#Officeholders per WP:TG #1 and #6. It seems to be related to the recent deletion of Minister of Liberation War Affairs. At any rate, it's perfectly fine to just turn this into a list section of the main article Ministry of Liberation War Affairs (Bangladesh) instead of an unused template. NLeeuw (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Single mainspace use template. WP:Subst and delete.

Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 17:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not single-use. It is currently unused. It only counts as single-use if it was used on one article or place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Individual tornadoes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and extremely large navbox for tornadoes. There are plenty of tornado navboxes. We don't need something like this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is there a policy-based reason? It’s a navbox of articles on individual tornadoes; I’ve seen several that are much larger. E_F⁵ 22:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or whatever the process to get this as a category are. This is very helpful for navigation, and a category doesn't exist as-is. Departure– (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cat for "individual tornadoes" would not be appropriate categorization as it is not specific enough. A vast majority of articles in this template are already covered by other tornado templates. So what does this do differently from other templates? Wikipedia:NENAN serves as a useful rule of thumb and so does Wikipedia:Template creep. Think of how many articles there for "individual tornadoes". Every single one of them on a template like this is not useful for navigation. "A category doesn't exist as-is" is not a reason to keep a template because it would lead to eventual cat creation. Templates are to navigate across articles. Cats have nothing to do with navigational purposes. Both keep votes don't give a valid reason to keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? It’s WP:USEFUL to readers looking to read about individual tornadoes, since you clearly are looking to discount every vote that disagrees. How is it not specific enough, exactly? E_F⁵ 23:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also note that many of these aren’t covered by templates as the nominator suggests; even then that doesn’t subtract from its usefulness. E_F⁵ 23:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why haven't you used it since creating it? Its been over two months. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? Add it to one and it that can be fixed. On vacation; I’d add it to several articles but mobile source editing is hell. E_F⁵ 13:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed to an "Individual tornadoes by decade" or "Individual F4 tornadoes" style of dividing the category, assuming it's "not specific enough" for a blanket category? Departure– (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - TBH I would do dropdown menus for different decades if possible, but this works 100%. BTW I still need to add Udall on there LMAO.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify to List of individual tornadoes by year per WP:TG no. #6: Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function.

I tend to agree with nom that the current template is not very useful, but given that it has already grouped a lot of tornadoes by year, listification has much added value without the contents getting lost.

User:Departure– seems to agree that a category would also be fine, which strengthens the case against having a template such as this per WP:TG no. #6. I would just prefer a list instead of a category, because a list allows us to sort tornadoes by year (and other details), especially with Wikitable sortable.

I tend to agree with Wildfireupdateman that a subdivision by year, decade, century or something is a useful way of presenting this group of articles. But doing that in a template while autocollapsing all content by decade, thereby forcing the reader to drop down whatever decade they are interested in, does not really aid navigation. It also goes against WP:TG no. #1: [Templates] should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader. Collapsing should only be used to make a helpful template less cumbersome, but the very helpfulness of this template is in question, and won't really be saved by just collapsing everything. A list, on the other hand, is fully dedicated to showing a full group of articles with all the relevant details the reader could wish for in an overview. It doesn't jeopardise the readability of any of the articles on the list, because those will be separate pages.

I would propose following WP:CSC no. #1, so that the list may include every stand-alone article about a tornado that already exists, or can be demonstated with WP:RS to be important enough for a future stand-alone article. The template's creator, EF5, has given us a very helpful group of existing articles to start our list with, so that's great. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per every item at WP:NAVBOX. I do not think this would be a appropriate list either per WP:LISTN. Izno (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: don't think this serves any navigational purposes. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Socialism in Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and no main article for it to be used. Best for now to let the main cat to do the work of finding these articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom for now. Might be useful in the future, but not as is. Mostly a WP:CONTENTFORK of Template:Socialism sidebar that has little value for Norway in particular, especially without a main article. NLeeuw (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't populated it yet, so please don't delete it. Johshh (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then do not publish it into the mainspace until it is ready. Would you like have it moved to your userspace for now until it is ready for the mainspace? NLeeuw (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy. Vestrian24Bio 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Swedish colonial conflicts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping of Swedish military actions, in which "colonial" appears synonymous with "overseas", including Finland. Template:Campaignbox/doc indicates campaignboxes should only group battles of a single campaign, war, or (in exceptional cases) closely-connected series of wars. But these battles have nothing in common except that one of the belligerents was Sweden and the location was outside Sweden and Norway. Many are redlinks or contain WP:OR countings of battles (1st Foo, 2nd Foo etc.), plus unnecessary subheadings by century which should be avoided where possible. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Template:Campaignbox Swedish anti-piracy actions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 30#Template:Christianization of Finland for related templates with similar problems. NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't aware of the template guidelines (which I should've been) when I made it. But shouldn't we then also delete templates like Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns, Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts, and Template:Campaignbox Russian colonial campaigns? Gvssy (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although I could imagine that WP:LISTIFY would work well for Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns and Template:Campaignbox Danish colonial conflicts. For the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire, we've already got plenty of lists and categories of conflicts involving Russia; I'd favour just deleting that one. The Portuguese one surely is way too long to help navigation in any meaningful way. It's a great way to ruin the layout of articles when unfurled, but I doubt that should be the purpose of campaignboxes, would it? NLeeuw (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Other campaignboxes in Category:Colonial campaignbox templates may also be worth reviewing. Not all of them have to be deleted necessarily. Template:Campaignbox Danish–Hanseatic Wars (1361–1370) seems fine, Template:Campaignbox Japanese colonial campaigns seems justifiably concise, and Template:German colonial campaigns is a good navbox, but in the wrong category. But I would advise listifying the Danish, Dutch and Spanish campaignboxes where possible, if such lists did not exist already. Preferably, listification of battles by war, not battles by belligerent. Otherwise, we end up with these bloated lists involving Fooland, where some Fooland nationalist comes ambling along every so often to edit it such that Fooland had many more victories than defeats and therefore Fooland Stronk. NLeeuw (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a good reason to erase Russian colonial campaigns because there are a lot of list of conflicts involving Russia, the campaignbox seems pretty fine to me for the context of a Colonial Empire that was Continental instead of Oversea (so the wars of conquests are also colonial conflicts from a previous contigous colony).

Concerning Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Danish, I think that it's needed to order those militar actions into the campaigns they belongs. Like in the case of the first 3, classify the battles that are specifically parts of Eighty Years War colonial campaign (which also intersects with all Dutch-Portuguese War and the Thirty Years Wars and it's derivated conflicts, which can cause some complications due to the lack of academic research about this). And the residual battles turn them into "Others" or something like that, because still are objectively colonial conflicts . Also erasing Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Russian colonial campaignbox will be the elimination of most of the colonial campaignbox, which can be a more serious problem. Sr L (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep''', the article just need to have modifications to improve the excess of information by clasifying better which one of the conflicts wanted to develop Swedish colonies and which one were just oversea wars (then make a category about oversea expeditions to separe the ones from colonial conflicts) Sr L (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MOS:CAMPAIGN—these conflicts do not constitute a "particular campaign, front, theater or war", but are unrelated to each other. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh thanks for mentioning that shortcut, that will come in handy in follow-ups. NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP 84. Pinguinn 🐧 09:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]