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. ✗plicit 23:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alhambra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, mostly non-existent entries or redirects. Not needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 05:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:47, 6 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Christianization of Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sidebar template that has several issues. 1) No mainspace article about Christianization of Finland. 2) It is instead being used on Christianization of Scandinavia in the middle of the article under the Finland section. 3) Only articles directly related to any Christianization is under the event section with four articles. 4) Four articles in the location section have very little of this subject other than a general history to a relevant link in the events section. The last is just a church whose relevance I can't find to the subject. 5) As for people, they are involved with the event section articles, but since there is no main article for the template it hardly makes it a subject worth navigating in template form. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This template is indeed highly arbitrary, framing different topics (each of which is difficult enough on its own, such as Finnish–Novgorodian wars, which I'm trying to clean up because it is full of WP:OR speculation and relying heavily in WP:PRIMARY) in contestable ways, and taking up space without really having navigational value. NLeeuw (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 05:47, 31 March 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2025 Australia Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't understand what this template is trying to convey. The template seems to have been added to all 2022-25 Australian MPs, regardless of whether they are actually contesting the election. Banner templates should not be used as a substitute for sourced information about the end of an MP's term. We also don't need a further disclaimer beyond the general Wikipedia disclaimer that any content may be out of date. Election related content will either be added to MPs' articles, if notable enough and someone can be bothered adding it, or it won't be. A 40-day campaign period is not a fast-moving event where there is an expectation of conflicting information or inaccuracy. I T B F 📢 09:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template idea is one I've run for a few years, most prominently at the United Kingdom general election, 2024. When the House of Representatives dissolves its members cease to be members and thus it is inaccurate for their pages to continue to described them as incumbent. Putting this template at the top of the article (the wording of which can be centrally updated at different stages of the election cycle) is easier than manually updating each page in multiple places to remove references to incumbency (including the MP post-nominals) and then changing them all back again for those who are re-elected. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm inclined to agree with you here. There's no need for an entire template mentioning that parliament has dissolved. I don't believe it's inaccurate to describe them is incumbent MPs either, this is very much a British political concept. An MPs postnominal's don't just disappear when parliament dissolves. I also don't understand "This article may be out of date during this period. Feel free to improve it (updates without reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page.", why is this needed? The template isn't even on every MPs page. I just fail to understand the purpose of this template. What is it trying to achieve? Perhaps it should go. Viatori (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no need for a dedicated banner for this. Vestrian24Bio 05:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template is simply wrong. "has not been an MP since the dissolution of the house on 28 March." is wrong. Parliament is dissolved, a MP remains an MP until the election results are released. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Member%27s_titles :- "A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament". 37.162.188.79 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page to which you linked doesn't say "a MP remains an MP until the election results are released". It does say "The title [of MP] is not retained by former Members." The page to which I linked also explicitly says "Members are no longer Members". The line "A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament" is clearly referring to incoming or continuing members after the election, not candidates and outgoing members before. A member's status does not depend on the house meeting but still depends on existing. Infosheet 25 likewise says "members of the House cease to be members". Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this type of template was helpful in the 2024 UK election. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And it's not helpful for Australian elections which use a different system. Viatori (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They both involve the old lower house dissolving some weeks before the election of the new one, which is the only detail relevant to the template. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per the IP above, this template is simply untrue. The Parliamentary Education Office says that "When a member of the House of Representatives loses their seat in a federal election they are no longer a member from the date of the election." This is represented on Wikipedia as well. On any Wikipedia page for members who lost at an election, the end date for their time in parliament is the date of the election. Steelkamp (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That page to which you linked says nothing about the status of the outgoing parliament's members (whether or not they get re-elected) during the election period which is what's being noted in the template. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per above reasons, it is simply untrue, and even if were true, is unhelpful for editing purposes. Could you imagine rewriting every article of every Member of Parliament to remove any concept of incumbency and re-election? See the forest for the trees. 147.161.213.96 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not "rewriting every article of every Member of Parliament to remove any concept of incumbency and re-election", the whole point of the template is precisely to avoid doing that. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your template says: "Parts of the article suggesting incumbency are incorrect during this period. Feel free to improve it (updates without reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page." Is your understanding that Australian Members of Parliament cease to be incumbents during the period between the dissolution of the house and the election, and then retroactively become incumbents upon their re-election (notwithstanding the question of whether someone can be re-elected when they're not an incumbent)? Because that's what your template suggests. 147.161.213.116 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless clutter. Just update all the pages after the election. Apocheir (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apocheir Why is there so much complaint over so called "Clutter"? Extra information is actually better for readers Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination and proceeding discussion. This is untrue and unneeded cluter. There's no reason why the approprate articles can't be updated after the election. TarnishedPath^talk 06:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I don't get all this complaint of so called "Clutter" it is ok to have a long article. It provides more information for our readers Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Robin S. Taylor. These templates express an important factual statement; not really sure I understand the arguments against. Loytra (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Modify. It is not true that the term has ended for all MPs unlike the UK. The template should be modified to remove the sentence "not been an MP" as it is simply untrue. The rest of the template is also required but I am neutral to retain or deleting it. Marcnut1996 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These deletions are so unnecessary Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A lot of contributors here don't seem to be reading my sources... or even their own.
  

37.162.188.79, Steelkamp, 147.161.213.96, TarnishedPath and Marcnut1996 have repeatedly asserted
"The template is simply wrong.", "this template is simply untrue", "it is simply untrue", "this is untrue", "It is not true... it is simply untrue."
But is is true that members cease to be members at dissolution. See this legal briefing by the Australian Government Solicitor:

• • When the House of Representatives is dissolved, the members of the House cease to be members
    

as well as this Parliamentary news post from the 2022 dissolution

• • Now that the House has been dissolved, all business in the House has lapsed, House and joint committees no longer exist, and Members are no longer Members.
    

and this procedural infosheet

• • Upon dissolution of the House, all its proceedings come to an end. Further, members of the House cease to be members, sessional orders no longer have effect and committees cease to exist.

The two sources that I've seen quoted at me ([[1]] and [[2]]) don't actually deny that dissolution causes a temporary cessation of incumbency.

Even the article on the general concept of Dissolution of Parliament has as its opening sentence

• • The dissolution of a legislative assembly (or parliament) is the simultaneous termination of service of all of its members, in anticipation that a successive legislative assembly will reconvene later with possibly different members.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template notice is unnecessary. Whilst this is helpful in UK articles, where politicians can't use the term MP once dissolution occurs as they are no longer members (source (p.19)), in Australia politicians still consistently use the MP term during the caretaker period, between dissolution and election/re-election. In fact, see the prime minister or opposition leader's social media pages, which still state them as being the MPs of their respective electorates. It clearly isn't incorrect to state that the incumbent MPs in Australia can't still be called MPs, even after dissolution period had occurred. Happily888 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The presence of this template in the article is ridiculous. It's at odds with how every reliable source describes the situation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove and Delete. Ack it is technically correct per User:Robin S. Taylor. That is not the point. The point is that I accept the temporal granularity of facts like whether someone is an MP to be of duration larger than the number of weeks between dissolution of parliament and result of each division being called. For other kinds of facts like someone resigning from parliament or being unexpectedly disqualified from parliament the temporal granularity would be much smaller in duration -- like a day. Donama (talk) 04:48, 11 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Country data Shang Dynasty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The flag itself is fictional (the rest of the user's uploads were wiped, and this file will be too once this template is deleted) and this template is unused. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vestrian24Bio 05:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 15:19, 1 April 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.