The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Requires attention (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template suggests that immediate attention can be sought by the placing of tag on an article. While the usage states that people must leave a reason at the talk page, the real world usage reflects that this is just another tag that people add without saying why.

This template should be deleted as it deceives users into thinking that a tag will generate an immediate response. Only an explanation at the admin notice boards will achieve that and we should discourage the opening of alternative avenues of disappointment. SFB 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Leaning Keep. Advising the readers with this mainspace tag both alerts the readers to a problem and entices readers to become editors. Referring mainspace content problems to admin boards is exactly how Wikipedia is not supposed to work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as too vague and often used in conjunction with other more specific templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category it populates has also been nominated for deletion; it's unclear what "attention" is "required", and if something has been "required" for some period perhaps we can assume that one person's requirement isn't the community's? We have plenty of templates to warn users of lack or sources, POV, disputes, COI, and other specific issues but "requires attention" means nothing to the average user. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is deleted, then what happens with the tagged articles? Shouldn't the template be replaced by one or more other templates if this one is deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think it is necessary to replace. Most articles with this tag have multiple tags anyway. The few articles that only have this tag seem not to require any particular attention. For example see this edit in the year 2016. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too vague, the uses I saw were nothing special that "required immediate attention". Doesn't generate supposed effect. We already have strong article message boxes for things that really do need attention like hoaxes, BLP problems etc. Maybe not admin noticeboards, but other noticeboards like WP:BLPN are where people should go if attention is really required. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's OK to delete this template if it's not actually helpful. However, the general idea of asking for attention from an expert is totally valid and can be helpful if it's implemented well. This probably means that it should be implemented as a MediaWiki extension and not as a template. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CSM Studențesc Iași (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

probably created by mistake Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Page creator is okay with deletion. No prejudice against recreation, however, since it seems that these templates might be used in the future. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:BDD/utils (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:BDD/localize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:BDD/localize/en (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:BDD/localize/nb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unclear what purpose this serves ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These technically meet WP:G8, but I'm posting them here since the creator removed the speedy tags. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I removed the speedy tag and gave you an explanation. They are part of an on-going project, but they are not in use for the moment. It seems like this will be done in a slightly different way. I guessed you would continue to post them here, so I have moved them to another project.

  This is although a real problem, as projects reuse modules from enwiki, but enwiki does not implement proper localization. Thus the modules are changed at the other sites when they are imported and then can't be easily updated. That said, the modules at enwiki is about as bad as the ones at any other projects. They are completely unmaintainable. Heard about such smells as cyclomatic complexity? Some of the modules at enwiki are way off anything reasonable.

  Anyhow, as these are copied off-site they can be deleted. Jeblad (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 2018 May 12. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Multilingual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Creator is okay with deletion. No prejudice against recreation, as this will apparently be used in the future. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Localization subpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only on a bunch of pages I've nominated for speedy deletion as G8, and shouldn't be useful (when would an English Wikipedia lua module contain i18n for some other language?) ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In use on an on-going project. I can move it to another project if necessary. I have removed the speedy delete requests. Jeblad (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is copied off-site so it can be deleted. Jeblad (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 Procedural Withdraw. I actually never intended this to be a deletion discussion, my apologies if that was not clear. I wanted to get a better understanding of whether the community feels this template is binding under policy or just a courtesy. I will re-intiate in a more appropriate forum in the future. Thanks, FASTILY 20:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Promising draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be an attempt to side-step WP:CSD#G13, which does not mention anything about "promising drafts". Is this template acceptable under current policy? FASTILY 04:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This can reduce WP:MfD nominations. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well discussed in preparation, the main intention is to provide identification and navigation to the few rough gems in the mountains of cruft in draftspace. I had just requested help in autocategorising. The explicit intention is that if one editor thinks the specific draft should never be speedy deleted, and another thinks it should be deleted, then the dispute should go to MfD. Blocking G13 is a highly valid principle allowed by the notion underlying all speedy deletions, that speedy deletions are for incontestable deletions. Alternative methods to sidestep G13 exist, such as moving to userspace and stripping any AfC tags, but if the editor who thinks the draft is promising is not personally interested, then it is better for it to stay in draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an essential component of the AfC process, and admonish the nom for continuing to dabble in areas they refuse to understand. – Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: No reason to obfuscate current policy. There are plenty of drafts that already have established notability as an article, but have the template simply because the major contributors to the drafts don't have that much time to work on it. Whether or not a draft qualifies for this template must be decided on a case-by-case basis, not a "oh, it's G13 already" rationale. Deleting this template would simply move the problem from MFD to REFUND, which is a bit of a bigger time-waster for the administrators. ToThAc (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2017–18 Iraqi Premier League results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; if someone reuse this template, feel free to use this template. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - presume nom means "unused"? Either way, not needed. GiantSnowman 07:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. It means unused, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barely-used template that according to the documentation relies on a non-existent gadget. The name may also be confused with the mapframe tag, which is now available on English Wikipedia (and implemented in ((maplink)), if anyone is interested). Evad37 [talk] 00:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly used. Redundant. Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).