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).
unused template. Information already on main article in other format. Only used on one page. Subst the content and delete the template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer unused. (Template was removed from the article by an un-summarized IP edit on 16 June 2018.) Useddenim (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim and Tom (LT): fair enough. That being said, is there any reason this needs to be a template? Why not just subst the content directly onto the page? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. It is well-established practice that Route Diagram Templates — even single-use ones — should be kept separate because of the potential for accidental damage. (A misspelled word will generally not cause a problem with an article; a single incorrect character can completely break an RDT.) Useddenim (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Keeping the very complicated template code out of the main article also improves accessibility for those editors who want to improve the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2019 (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).
Template:Bravo programming (Canada)
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, but even if it was used, it has 2 links. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:ArcheryAt2010SummerYouthOlympics
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Alpha prefix pages
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear purpose, for those with the wit to see it. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Instead of insulting other editors, why not explain the purpose or add documentation to the template? --Gonnym (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2019 (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).
Template:Bookshelf
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relates to the already quietly disposed of Bookshelf. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:06, 1 March 2019 (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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also G8. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is documentation for a template. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2019 (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).
Template:2009 NCAA Division I FCS independents football standings/doc
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've re-connected the doc page and updated it with the actual usage. No reason to put categories in the template when the /doc was created for that. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Largest cities of Antigua and Barbuda
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 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).
Template:Voice of Earth track listing
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).
Unused and unuseful as none of the songs in the track listing have articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was probably supposed to be on Voice of Earth, but that page already has the track listing. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary – album article already includes a track listing section. Richard3120 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2019 (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).
Template:Kazakhstan topics/doc
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Immortals
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for a navbox and there were multiple recent deletion of eSport team templates. --Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Ice Hockey Championship Trophies
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant template. WikiProject Ice Hockey has established a precedent against similar navboxes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2019 (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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've reconnected the doc page to the template, which seems to have been removed in a merge in October. --Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:EngvarO progress
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. Pppery did not give the reason of redirect (non-admin closure)Hhkohh (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused template. Also, not a plausible search phrase and has no incoming links - useless redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2019 (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 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).
Template:Cork Hurling Team 1964
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 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).
Unused French Constituencies Templates
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).
Delete per nom as superseded Mélencron (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Number57 11:52, 28 February 2019 (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).
Unused Chart subtemplates
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 -FASTILY 05:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all subtemplates of ((Chart)) (sandbox, doc, testcases exempt). Since Template:Chart has been converted to use Module:TreeChart so all these subtemplates are no longer needed. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Keep: not unused. (It had been commented out in the article.) Useddenim (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:C-en
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Ootaxa by year
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. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 22:14, 27 February 2019 (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).
Template:XBIZ Best New Starlet
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 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).
Template:Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia by federal subject (categories)
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 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).
Template:Infobox Wightman Cup/doc
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).
Delete - absolutely no reason to redirect this, as this isn't a plausible search (and it has no incoming links). This also falls under G8. --Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:Islamic Greetings
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).
Only two articles in total within the template under just one group. Cross-linking via WP:SEEALSO may suffice. Brandmeistertalk 20:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful with only 2 links. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2019 (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).
Template:Kab icon/doc and three other similar templates
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).
Unused documentation pages. Template:Kab icon and the others use a different shared page for their documentation, as do the rest of the Template:XXX icon pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Link language/Notes. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reason to redirect this, as this isn't a plausible search (and it has no incoming links). This also falls under G8.
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).
All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates
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).
This category is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are templates used by the Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system; they are never placed directly on articles. I'm responsible for placing some of these templates in the holding category. As far as I'm aware, these templates have all been blanked (all the ones I've edited certainly are); being blank, if they are ever used they will generate an error that shows up in Category:Taxobox cleanup. None of these should ever be used. The ones I've edited generally have a misspelling of the taxon name, unnecessary disambiguation, lack necessary disambiguation, or use some other non-standard format in the template name. Many of the ones I haven't edited are for virus species. Templates for species aren't needed in the Automated taxobox system, although it was only recently that ((Virusbox)) was upgraded to eliminate the need for virus species templates. Plantdrew (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and more pertinently Plantdrew.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Plantdrew. --Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plantdrew has explained the situation very clearly. I have placed many templates in this category for the same reasons. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They are unused and most (all?) can't be used as they have been blanked or commented out. They are both unnecessary and unusable which puts them firmly in Norwegian parrot territory. Jts1882 | talk 07:52, 2 March 2019 (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).
Template:LOCErequest/Yes
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).
I am one of the coordinators for the WP:GOCE. We haven't used this template for many years, and it can safely be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:LOCErequest
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).
I am one of the coordinators for the WP:GOCE. We haven't used this template for many years, and it can safely be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (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).
Unused adminstat templates
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).
All 165 of these are unused. All appear to have been created/maintained by bots. Any user wishing to use the ((Adminstats)) template can do so with a direct implementation. No reason for these templates to stick around, particularly when they are unused. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete@Zackmann08: This is a misunderstanding of how ((adminstats)) works, all it does is call its subtemplates, so one can't use the ((adminstats)) template ... with a direct implementation. However, if any of the admins in question do decide to add ((Adminstats)) do their userpage, the bot can easily recreate the page, so there is no reason to keep the unused templates around. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bigger issue is that this is pointless without finding and removing any non-sysop usage of the template; they'll just be recreated until we do. I'll gladly delete any of these arising from users who have never been sysops or account creators per previous consensus/discussions. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Can I suggest withdrawing this? There is history here, see a lengthy discussion at User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_58#Cyberbot_1_creating_adminstats_for_non-admin_users. These are indeed updated by a bot, operated by Cyberpower678, but that is how this template works: a bot updates all of them. Sometimes non-sysops will have these created by misusing the template, hence the "disallowed" message, and those should be deleted per previous discussions once the use of the template has been removed. There has been no consensus that adminstats for former sysops (or those no longer actively transcluding it) should be deleted, and just from a quick scan I can see that you have a number of former and current sysops in this list, including some who have used this very recently. I think this issue is on CBP's radar, which is where the fix should come from. Deleting any with the template transcluded will just have them recreated. I think it's better to deal with at the source, then handle what's left when we get there. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: please actually look at the templates. While I admit I have not looked at all 165 of them, the 30 or so that I checked have not been updated in 5+ years so the argument that a bot is still using them is not valid. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as someone transcludes ((adminstats)), the personalized template will be created and updated when relevant. If someone is not a sysop, they get an error, which never needs to be updated (the bot should probably just not create the page). If someone was a sysop, their data is overwritten with the error message (the bot should probably not do anything, leaving the history of their actions). If someone is a sysop but doesn't take any actions, it won't be updated. In all those cases, if the template is deleted, the bot will recreate it; that is what I meant to get at. Users who remove the transclusion from a user subpage will cause the template to stop to be updated. A good example is Widr, who replaced their userpage in October, hence the template stopped updating. The bot will not recreate those, and per pppery, if they are deleted and subsequently transcluded, they'll be recreated. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I can tell the following are being actively as we speak:
I have not pinged the users in question~ Amory(u • t • c) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep these users were previously admins. And have a pipe of page history. I think if they do not want these, feel free to add g7 instead. And this TfD is unhelpful for bot update. Last year, I just try to cleanup a pipe of adminstats who has never been either an account creator or admins. I think you should try to contact these users first instead of TfD. Also, bot will ignore TfD outcome if you delete blindly. Hhkohh (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:PBB
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).
Template was only used by a bot which has now been blocked. No reason for this or any of the hundreds of 11,180 sub-templates to stick around. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support As the original template creator, I support this deletion since its usage has been replaced by ((Infobox_gene)). Best, Andrew Su (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for the sake of accuracy, I have noted above, via strikeout text, that the template has 11,180 sub-templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough information to support or oppose. I just wanted to make sure that commenters understood what was being proposed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious delete. These are unused and there are so many. Being unused, these are more or less acting as non updated encyclopedic pages. Keeping these if they are unused violates WP:NOT#industry almanac and also is misleading to readers, as they aren't used nor up to date. I support complete deletion per Andrew Su and nom, however would advocate for some means to check that the thousands of subtemplates are indeed not used before they are batch delete.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): I 100% agree with what you said about checking. For transparency, this is the query I am using: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/33873. This is similar to other queries we have been using to track unused templates so the query is well tested. IF this TFD passes as delete then I would pass that query on to the admin who carries out the delete. Please ((ping)) me if you have any questions about it. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seeing as how the creator of these templates has supported the deletion as these are replaced by ((Infobox_gene)) and that these are unused, these should be deleted. Support Tom's comment. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete detritus left over from an ancient bot run. To the closer (and Zackmann08), AnomieBOT III is approved for processing the mass deletion of all of the subtemplates, including checking whether they are used or not. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2019 (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).
DL&W S-line templates
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).
Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2019 (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).
Template:WorksDecade navigation
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 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 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).
Module:Find sources template pages
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 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 documentation says this infobox is deprecated. If it should be deleted, then it should be deleted and not be kept in this limbo state. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted in the infobox documentation. "It is primarily intended to allow the infobox to display correctly in when view the history of older articles, and not for general use in articles." For those of us who occasionally have to troll through aircraft article histories for whatever reason, having a working infobox is useful. The current delete notice has broken the infobox, resulting in this mess in the history, which would be permanent if the infobox is deleted. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strange that out of the thousands of templates on Wikipedia, only this template needs this workaround. Why is it even helpful to see how the infobox looked at least 2.5 years ago (when the deprecation notice was added)? --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deprecated longer than that, probably since 2008. The old infobox is a relic, and was updated to use modules at about that time. Since we can't update the history, we kept tne infobox around. I realize it might not seem useful to you, but as long as one person finds it helpful to have a working infobox in the history, isn't that enough? - BilCat (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Templates are pieces of code, which means that for you, it might be a deprecated template used to view history when needed, but for others, it's a working piece of code used in Ambrosini SS.4, Mil V-5, Mil V-16, Mil Mi-30 and 88 other pages. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all remaining transclusions with Template:Infobox aircraft begin, and redirect there. Complete deprecation requires that all remaining transclusions be resolved, so let's just get that done already. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Infobox aircraft begin "acts to provide common formatting for other aircraft-related infoboxes." per the documentation. When the remaining transclusions are replaced with Infobox aircraft begin, would it not be possible for Infobox aircraft begin to be moved to Infobox aircraft and maybe use a bot to renameInfobox aircraft begin to Infobox aircraft? Just think its a bit weird having "begin" in the title. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be a problem if the template doesn't have an Template:Infobox aircraft end partner (which it doesn't). Once this is done, you can start a RM for this. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, seems like a reasonable wrapper. I would not be opposed to making it substitute only. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete. Then move, just as Steel1943 and Steven (Editor) propose above. Makes perfect sense. --Bsherr (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2019 (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).
Hatnote list modules
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 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).
UKBot
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 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).
Module:Vandal-m
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 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).
Module:Wikivoyage
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Module unused since 2014. -- GreenC 14:52, 28 February 2019 (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).
Module:Wikipedia Requests
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 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).