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. per this discussion and multiple prior discussions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2019–20 Segunda División B Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019–20 Segunda División B Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019–20 Segunda División B Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019–20 Segunda División B Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018–19 Segunda División B Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018–19 Segunda División B Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018–19 Segunda División B Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018–19 Segunda División B Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Segunda División B Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Segunda División B Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Segunda División B Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Segunda División B Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:28, 11 November 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 result of the discussion was delete, with the reasonable rationales being that the template was both unused and coded directly into Module:Multiple image. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 12:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:File dimensions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, and noting that we have directly coded this in Module:Multiple image in the get_dimensions() function if this sort of thing is needed elsewhere. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 8 November 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 result of the discussion was delete, with the rationale being that it was unused. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FRSyears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:FRSyears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 November 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 result of the discussion was delete with the rationales provided being that it consists of no links to other articles/all links contained within it are redlinks and that there are no transclusions. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Liga IV Timiș (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All red links, no transclusions DannyS712 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - navigates to nothing. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:28, 11 November 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 result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alternate reality game page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, could be moved to project space? Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not useful even as an article template. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I meant to do something with this but never did. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 22:59, 8 November 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 result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

There has been previous consensus to delete the main questionable template ((Awarded Questionable)). This template was missed in that discussion, but should be deleted as well for the same reasons. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this template was deprecated after we switched to ((Awarded Questionable)). Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - template declared abandoned by the user(s) who made it. Ikluft (talk) 21:03, 9 November 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 result of the discussion was delete. Soft delete. Reasonable rationale with no discussion for a long time. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bagel of Zion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stumbled upon this template while viewing the Template:Bread and Template:Ring and knot-shaped breads templates. It seems like it was created as a potential Wikipedia award, but there was no discussion and viewing the page properties information, it looks like no pages of transcluded this page—that is, the award's never been given. So, consider this my recommendation to decommission (delete) this Wikipedia award without prejudice to re-creating it in the future. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comment from TfD Nominator: The "Page information" left-hand page didn't show all the transclusions, but looking through the transclusions above, I counted only 18 times this award has been given, some of which it was modified to a Barnstar by changing the verbiage and image. So, maybe a dozen times it's been given.--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 27 October 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 result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:DiscussionIndex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:ParsePage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this what I think it is—a script that automatically builds an archive index for Talk page discussion pages? If so, I wonder if it would be easier to use than Lowercase sigmabot's parameters, for which I haven't been able to figure out how to, or if it's even possible, to automatically generate an index page à la User talk:Dmehus/Archives. So, for now, I've just been manually linking to the archive pages as the bot creates a new archive page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are trying to build an archive index, I would recommend you rely on something other than module code that has been abandoned for years. You could, for instance, write User talk:Dmehus/Archives as ((Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Dmehus/Archives|stripprefix=1)) if you want it to auto-update. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Other, more featureful, options for automatic archiving include Module:Archive index (which is based off of the mostly defunct User:HBC Archive Indexerbot and uses similar parameters), and switching your archive system to user User:ClueBot III, which automatically generates an archive index for you when it archives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Pppery, Ah, okay, yeah, I saw that special page to view subpages. That's not a bad idea and then just transclude it into the page. What does the "stripprefix=1" parameter do? Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Excludes "Dmehus/Archives" from the displayed part of each link, as your index appears to be trying to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indifferent Thanks Pppery for the assistance. I don't know enough about this script to vote one way or another, so my !vote will be essentially to support the prevailing consensus at close. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:56, 10 November 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).