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 2020 March 8. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Issno (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. There is a consensus to use Template:Cfd all instead of the module. Please make sure all existing functionality is kept intact before replacement and deletion. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Cfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging participants from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13#Template:Cfd all: @Gonnym, Trialpears, Dmehus, Tom (LT), and Kingboyk:. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just make sure all features from the modules are there first. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I concur with Trialpears. I assume we'd update the 789 transclusions to use ((Cfd all)) instead? Seems like a reasonable nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not invested in this module/template group so not going to add an official !vote to this for the moment. I will say that I believe module code to be superior to template code and that less people being able to edit Lua, does not matter in high-risk barely-edited modules. That said, Module:Cfd is badly written and not really taking advantage of the fact that its written in Lua. --Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2020 (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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:California City Whiptails roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Team is now defunct; roster template is no longer necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzi.c (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (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 per this discussion and related TfD. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a list of ((xx icon)) templates that remain following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 10 § Link language wrappers with under 100 transclusions. The existence of these templates is apparently the reason that Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4 § Template:Link language is stalled.

All of this is a followup to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9 § Link language wrappers where there was a consensus to remove usage of these wrappers but not for deletion. Monkbot/task 15 replaced almost all of the ((xx icon)) templates, their redirects, and ((link language)) and its redirects with ((in lang)). Monkbot/task 15 continues to replace a handful of these templates daily. It is time to unstick the deletion process, delete these remaining ((xx icon)) templates, so that the ((link language)) tld can proceed, and then retire Monkbot/task 15.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my previous arguments on all 3 previous discussions. --Gonnym (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole "Keep the templates that used to be high use after orphaning the entire batch" thing was bogus from the start. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep Unnecessarily disrupting 8 (which is about how many task 15 edits Monkbot does a day) content creator a day by removing a feature that they have used for years is not a good idea if it can reasonably be avoided. However stalling this entire process because of it is almost as bad with it keeping duplicate category trees and templates and causing a lot of confusion. My preference can be seen at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Link language wrappers with under 100 transclusions, but that doesn't seem to be gaining much traction. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please delete. these things need to go. [per my statements in all previous discussions] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just checked several, and they were all already marked ((Being deleted)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 24 February 2020 (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 after substitution. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Election top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Election bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Practically unused set of templates (once in 2009). They should be substituted and deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete per nom; only 4 transclusions, so it seems this template has been superceded by another template. Doug Mehus T·C 22:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These templates are used, even if there is no anticipated further use. Substituting would unnecessarily clutter these pages with redundant code. --Bsherr (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with ((Archive top)) and delete. The current transclusions are on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election . Looking at the last year article Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments/CU, these use ((Archive top)). --Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (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).