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 redirect to Template:Welcome-anon. There is agreement that these templates should be consolidated. Redirecting to ((Welcome-anon)) is explicitly supported by half the participants and I find it very likely earlier participants find this solution satisfactorily as well. As usual if any improvements can be made to ((Welcome-anon)) feel free to suggest that on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Createaccount (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Create (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:AnonymousWelcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging the above three templates.
In essence the same template. Createaccount has a few extra dot points and AnonymousWelcome looks better. No reason to keep all three, though. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge these templates are extremely similar in content, and should be merged. Will make our approach consistent, reduce template overhead + the likelihood that content becomes outdated, and also not confuse editors so much by providing three very similar ways to achieve the same goal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• My first preference would be to redirect all to ((Welcome-anon)), since that's almost surely a better option for any use case (it's not helpful to list out a million reasons to create an account; just tell them they ought to and most will, and give a link to WP:Why create an account? if they really wanna know). Second preference is strong support for merge per WP:CONSOLIDATION. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((Welcome-anon)). I concur with Sdkb. That template is implemented in Twinkle, and has the most usage. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 29 May 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, I see no reason to link from mainspace to Meta-Wiki as Meta-Wiki is a wiki for coordination of Wikimedia projects and would not be useful to most readers, hence the name. We already have a template covered for ((interwiki redirect))s from Project: and User: space to Meta-Wiki. Aasim 20:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The plain ((soft redirect)) (aka ((interwiki redirect)), however, is not used in the mainspace. Instead, specialized soft redirect templates are used when redirecting to another wikimedia site. I anticipate this will eventually fall into use somewhere in the mainspace, though its need will indeed be quite rare. With the exception of ((Wiktionary redirect)), most of the other specialized soft redirect templates only have 5-10ish uses (e.g. see Category:Redirects to Wikisource). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, I am thinking about how useful this will probably be for readers because this template is intended for main namespace. I completely understand linking from Wikipedia to another content project, that is why I did not nominate the other soft redirect templates for deletion. I can see the "meta" interwiki redirect template as potentially problematic because I do not think readers looking for content on Wikipedia are going to be benefited by soft-redirects to Meta-Wiki. After all, if a reader searches "Wikimedia forum" by chance (which is so extremely unlikely that it would be better to invest our time and resources into creating more useful templates and redirects on the project), the page m:Wikimedia forum is going to provide no help whatsoever to them if they want to learn more about the topic. (In the example I gave, it would probably be better to redirect that title to something more appropriate on-wiki like Wikimedia movement.) Soft redirects to Wikimedia Commons makes sense (I can picture readers searching for "gallery of X images" or "List of images pertaining to Y" on Wikipedia, then we can direct them to Commons), soft redirects to Wikiquote and Wiktionary make sense as well and have use on articles like "X proverbs" and "[insert dictionary word here]", but an interwiki redirect to a non-content project like Meta-Wiki makes little to no sense whatsoever. Aasim 15:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused; I cannot think of a single page on meta-wiki that would be useful to a reader of the encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meta is not user facing and none of the participants in this discussion can think of a single application for this template. From experience giving people a template to make inappropriate links is often seen as endorsing that type of link increase the amount of people adding inappropriate links. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:07, 10 June 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am fairly certain that we just don't need this template. Games are not special from a ((current)) perspective and even if they were, they don't have the kind of editing pattern that usually necessitates ((current)). Izno (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 5 June 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mandattabel række (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mandattabel start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mandattabel slut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and seems unnesescary TheImaCow (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• looks like this was copied from da:Skabelon:Mandattabel række. 198.102.155.120 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G8, dependent on non-existent Module:Mandattabel * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:11, 4 June 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wycliffe Global Alliance participating organizations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly red links. Fuddle (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• remove all the redlinks and the collapsible sections (see here), then reconsider if there are 5 or fewer links left. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and my comments at the last Wycliffe template proposal. Most are redlinks and links are better placed within articles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 5 June 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rating-10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It should probably deleted in favor of ((Rating)) as were deleted ((Rating-4)) and ((Rating-5)), because ((Rating-10|4)) → ((Rating-10|4)) and ((Rating|4|10)) → ((Rating|4|10)) give the same. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's been superseded by the more general ((Rating)). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. I've changed the code for the template to ((Rating|(({1))}|10)) (which is equivalent). Subst and delete. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 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).