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) 12:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:WikidataFR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikidataFR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Conversion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Conversion/Données (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Interface_Wikidata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Date_complexe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:DateFR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Outils (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Wikidata/I18n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Linguistique (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've replaced the usage of Module:WikidataFR at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in France with Module:String and Module:Wd. All other uses of that module could be similarly replaced, rendering it -- and its impressively large number of dependencies (the other modules nominated below) -- unnecessary. Note that Module:WikidataFR and Module:Linguistique may qualify for G4 as recreations of Module:WikidataF and Module:Linguistic respectively, but I chose to TfD the lot instead of using speedy deletion because a TfD would be needed to clean up the remaining dependencies anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To display for this table on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in France, I had created all its modules because I couldn't use Module:wd, but one or more contributors have since managed to use Module:wd. If they don't intervene in the Module:wd, then they can be deleted. Thanks Viruscorona2020 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "One or more contributors" is me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:23, 18 March 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Reducing workload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Alternatives are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, good catch!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 17 March 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:A or an/testcases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains exactly the same content as Template:A or an/testcases in a harder-to-use format (because the test cases are defined on a different page than they are executed on). (As with my past testcases nominations, I cannot figure out how to tag the page) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand what the rationale is. Module talk:A or an/testcases automatically provides validation, which Template:A or an/testcases doesn't. Nardog (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a valid use of one or another of the test case suites. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 18 March 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) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tolkien Gateway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tgw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to produce an external link to the Tolkien Gateway article on a Middle-earth related subject. However, Tolkien Gateway appears to be a wiki, so using it as an external link violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12. I'm not sure why we would have a template to insert and external link we're not suppose to use. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so long as this is in use in article space. TfD is not the right venue to propose removing content or links from articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not Andy? TfD has already handled such scenarios here, here, here, and here. We also delete a ton of other types of templates that are in-use in article space. TfD is the exact venue to discuss whether a template meets the community approval for existing. I personally wouldn't mind seeing links to fandom/wikia/other wikis, but the guideline is against linking to other wikis. Will (hopefully) return to this discussion later to see other editors have added any other reason to keep.--Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should not have done. That removed links from aritcles without any consensus from those working on the articles. At best, the templates should have been subst'd before deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, the template should be removed from the pages, since using the Tolkien Gateway as an EL is against currently-established policy. Since the template does nothing besides produce the counter-policy external link, I see absolutely no reason why it should exist, regardless if it was used or not. Hog Farm (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So remove the links from articles, and see if you are reverted. If not, there is consensus to remove them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andy, the use of this template is against the guidelines for external links. I think that should overrule any local consensus developed in articles. Hog Farm (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:EL is a "content guideline", to which "occasional exceptions may apply". If you delete the template while it is in use, you will be removing any such exceptions, and using one local consensus to override another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pigsonthewing - I have removed all instances of the template in the articlespace. I guess give it 24 hours to see if anyone objects. Hog Farm (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as undesirable and unusable. I've also been told off at TfD for the exact opposite, for removing templates from articles where not needed and undesirable as prejudging the TfD: so, we both must and must not do so before asking for the template to be deleted. Shumshing wrong here, I shink. Frankly, we need less clutter of useless templates and of an unworkable, incomprehensible and randomly interpretable tangle of policies. If we are to remove the template from all the articles which have it, fine, but it shouldn't make any difference - look, suppose somebody has misguidedly placed a different template all over the articles of William Shakespeare for the past 10 years, linking to somebody's WilliWikiWebsite, does that mean we can't bring it to TfD? Of course not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the comment you are referring to and I disagree with it. Removing templates from articles is perfectly fine (just like any other piece of content). If you are orphaning a template on 100 pages then that's a different thing and should probably seek consensus to remove it here or on some other highly viewed page. --Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gonnym, Chiswick Chap, and Pigsonthewing: - I added a redirect to this template to this discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but there's no need to do that; such redirects are kept or deleted along with their target, whenever a TfD discussion is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The application of the guideline is fairly clear: external links to... 12. open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors should generally be avoided. The wiki in question has faced criticism for its lack of stability and references, and it has ~7000 users, so I do not think it would be appropriate to link to. I am neutral on the procedural issue of whether to delete the occurrences of the template before or after deleting the template. Both the template and its uses should be deleted if we can build consensus to do so. BenKuykendall (talk) 00:10, 19 March 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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Stock_market_crashes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Financial_crises (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 merge to Template:Epidemics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PHEIC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Epidemics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PHEIC with Template:Epidemics.
While a legend "phe" or something could be added to entries that are associated with Public Health Emergency of International Concern, itself linked in the "below" bar? PPEMES (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. These could be handled in one template which would also allow readers to easily navigate between these articles. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Gonnym. Mgasparin (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to template 'Epidemics'. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 19 March 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 merge to Template:Jct not with each other as originally proposed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:European route E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BAB-E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:European route E with Template:BAB-E.
Same templates to provide links of European routes with marks. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose proposal—long term, we should be consolidating with ((jct)) instead of ((BAB-E)). jct is the template that gets used by ((European route E)). Imzadi 1979 → 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As a quick follow up, European route E should be substituted. Imzadi 1979 → 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and ((BAB-E)) with ((jct)) instead, since they just call ((jct)) in a simple manner. Merging may be a trivial matter of substing the existing templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, ((jct)) should really be better. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 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).