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⚡ 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Promotional singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 16 September 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 September 28. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ds/extended-confirmed-editnotice (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. Consensus that the entries are too loosely related for this to be a useful navbox. This may be better suited as a category, or split up into more specific (and smaller) navboxes. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Living things in culture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is completely useless and a waste of space. It is being included on a variety of pages for which it is only obliquely related (e.g. toad). As a template which is preposterously overbroad, bloated, and almost entirely novel, it seems to violate any number of Wikipedia policies and is generally unhelpful to the reader. No rational reason to keep it. jps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --- None of the reasons given have substance to them. People have used many species of animals for a wide variety of purposes, and these are documented overwhelmingly in many centuries of reliable historical and modern sources. The template, created some years ago, offers convenient navigation of the articles about these uses of these kinds of animal. Most of the entries are specifically about such uses of animals; a few document significant uses in substantial 'Human uses' sections of articles on the names species; these are all candidates for full articles on those uses. Human use of animals is a major aspect of human culture, indeed the earliest form of agriculture, and animals continue to play many roles in human life today, from providing food and leather to pets, the models for gorilla suits, ingredients in folk magic, even animal-headed Egyptian deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convenient navigation in what context? I am trying to imagine a reader going to an article such as toad and needing this template. Can you explain why they would? jps (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zoological articles like "Toad" should have zoological templates, not vague collections of distantly related topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no coherent or consistent inclusion criteria; the mixture of food, myth, tech, etc. is overly broad and disparate; and the subcategorization is utterly OR. Additionally, the template is intractably incomplete: where are keyhole limpet hemocyanin, firefly luciferase, limulus amebocyte lysate, [any of the] model organisms (the only worm listed is leech, which is incorrectly classed under "other phyla"; apparently humans just don't interact with parasitic worms or C. elegans?), and all the thousands of other lab applications of natural products? No other flowers besides lily, rose, and tulip (e.g. poppy)? If we were to include these items, the template would be millions of bytes, and yet not including them is inconsistent and confusing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the others noted above, it's overly broad and nonsensical. If, as JoelleJay suggested, the criteria seemingly being used was applied evenly it would conceivably include nearly all life/species on the planet, both extant and extinct. Quite a few links are devoted to "dinosaurs", and when the question of why a Stegosaurus is included it was explained thus by the creator "Because it is one of the most popular dinosaurs and much has been written about it, summarized in Stegosaurus and indeed at Stegosaurus in popular culture. More than enough, in fact, to earn it a place in the 'Living things in culture' template, or in "don't know what culture means"-speak, "Human uses of living things". For a symbolic usage is indeed a "use". [1]. If all it takes to be included is symbolic usage, even for a creature that went extinct 150 million years before the genus Homo existed, exactly what is the cutoff criteria for inclusion? One I found even weirder, until it was removed earlier today the template contained "Gorilla suit"[2]). And currently contains: Dragon, Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology, Monkeys and apes in space, World Turtle, Fictional plants, Lists of legendary creatures, and Jaws (film), mixed in with links to various taxonomic articles. Heiro 00:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - following the given inclusion criteria we would need to add tens of thousands of articles with basically no connection, which makes no sense. No one has found meaningful narrower criteria either. --mfb (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly random. This tells us nothing about either the articles itself or the other articles linked. It's like version 0.01α of Amazon's suggestions. People who bought shoes were also interested in pencils. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the current one, but split into smaller ones if scopes allows. Some of these links can be their own navbox for sure. The "in x" pages (Insects in art, Insects in literature, Insects in medicine, Insects in music, Insects in mythology, Insects in religion, Cephalopods in popular culture, Molluscs in culture, Arthropods in film, Frogs in culture, Salamanders in folklore and legend, etc) can be in a navbox as their scope is well defined and a reader will very possibly would like to navigate from one of these topics to another of these. --Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 17 September 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Macclesfield Town F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sadly the club has been liquidated EchetusXe 13:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant template now that the club has been liquidated. JMHamo (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They still have players (#4, 6, and 15 are still at the club), plus others (See sites like Transfermarkt or Macclesfield Town's website) (User:ShadowBallX2, Talk To Me Man) 20:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, sadly. Also @ShadowBallX2: please note that Transfermarkt is not considered notable. GiantSnowman 20:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their 1st game in the 5th tier is on 26 September against AFC Telford United. If they cancel/postpone the game, then delete. However, if the game goes on as planned, then they have to have an XI and bench for the game, meaning they have a squad. I reccomend wait until either September 26, or the game is postponed before making a decision. (User:ShadowBallX2, Ok) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with ShadowBall, if they cancel or postpone the game then by all means delete the template, if they play then it should be kept. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: It's now the 27th. @EchetusXe, ShadowBallX2, and REDMAN 2019: did any match go ahead? It appears this club indeed dissolved and has no squad, is that correct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about this... Imma check. Also, does a club's website count as a notible source? (ShadowBallX2, We need to talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Delete. Sadly, the match wasn't played. I wish the club didn't have to be dissolved, but I think we all do. (ShadowBallX2, RIP Macclesfield Town) 23:03, 26 September 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) Techie3 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CS Sportul Snagov squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

CS Sportul Snagov was dissolved, the template is outdated and as the club was dissolved no players are currently under contract, so no need for this template anymore. Rhinen (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The club doesnt exist anymore, so no need for this template. ShadowBallX2 (Some Talk Page) 14:13, 16 September 2020

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ASC Daco-Getica București squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

ASC Daco-Getica București was dissolved, the template is outdated and as the club was dissolved no players are currently under contract, so no need for this template anymore. Rhinen (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki page for the club doesn't say its dissolved, so I'm not sure if the team is actually dissolved. If it isnt, then Keep. If it is, then Delete. ShadowBallX2 (A Talk Page)

@ShadowBallX2 Only the senior squad is dissolved, but the template was made for the senior squad. Rhinen (talk) 6:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh... In that case, Delete ShadowBallX2 (A Talk Page) 12:27, 23 Septeber 2020 (UTC)

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⚡ 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User talk page askings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 16 September 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 September 28. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Year_Zero_alternate_reality_game (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 relisted on 2020 September 28. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Argentine_films (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 no consensus. JBW (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ConvertAbbrev/ISO 639-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ConvertAbbrev/ISO 639-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both templates duplicate the dataset accessible via Module:ISO 639 name. 639-1 had one talk page use which was simplified with a direct lang-xx call and 639-2 is used only in Template:Infobox historic site (9 transclusions from it, only two have valid input). Since the -2 version is used in ((Infobox historic site)) only it will need to be changed and is doing the same exact thing as the ((lang2iso)) code right before it, it can just be removed. Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer pointing it at or wrapping it around ((ISO 639 name)) since it would keep the ((ConvertAbbrev)) family of templates comprehensive and minimize the documentation changes required at that page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would a wrapper give us that the current system is missing? As an example ((ConvertAbbrev|Languages|-2|Sanskrit)) produces san, but ((lang2iso|Sanskrit)) does the same thing: sa. The difference in the ISO result also means that the code in ((Infobox historic site)) which uses this and looks for a lang-xx template for that ISO will work, as there is no ((lang-san)) but there is ((lang-sa)). So the template isn't needed as it's duplicating datasets and the wrapper isn't needed as there is a template that does exactly this. And finally, because this template is used in a single place, there is no loss to the ConvertAbbrev family as users never used it in the first place. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, unless I'm missing something, it would seem that Template:ConvertAbbrev itself is only used in the above mentioned transclusions (excluding ofc, the /doc which makes it seem used). --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 3 September 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. No prejudice against nomination of the family as a whole, with this included, but it sounds like deleting just this template doesn't solve the greater perceived issue. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a high-quality, widely used template. Sysages (talk | contribs) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks like it came from a 2007 discussion here where ((R1)) might have a similar fate. From my understanding, ((R-phrase)) replaces these? – The Grid (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Db-r2 after replacing all uses. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The problem with that family of templates is they use the html tag abbr which is both against our MoS and also semantically wrong and not following HTML specifications. See also ((abbr)) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#Template:Tooltip. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gonnym is right. --Bsherr (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. On closer review, it seems the issue is with ((R-phrase)) as opposed to this one of many templates that uses it. I don't think it makes sense to delete just one of the whole series like this. --Bsherr (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like ((Rlink)) was made to consolidate all the templates in Category:R-phrase templates perhaps a group nomination to deal with them all would be more appropriate? Having a template system that works for all but one code seems like a potential source of confusion and issues. I do agree however that this template ultimately should be redirected to ((Db-r2)). --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. There wasn't consensus to use Template:Rlink and it is only transcluded in two articles; R2 is used in four and another of these (Template:R34) is in 88 articles. According to the infobox where these are used, R-phrases were replaced by GHS data. If this is correct, when the articles have been updated these can probably all be deleted. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pppery, Gonnym, and Bsherr: Do you people have comments about ((Rlink))? I personally think full deletion wouldn't be appropriate as the generated code is decently lengthy and errors in what exactly the code stand for could be introduced. Abbreviations seems quite suitable in this case actually since the R# stands for a phrase describing a risk. I could also see the case for using something like "R2 (Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire, or other sources of ignition)" to make it easier to read on mobile and when possible on screenreaders. The longer version wouldn't work in infoboxes though so perhaps a |short= parameter for these cases? For now I've converted ((R-phrase)) to use ((Abbr)) instead of the abbr span. --Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer to see most use of abbr avoided, especially if a simple wikilink to the meaning is a viable alternative. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it still goes against the MoS and the HTML specifications. "Abbr" isn't used for when you want to write text that is too large and want someway to hide it. How is "R2" exactly an abbreviation of "Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire or other sources of ignition"? The correct usage would be to convert the the parent template to use note system which is exactly what this template tries to do and fails. Changing from abbr tags to the Abbr template is exactly the same and doesn't change anything. Also, I'd also support a merge of all R2 into one central template/module. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Peter James. Christian75 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 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).