The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Warp engine(technology) sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't know what this is, but it's clearly not a template. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The author is a new editor. Ask the author, Matan creator, if he would prefer it to be moved to his user-space or WP:SUBST'd into its only "real" current use, which is in his sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or delete It's clearly something in the wrong place. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to user:Matan creator/sandbox/Warp engine (technology) or draftify to draft: warp engine (technology) -- this it seems is supposed to sandbox something. I suspect that this editor knows that templates have sandboxes, and just placed this rough draft material into templatespace because of that. Also, delete the current transclusion, as templates should not be used for article text. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought speedy delete as a test edit. This is exactly the same material as what is written in user:Matan creator/sandbox without the transclusion. The template replicates the text, and the transclusion just makes two sets of identical text appear in the sandbox. I have tagged the template for speedy deletion. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 G2 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject YouTubers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No such WikiProject, written as a sentence instead of as a WikiProject template, created by blocked user, used in a small number of pages, basically provides no value to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be no reason to keep it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Useless Nigej (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WSA for Soundtrack Composer of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There seems to be a recent trend to create navigation box templates for every category from every entertainment (film, music, etc.) award given out. This is one such example. Alexandre Desplat alone has 20 such navboxes including this one. The sheer number of these within a single article seems like a hindrance to navigation not a benefit. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:57, 16 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Aslan (disambiguation) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no history that would favor having this template for this specific disambiguation page, which is no different than any other comparable disambiguation page. BD2412 T 20:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing special about this dab page. Nigej (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see your point, but I do not see the harm. There have been only a few attempts to add nn entries (redlinks) in this particular disamb page, so granted, it is not high traffic, or a nuisance, but as said I do not see the issue. If the community prefers to remove it so be it. I would keep though. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harm is that it is a practice inconsistent with similarly situated pages. BD2412 T 21:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience is that there are attempts to add red link in many dab pages. Nigej (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experience is that this type of warning is totally and utterly useless. It doesn't stop people adding themselves or their family, friends, band, and pets to list articles or sections. Good editors soon learn; drive-by editors and IPs never will. I have several relevant boilerplate deletion/reversion ESs which need one keystroke and one click. Narky Blert (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The instructions in this template are a contradiction of WP:DABSTYLE, which states that redlinks are allowed, as long as the linked topic is plausibly notable and there is a suitable blue-link included in the description attached to the entry. Per nom, there is nothing special about this disambiguation page, and this notice is very aggressive and could be off-putting to new editors.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the instructions are wrong. As currently written, it would require that every single entry carry a reference tag. None of the entries currently have inline references. There is no references section. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The instruction goes against both WP:DABMENTION (blacklinks and redlinks are fine, so long as there is a bluelink on the line which leads to useful information) and WP:DABREF (citations are not allowed on DAB pages).

Also, a DAB page is not a list. Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, red links should be allowed per WP:DABMENTION. A special template used just for that one disambiguation page is unnecessary. PyroFloe (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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:WikiProject United States. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPUS50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WPUS50 with Template:WikiProject United States.
There have been ongoing discussions about trying to reduce talk page banner noise. It would be great if this template could get merged into ((WikiProject United States)) to operate in a similar manner to ((WIR-00-2020)) within ((WikiProject banner shell)). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Shushugah (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate: The challenge encourages editors to contribute articles related to the United States and has proved very successful. Its use can hardly be compared to Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a new bannershell should be created to contain these editing challenges and revisions templates, including when they are included in classroom assignments. Though I will note that WPMILITARYHISTORY includes its editor challenge as part of its projectbanner, so perhaps the nom's path forward is the way to go in this case -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate per Ipigott; their rationale pretty much sums up my thoughts. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MJL could you explain why the WIR template is better? It looks to me exactly like the WPUS50 banner as applied say at Talk:Wendy Carlos. I must be missing some nuance. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bri, I think it might have something to do with the documentation that the WIR templates have. It's all very neatly contained and easy to update and expand. I've never had to update the US templates, so I can't really compare. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to answer my own question now after looking more closely. The WIR template collapses like the other elements inside the banner shell, instead of residing outside the banner shell like the WPUS50 tag. I suppose the former behavior is better so I will support the proposal. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support behavior in collapsing banner shell as described in my comment above. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate: The challenge templates shows people that articles were worked on for it, while the United States template solely shows they are part of that Wikiproject. --K. Peake 07:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What banner noise? There is no noise when clicking it 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There is no reason this sort of thing should be privileged from archiving and forever remain at the top of a talk page, unlike actual messages that discuss article content. Either merge into the wikiproject banner or bot convert to a "discussion" type post that will get archived in due course. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think that banner blindness is a not insignificant issue and I think this information can be displayed inside the collapse of ((WikiProject United States)) just as well as with the current format without hindering it's purpose. If the talk page is short no loss in visibility would occur since the banner wouldn't be collapsed and on busy pages like Talk:MAX Light Rail more attention would be given to higher priority information. For the sake of clarity I am imagining this working like the display for task forces. --Trialpears (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no reason to keep it separate per nom. PyroFloe (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom, better to consolidate. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – Nothing is being gained by allowing for increased banner clutter. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Trialpears. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Trialpears and Calliopejen1 — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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) 13:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Puffing Billy Railway color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Puffing Billy Railway lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Puffing Billy Railway stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Puffing Billy Railway style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Puffing Billy Railway left/Gembrook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/Puffing Billy Railway right/Gembrook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

6 deprecated ((s-line)) templates for Puffing Billy stations replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Puffing Billy. Fleet Lists (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Techie3 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, unused. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2021 January 23. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States/Ohio/Franklin_County_medical_cases_chart (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(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikipedia books (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has now displayed no content for over a year. There is no point in retaining it and its 5000 uses indefinitely, as opposed to putting it out of its misery with a deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background info Wikipedia:Wikipedia book creator status#Why are links to books hidden in articles?.--Moxy 🍁 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous discussion. Nothing changed since. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now. As the remarks linked to by Moxy explain, "As a result of anticipated future solutions, template transclusions should not be removed from articles unless it's in a section by its self." Unless and until that consensus changes, it is invidious to delete the template itself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think it would be appropriate to delete this because it probably won't be used again, but I highly doubt if we even want it to return. Using a Wikipedia book is basically never the optimal way to read articles since the lists usually are poorly curated and categories are usually a ton better at finding related articles. If you want a PDF of an article the easiest way would be the "Download as PDF" button and if you want to combine several PDFs into one that is trivial to do using online tools. That just leaves actually ordering books from PediaPress which is such a tiny proportion to readers that having thousands of links to books from mainspace just for them doesn't make much sense. I feel like a large scale RfC is in place to decide what to do with this mess. In that case I would probably support giving up on the PDF rendering and remove basically all links only retaining basic infrastructure for PediaPress. --Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, I do use the book pages that I (and sometimes others) curate; they are far less cluttered with tangential topics than categories are and one does not have to click through to subcategories. Secondly, PDF post-manipulation does not adequately process things like copyrights or page numbering and also makes it difficult to do things like changing titles to reflect the book structure. I know that I am in a small minority, but in-wiki navigation is in fact the base functionality originally conceived. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I know and that's what makes this discussion so hard! There are definitely times where I've thought "This book could be a great resource for someone interested in reading a bunch of articles on this subject who either runs Linux and has previously dabbled with MediaWiki2Latex or is willing and able to pay for a physical book and wait for it to be printed and shipped and cannot or prefer not to use the website." I presume you are in that category quite often and I don't think your possibility to use Wikipedia books should go away and that the book namespace and the book creator should be kept. I don't think that we should make any advertising for it though since using it is about as annoying things can get with me, a quite technically experienced person, taking 2 hours trying to get a PDF rendered before giving up. I think linking readers to content like that is an incredible waste of their time. Even if it got up and running well I doubt if it would be useful for more than a handful of users. I won't be voting here or start said RfC, but that's not because I don't have feelings about this subject but rather I have no idea what is the best way to handle it. --Trialpears (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per m:Keep history and previous consensus. If there's a wider RfC on the matter, I'd probably support removal from article space per Trialpears and maybe even deletion but at the moment I see more harms than gains. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per m:Keep history and previous consensus. This is a solution looking for a problem, focus is better aimed at redundant templates that can be merged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (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).