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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl remembrance roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should be merged with 2011–12 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl season Frietjes (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can be better off displayed as a list on the article rather than on a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Announcements/Current collaborations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template lists "current" collaborations for 2016. It is marked historical but still transcluded on a few hundred pages (mainly Wikipedia:Goings-on/May 9, 2021 and similar). Having nothing is better than actively wrong information. Ping to Enterprisey since this will involve a change to their bot that create new pages with this template. --Trialpears (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as this template constitutes the left half of Wikipedia:Goings on, and the right half is specifically about featured pages, that page should be reformatted, its lead rewritten, and its title renamed.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 28 May 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Course link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Artifact from the Education program namespace. All uses are just a link to a deleted page (the support pages are being deleted). Should be substituted and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 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 May 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lancaster_JetHawks_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jackson_Generals_roster (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 Delete -FASTILY 08:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-NPR-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-NPR-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-NPR-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-NPR-4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused - tracked with Z-series templates and have a grand total of one uses... ever. Also somewhat redundant to ((Stop NPP)) series which at least has been used occasionally (though really I don't see why we have these when admins can just yank the perm - and generally an impersonal template isn't great for this function). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - these would make sense if new page reviewing was a widely distributed user right, but as it is this template makes about as much sense as a template to warn admins before taking them to ARBCOM. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (including ((Stop NPP)) since we have a user right. If someone is doing new page patrol incorrectly, an admin can simply revoke the right. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One very polite warning template might be OK. Having 4 warning templates gives the wrong idea though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd lean delete since they are simply not used, but I see some respected voices arguing keep the last time these were discussed. Lots of things have changed since 2017 obviously, and they may feel differently now, so pinging Kudpung, Serial Number 54129, TonyBallioni, Vexations to see if the have any comment to make. (Also pinging TenPoundHammer, who nominated last time round). GirthSummit _(blether) 13:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the ping, GS; where was the original discussion again?! My wikibrain tends not to last more than a week, let alone years  :) ——Serial 13:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serial Number 54129, it's linked on the talk pages for each of these templates. (And now here too for your convenience.) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems like the consensus at the time was that we were anticipating an increased need for the warning which never materialized; participants at the time seem to have been allowing for the possibility that we would be handing out NPR permissions very liberally, which hasn't really been the case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed. Put me down as delete all then, in light of Vexations and SN's comments below. I don't think a templated message is the right way to go if you're considering pulling the NPP perm - it should be a personalised message with some detail about what they're doing wrong and advice for improvements. Decent NPP reviewers are a precious commodity, they're worth investing in; if you don't think they have the capacity to become decent, just pull the perm. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Girth Summit, as far as I can tell, Uw-NPR-1 and Uw-NPR-3 have both been used once. [1] and [2] The other two don't appear to have been used at all. We clearly don't need them. Vexations (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (perhaps keeping the L1 warning, which could act as a pre-tool-tugging demand to improve or else). As suggestedd, my previous keep !vote was predicated on their probable increasing use, a circumstance which has not materialized.
  Thanking Garth Summitt for the link. ——Serial 13:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I personally lean much more toward the WP:Template the regulars philosophy than most editors, but even so, it needs to be done well. This template doesn't even have customization options for the placer to explain what they think the issue is, so the chance of it being received is very low. ((Stop NPP)) appears to be targeted at non-NPP editors who are doing tagging/etc., which is a different situation and one where it makes more sense to have a template. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete think the Stop NPP ones work fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 23 May 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Low linked articles progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Low linked articles is no longer a dated maintenance category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The template links to the category of the same name. And the category only has one article labeled under it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

((orphan)) no longer uses |few= * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This wiki does not appear to have the significant history of stability or substantial number of editors required per WP:ELNO #12 for external linking to open wikis, so having a barely-used template to link to said wiki probably isn't desirable. Hog Farm _Talk 06:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The template is a promotion for a website. Not allowed per Wikipedia's policy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 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 redirect to Template:Top icon. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old version of ((top icon))s deprecated in favor of said template. There are only four pages using these left so full removal should be easy. --Trialpears (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete; should be uncontroversial. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator --Vacant0 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((top icon)) since the template is deprecated and someone might still look for it; maybe delete+redirect. Casspedia (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, there's a chance that some old userpages still use it. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to not break pages that are still on the old standard. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace uses and delete. --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The 4 pages still using this will have to be updated not to break uses. I don't care if it gets redirected or deleted though. --Trialpears (talk) 12:27, 21 May 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 May 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Indic_script_needed (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).