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) 14:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This template is equivalent to just writing ((#ifeq:a|b|1))((#ifeq:c|d|1))... for arguments a, b, c, d. There is no particular reason to use the template when that can just be written directly. It seems to be used almost exclusively with a single comparison in a barnstar template which was not substituted cleanly on user and user talk pages, with code like ((#if: ((ifequal|(({2))}|alt))|[[File:Current Events Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:Current Events Barnstar.png|100px]])) being on about 900 pages. I have edited the template so that it substs cleanly; it should now be substed onto those pages. There is also a very similar template Template:Ifor which has much more use, but it can't be redirected as they use different argument names. User:GKFX^talk 22:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Template has been substituted and can be deleted without any major disruption. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Collapse. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Only 50 some uses, is already implemented with a meta template that should instead be used generally (or another one of our Category:Collapse templates). Izno (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as redundant. User:GKFX^talk 22:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GKFX: what is the alternative template, can we make a redirect ? Yug (talk) 🐲 22:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main ones are ((hidden)) and ((collapse)). It would be possible I think to redirect Summarization to Collapse as the parameter names match up (1 and title). User:GKFX^talk 22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

redirect to ((collapse)) seems like a reasonable outcome. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Finance Chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, last substantial edit 2011. User:GKFX^talk 21:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused except for a couple of sandboxes, and redundant to ((#invoke:String2|matchAny)). The Lua alternative has the advantage of supporting patterns and indicating which of the strings matched, which this template doesn't. User:GKFX^talk 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Transwiki to Templates.Wikia and if Wikiversity or Wikisource takes this stuff. There should be a repository of MediaWiki template code somewhere for CC/GPL/GFDL content for the greater administrator/editor community outside of WMF that uses wikis. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) User:GKFX^talk 09:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Ali Rahnema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This template has potential hence why I added it to my unused templates task force's templates with potential section. There's enough links to justify keeping the template as well as using it across at least and more than five pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment de-orphaned (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Latest stable software release/Mx Player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; refers to a nonexistent mx-ui article in the code. Does not appear to be related to MX Player, though a web search did not help in clarifying that. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Latest stable software release/Ares Galaxy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ares Galaxy. Orphaned, and "[t]hey can usually be deleted if they are orphaned". ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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. ✗plicit 01:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:USAR task forces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All entries are listed at Template:United States fire departments and that navbox is already placed on all articles which makes this template redundant. Gonnym (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 November 21. ✗plicit 01:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Cabos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Latest_preview_software_release/Cabos (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. ✗plicit 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:NFL Premier Division teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chirag United Club Kerala (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Salgaocar F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dempo S.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NFL Premier Divison is a former football league that went defunct after 2007. The template is superseded by Template:I-League Champions which features the same team list and are now playing under the I-League which is the NFL Preimeir Divsion's successor. Much like defunct teams templates from this sport that no longer have any reason in staying, the same applies to former leagues or divisions. The team templates don't have enough links needed for a navbox and are thus not able to aid in navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Latin alphabet sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is on every letter page (like R or T) and it isn't necessary. They all have too much infobox content already, and we can assume our readers know the alphabet. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The point is not whether someone knows the alphabet but whether that they can navigate from one letter to the next. This template provides that navigation. It is clearly not an infobox, and if we apply that logic, ((sidebar)) is deleted as are all its using templates. You're welcome to submit that one to TFD or RFC for removal as you wish (I have considered such, but for generally better reasons), but odd-man-out deletions of sidebars is not reasonable under that rationale. Separately, there is a series of such sidebars for other alphabets as well for which the Latin alphabet probably should have its own sidebar. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By "infobox content", I mean anything in a div that wants to be at the top-right part of the page. Every one of the 26 articles A-Z has too much of that, and this is the obvious content to remove. It need not be converted to a bottom navbox; the letter links are already in ((Latin script)) at the bottom of letter pages. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Izno, since the point of this template is clearly navigation. There might be potential redundancy with the ((Latin script)) navbox also present in every Latin letter article, though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a nicely constructed and useful navigation sidebar for the Latin alphabet. There is some redundancy as noted with the navbox at the bottom, but I don't believe that is a problem. I'm tempted to question why it's titled the "ISO basic" Latin alphabet, I think this alphabet predates the ISO by a millenium or so. User:GKFX^talk 22:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per GKFX. --The Tips of Apmh (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Izno.-- OatCookies (talk) 2:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @1234qwer1234qwer4 and GKFX: the navbox does look very nice. My question is: is it necessary in its current position on the 26 articles A to Z? This is primarily a proposal to remove the template from those 26 pages. I believe the template would be unused if it is removed from there; if there are other pages (Latin alphabet, perhaps) that it would still be used on, then it should not be deleted. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've had a look at the template in its current position on letters A, B, C and D, and I did notice that there is a lot of floated-right content. However this template is only a small part of the problem, and by adjusting the placement and formatting of other content it has been possible to improve the situation quite a bit. I do think this template is useful where it is. User:GKFX^talk 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The ((grid list)) is a definite improvement; I did something similar at R. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or merge with infobox. Similar templates for other scripts have been a very nice feature for me in the past. One of the most important and useful things about a letter, along with its pronunciation and shape, is its relation to the alphabet that it is used in. This template clearly displays that for the letters of the Latin alphabet.Ultrapotassium (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC) — Ultrapotassium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Technically it only displays the letter's position in one of the alphabets it is used in (the basic Latin alphabet), since other languages using the Latin script often have modified alphabets. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 after replacement with the proper/more modern H and P phrases. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:R1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R-phrase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• All numbered R templates in Category:R-phrase templates except for R-link.

Propose merging Template:R1 with Template:R-phrase.
I propose merge / deletion of all templates in Category:R-phrase templates to Template:R-phrase. It's much easier to maintain these having a single template. It also makes it easier to change if there are updates to the categorisation or formatting in the future, and decreases our sitewide maintenance burden. Most R templates are unused and as you can see there are posts on Template talk:Rlink dating back to 2009 where deletion / merger are considered. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• don't merge I think this merge may be just wasting time. R-phrases are superseded, so if you see them (and S phrases) in articles please convert them to H and P phrases. Perhaps we can do this for R1, instead of mucking about with merge busy work for templates that will soon all be anachronisms. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have edited the few pages in article space that transclude it, so that R1 is no longer called. Though perhaps it will be best to just leave it alone to avoid messing up article history. I suspectm the nominator has not looked at how the templates work. It will be ridiculous to merge just R1 without merging all the rest (R2, R3, ...). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Graeme Bartlett could you please explain how an edit that changes a usage of ((R-phrase)) should be? Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silver_perchlorate&type=revision&diff=1052381486&oldid=979567869 where I removed R and S phrases and replaced with H and P. Perhaps non article pages can be substed, but there are a wide variety of uses, even in arbcom cases. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• don't merge per Graeme Bartlett: the set has been abandoned by EU. Remaining quesion: should they be replaced in the articles, or be kept for historical reasons (in an article, keep some reference to "it was R3"; though this is not infobox-worthy)? Replacement-process? -DePiep (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I am not keen to add this information back into text even as historical information. This is because these R values really apply to a product in a package. It is not an immutable property of a substance. The R value will depend on how it is packaged, the quantity, and any contamination, and perhaps local law. Articles with R values are typically created early in the history of Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  OK. -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @@Graeme Bartlett, DePiep, and Gonnym: in this case, wouldn't it be better just to replace/delete this set of mostly unused Rn templates? Particularly the unused ones - they are just stating what is part of a historical almanac. I don't see any reason to keep them at all based on what you've said. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The reason to keep them, is that if you delete them, all the historic revisions of pages will then show up red links instead of valid values. (I am now up to replacing R8 in articles, having finished R1 to R7). Already if you use these R phrases you will get (outdated) displayed in your chembox, and I think that is enough. And they certainly should not be deleted before all articles have a chance to be upgraded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Some practical info (you probably already know): in ((Chembox)) (in ((Chembox Hazards)) actually) |RPhrases=, |SPhrases= parameter input is suppressed (not shown) when GHS input is present. R- and S-phrases are shown with the (outdated) label when no GHS input is available. Pages are categorised under Category:Chembox DSD GHS changeover (0). Also there are the Template parameters usage listings. HTH -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Replace the R phrases and delete all R templates once unused. While sadly the replacement isn't a 1-1 easy replacement, placing the templates at the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell will make sure that this process isn't lost and forgotten and maybe add more editors willing to participate it in. Regarding the issue of old revisions - TfD deletes templates all the time. Since TfD deletes templates and is a fundamental part of its process, that issue is a non-issue so opposing leaving any unused templates for any reasons. Gonnym (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete with replacement per Gonnym. --Izno (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deprecate, and Delete after replacement. This deletion was the target since 2017. I note that, through ((Chembox)), ((Chembox DSD/warning note 2017 DSD-GHS)) is still used on 680 pages (like Ethylene). Replacement takes knowledge & research, so replacement is a project/task, not a subst. Blanket replacement could be discussed at WP:CHEMICALS I guess. IOW: already 4 years in the pen. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was also going to note that this process will likely take years. It also appears that all the S-Phrases templates are tagged, linking here. But are they formally also be considered for deletion in this discussion? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As I read it, for this proposal: "merge" is disadvised, and S-phrase is not included. More background from the 2017 talks & changes (possibly out of scope for this TfD): The 2017 discussion for ((Chembox)) is archived here, the telling subtemplate is the 'outdated' warning note. From there: Indeed S-phrases are parallel issue, as is parameter |EUclass= (showing pictograms). The talk was started by Leyo, who also has first-hand experience with the dewiki transition. Also, someone ;-) suggested that the infobox read GHSvalues from wikidata (in preview?, as changeover support per article). Another option to consider is: can't they be removed from the Chembox and enwiki anyway, irrespective of the GHS replacement? Because (A) Four years, how useful/meaningful/representative/sourced are they anyway, and B. if translation into new GHS is not trivial, what is their value for at all, and for whom?

Again, I think this better be continued at WP:CHEM with more involved editors engaging, instead of an enforced theoretical outcome here. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good points. You could invite them here to continue, or we could close this as deprecated and delete when replacement is done and then at WP:CHEM talk about how to handle the replacement. If for example, the replacement decided is to just remove altogether, then that doesn't contradict the close here. Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deprecate, continue the project to orphan these templates by updating articles, and allow deletion of individual R and S templates when they are orphaned. Right now, there are 26 untranscluded "S" templates (for example, ((S3))), and 41 untranscluded "R" templates (for example, ((R3))). It would be useful to be able to delete those, and to delete subsequent unused S and R templates as they pop up on the unused template weekly report. That will help editors avoid noise on this report, and it will keep the S and R template categories populated only with templates that still need to be migrated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I have depopulated from R1 to R22 for articles. I rescued a few sandboxes, but those left are not worthwhile to turn into articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 procedural close. The parent template is under discussion already at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 8#Template:No create. Izno (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:No create/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused CSS page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).