Template:Usersock-self
- 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 03:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It only had a half-dozen transclusions or so (which I've just removed while wearing my clerk hat). From an SPI perspective, this template does not actually convey any useful information (so what if someone confirmed that particular socks were theirs?), and I can't say I've ever actually seen anyone use it in my tenure at SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IPsock-self is similar to this but nonetheless don't see why any user would want to admit being a sockpuppet. The point of them violating their bans is to avoid detection. And this template has only been used once by one user back in 2016. Doesn't have much of a reason to remain. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:43, 11 October 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).
Template:SRT Commuter color
- 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 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This Template:S-line SRT Commuter on the list are no longer used after being replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/SRT Red Lines. - Jjpachano (talk) 13:02, 10 October 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).
Template:WAD
- 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 03:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used on more than 1400 airport pages and is supposed to link to an airport-specific entry at worldaerodata.com, see e.g. archived link for RKSI. The domain has been usurped though rendering this template useless. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also
Data current as of October 2006
paints a bleak picture by itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep, used as a reference in some cases. I have updated the template to use the web archive link and not link to the usurped domain. But I could see substituting this since it's not likely to be used for new references. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The link the template provides is now useless. No need for it to be around any more. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Substitute where used as a reference, and delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 11 October 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).