All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates
- 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 11:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating 350 templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, which is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system, the actual category text and previous TfDs (2019 February 27, 2019 December 19, 2020 October 8, 2021 April 24, 2021 May 1).
Gonnym (
talk) 10:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
[reply]
- Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, and I propose that in future this should probably be done under speedy criterion G6 as uncontroversial maintenance, I think it's a bit silly to continue having this discussion every 6 months where there will be unanimous consensus to delete all of them. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I suggested as much in April. Peter followed up with me on my talk page but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Izno (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom and per IP 192.76, future instances to be considered as speedy delete related maintenance. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:46, 23 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:CGNDB link
- 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 replacing all instances with ((Cite cgndb)). ✗plicit 11:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lightly used template. It can be replaced by ((Cite cgndb)) by doing this. I admit that isn't the greatest but I have asked for a fix at Template talk:Cite cgndb#Suppress ouput CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and delete it. I was not aware that ((Cite cgndb)) existed, but as it does the same thing that I intended this template to do, I will be satisfied with Cite cgndb prevailing. -- Denelson83 07:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:47, 18 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:Inconsistent citations
- 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 October 24. ✗plicit 11:46, 24 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).