Template:ACR 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of this template's function was deleted in an earlier TFD in 2020 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_27#Template:ACR_top. Now it is a simple (({2|))}, which does not need a template. Izno (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (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:Sfdisc list
- 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) 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template for a process marked historical 5 years ago and which hasn't apparently been used in 15 years. Izno (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete, there is no documentation nor note that it is a historical template. CRwikiCA talk 18:07, 11 April 2023 (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:Reqarchive
- 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) 23:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally necessary. In today's day and age users are expected to be WP:BOLD and archive things themselves, or avail themselves of the standard archiving bot functionality to archive the contents of a section.
Current use indicates no one is using it (with only 3 ancient transclusions). Izno (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one would expect that this would not have many uses, as when it is used, and then the discussion is archived, the template would be removed. And one should expect that not all users are conversant on how to do that, so would not be able to archive successfully. Also, archival will probably resulting in a TAG:BLANKING that will pop up on edit patrolling, that may affect how some users regard doing anything like archival, and dealing with EPs with UW-blank notices. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it should probably be merged with ((ArchivingSoon)) and other archival request templates though. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (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).
2016 Summer Paralympics wheelchair rugby convenience 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per the current convention for Olympics and Paralympics articles, the game and standings templates should be hosted in the parent article, and not in individual templates. if consensus changes over LST vs templates, we can always put all the matches and standings into a single template with a switch so we don't need to watch 20 templates per event. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2023 (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:Ifu s
- 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) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used only about a dozen times, all in the 2009-2010 timeframe. Clearly this has fallen out of favor, if it ever was in favor. Izno (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you subst the uses, and delete from any docco, then I think this could go. And IFU has been renamed to FFU, and also as I do not work at IFU any more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no issue with substing. Izno (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2023 (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:BLP top
- 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) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused in over 15 years. Izno (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Izno: I have no idea if anyone is using this in their process, but the template is supposed to be subst'ed so just looking for transclusions isn't necessarily going to tell you whether anyone is using it anywhere. --B (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Only about a dozen potentials and I'd guess in that count only the 15-year old BLPN archives used it. Izno (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd say subst on those discussion pages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (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:ArchivingSoon
- 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) 13:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used only twice in nearly a decade of existence. A handmade note is sufficient, at most. Izno (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you know? By virtue of the way it is used, it is supposed to be removed from the discussion. --B (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It has existing transclusions on two pages created by the author of the template. That indicates to me that it's not being used the way you think it's supposed to be used.
- Even were the inconsistency not on display, in today's day and age users are expected to be WP:BOLD and archive things themselves, or avail themselves of the standard archiving bot functionality to archive the contents of a section. We do not need a template to indicate everything a user might do. Izno (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2023 (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:Lint-whitelist
- 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) 13:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally necessary; template editors are sufficiently knowledgeable that this template isn't needed, and for everywhere else it might actually be needed a wikitext comment will suffice (I don't expect those to exist). Izno (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the relevant template portions could be includeonly'd. As template creator I endorse deletion of this template as not required in it's current form. It is however in use, and those usages should ideally be resolved before deletion.
- ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2023 (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:Archive inline
- 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) 13:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Used on 3 pages in the past 15 years. Clearly not a needed template and ultimately more complicated than simply linking to a specific archive with normal wikitext. Izno (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2023 (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:Discussion centralize top
- 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) 13:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a very special case version of ((discussion top)) to close WP:MULTI discussions, but in the decade it's existed it's been used on 3 pages. Clearly unneeded. Izno (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2023 (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 2023 April 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:16, 14 April 2023 (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 2023 April 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2023 (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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Redundant template. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2023 (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).