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 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:S-Bahn-Tessin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused rail icon template. Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vorlagendokumentation S-Bahn-Linie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was used in a single /doc page which I subst it into. Now unused. Gonnym (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ÖPNV Linz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused. Replaced with usages via Module:Adjacent stations/Upper Austria S-Bahn. Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Significant drug interaction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TeamAeroKickboxingAt2007WAKOCoimbra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all pages redirect to W.A.K.O. World Championships 2007 (Coimbra), so no longer needed for navigation between articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 delete. Izno (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

searching for pages that use the image, it looks like this invitation template was used once back in 2007. at this point, I think we can delete it. if we do keep it, it should be moved to a better name. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:WikiProject Piracy/Welcoming template or something of the like. Harmless, could still be used. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Obvious solution.★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 17 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Naft Tehran F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, appear to have been relegated to level 3 or lower? should either be updated and used, or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the fact they've been relegated to the third division means most/all of their squad won't be notable/have articles, and so a template is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AMD Ryzen 4000 series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem to be in the style of a template, this seems like it should be within a mainspace article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I have a number of points to share here, so bear with me as this will be a bit of a lengthy one. Firstly, the way it's set up, the template contains encyclopedic information that is added onto the articles it's transcluded on. Deleting the template would result in three missing CPU models across those articles. Secondly, I know it's not stated very well anywhere, especially in the template doc, but the reason why AMD Ryzen articles have the product list tables in templates like this one is to "deduplicate" tables between various articles that would otherwise feature the same table copied over and over. In the case of this Ryzen 4000 series template, it is on Zen 2, Ryzen and List of AMD Ryzen processors articles. An editor only needs to update the template once rather than have to update the same table three times across those articles when adding a new SKU to the table for example. The use of templates help maintain a consistent style and layout between the various articles, as well as keep info synchronised between them (with the "substituted" tables setup, there would be instances where one article's list is more up to date than the other because of forgetting to update the tables on other articles or not knowing they exist on those other articles etc). Thirdly, there are also at least 50 other Ryzen CPU list tables out there that are also in templates, transcluded onto articles. Some of them have been around for six years by now. I don't see why Template:AMD Ryzen 4000 series should be subst'd and deleted and just treated like a normal table while the 50+ other templates continue to remain as-is. Either we go subst and delete all those other templates, or keep everything like it is now. And since this system of usage of templates is quite vast and has been around for a while, I feel like there should be significant community-wide consensus for us to go and un-template everything. Overall, I feel that this template should be kept to maintain the uniformity of template usage on the articles. Additional note: yes, the table looks insignificant and contains just three SKUs as of typing this, but the reason for that is because AMD has indeed made only two models in the Ryzen 4000 non-G series lineup. This Ryzen 4000 template is a bit of a cousin to Template:AMD Ryzen 4000G series, which has the integrated-graphics-containing Ryzen 4000G SKUs in it. Looking at other templates on List of AMD Ryzen processors, it seems the consensus is to segregate tables based on feature set of the CPUs (e.g. iGPU or no iGPU) and different designs such as Renoir and Matisse, which is why there are separate Ryzen 4000 and 4000G templates. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment for AP 499D25: If this information were in the templates' documentation subpages in a concise form, it would help these templates avoid being nominated at TFD. You could even create a shared documentation page for all of the templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to Jonesey95: I have understood that these templates need a better, more thorough documentation so that editors understand the purpose of these templates, as well as why templates are being used at all instead of wikitables on the articles. Expanding the template documentation has been on my consideration list for edits to make throughout all these CPU list templates in the future for a while now, I'll definitely take note of that and get it done sooner. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I basically agree with AP 499D25. Erkin Alp Güney 19:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a content template with few enough, uncomplicated uses. Pick a canonical location and then remove the other uses by pointing to it per WP:SUMMARY. Izno (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno Could you please elaborate? I kinda get an idea of what you said, but I don't fully understand. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Putting content in template space is bad. It should be easy to edit most content templates, and having to go to another namespace is less than easy. It's also more susceptible to vandalism in template space. Izno (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, okay. I actually got sense of what you said above, which in the case of this template, the "canonical location" would be the List of AMD Ryzen processors article. I've noticed that the Ryzen article also has full list tables of processor models just like the list article. I actually think this is a brilliant idea, having a list of processors on just the list article only, and then getting rid of the lists on the Ryzen and on the Zen architectures articles and replacing them with some form of summary content, this way the whole issue of content duplication is solved in the first place. Man, this current setup of content duplication is a mess, I gotta say. One of the major changes I actually have in the works for the Ryzen article is to get rid of the full list tables there and replace them with short "summary" tables. I have already done that to the Ryzen 7000 mobile section of that article and so far, no objections have been made to it.

  Though, I recall seeing someone else removing lists of processors on a Zen architecture article before and replacing it with a "main article" link, only for it to be reverted by another editor within a few days. So it seems there is a little bit of consensus to duplicate content on other related articles. I don't feel comfortable potentially starting a gigantic content dispute over this, but I might give this a try. If it goes by a few days without anyone reverting my edits, then I might change my vote above to a delete.

  The majority of the templates have surprisingly received very little to no vandalism at all throughout the time since their creation.

  It's also worth noting this system of placing content in templates to be transcluded onto multiple articles is also widely in use on AMD GPU articles (e.g. List of AMD GPUs) and Intel GPU articles (e.g. Intel Arc), so I thought it was fine and normal to use the template space in this regard? That's a lot of articles and content to "de-templateify" and summarise either way. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some additional questions I have is that if this template were to be deleted, will it be substed on an article, like List of AMD Ryzen processors? Because if it isn't, then I'll have to re-create the table over again on the article, which is annoying.

  The other question is about attribution. Is it really not an issue that the page history is lost if we subst and delete the template? Can I copy the template code and place it on the article (as though I were substituting it)? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it would be substed. Attribution is not generally a concern at TFD, but closers (or at least, I) do it on request. Izno (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep unless we are merging all of the tables in List of AMD Ryzen processors Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 28 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Northern Ireland tasks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose that this be deleted: Has not been updated in years and contains numerous unhelpful red links. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, I have removed it from the project banner. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 21 July 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Comparison of memory cards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates comparison of memory cards and is ludicrously large for its intended purpose of transclusion. The two pages that link to it should simply link to the articlespace page instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this excessive and unhelpful. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, better to link to Comparison of memory cards instead. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 21 July 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).