The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WP1.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is unclear. It seems it is no longer used by the 1.0 team and many of its features are marked historical. I asked User:Walkerma and he said it is not being used nowadays. Therefore we could save a bit of space on talk pages and remove it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there was a possible use in this template to assess an article was not associated with any WikiProjects. Now we can use ((WikiProject banner shell)) on its own with a |class= parameter in these cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. I'm surprised this only has one !vote... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 02:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems that this banner is now just a relic of different times on Wikipedia. It's one more step towards combatting banner blindness. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also WP:VITAL/((Vital article)), which may as well have recently taken over this banner's purpose. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:1.0 seems like it was more important back in the mid-2000s when it began. Improving and expanding articles has always been a goal along with WP:1.0. Technology has definitely changed, and even the usage of physical media is outdated (I know it's hard for me even to admit this). – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. DFlhb (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the purpose of this template pretty clearly marks a page as having been incorporated into the various releases made by the project known as WP1.0 (sometimes digital, sometimes physical releases). Which makes it something of a WikiProject banner (hence the use of the underlying template). I do think it's probably not useful for keeping its own assessment information beyond that. Its function as something tracking a "physical release" might reasonably be incorporated into WPBS with a |release=1.0 or similar. (Pick a name.) However, not really convinced this should be deleted without some effort put into placing a list somewhere onwiki of all the pages that have ended up in particular releases. If that already exists and doesn't require the use of the categories I'm sure this banner provides, full deletion seems fine. Izno (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm convinced that all this information is already in lists. For example 0.7 release is listed in subpages of Wikipedia:Version 0.7, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify then delete, per nom and Izno. CMD (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see a reason to keep, but listifying may be useful for preserving history. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It has largely been replaced by the vital article template. This template is little more than a relic that has been abandoned by the associated project. The only thing that the template does is clutter talk pages. A list could be created, assuming that the project desires it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Before this tag is deleted, would it be possible to generate a list of articles tagged by this template that are not tagged by a Vital Articles template? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outdated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: List created here. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chisholm family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-article family tree with no template parameters. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. --MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 03:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 19:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2015–16 NBL Canada Atlantic standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 NBL Canada Central standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-article table with no template parameters. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 18:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Systemic bias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A quick search through WhatLinksHere suggests that instances of this templates use which have a reason parameter would be better served by ((globalize)) or lack the basis in systemic bias to not just use ((NPOV)). Even in theory, I have problems with this template: we operate off verifiability, not truth, and whilst systemic bias can undermine our policies (hence the existence of the Wikiproject), some talk page topics suggest that people believe allegations of bias should allow them to ignore reliable sources.

At the very least, force use of the reason parameter, and delete all instances where it isn’t used. Mach61 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete, because this is vague and based on an NPoV-related essay, not the NPoV policy. But replace with ((Globalize)) or some other template, in most cases. The template was put on a page for a reason, and the reasons doesn't go away just because the template does. There are only 64 transclusions of this, so figuring out whether it's a ((Globalize)) or a ((NPOV)) or whatever, on a page-by-page basis, shouldn't be terribly hard (though remove it entirely if no clear issue is apparent from a |reason= or a talk page thread or just looking at the content). I can do some of that if the consensus reached is to delete this (or merge it to some other template, or otherwise not just leave it as-is).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-forum1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-forum2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-forum3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-forum4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The uw-forum templates are redundant to ((Uw-chat1)) and others, which are used by Twinkle and RedWarn/Ultraviolet. Both series of user warning templates warn users about using talk pages as forums. Eyesnore ^talk💬 04:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect them to the corresponding ((uw-chatX)) templates. They appear to support the same parameters in the same order. Not opposed to some textual merging if that seems pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per SMcCandlish. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.