The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 merge to Template:Welcome cookie. There is consensus to merge these two together. Further, there appears to be a rough consensus here against retaining the "tip of the day" functionality in the final product. There is, however, no conseusus here to turn the template into a wrapper. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Welcome-personal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Welcome cookie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Welcome-personal with Template:Welcome cookie.
These templates are basically the same thing: a variation on some idea of the standard welcome template, but with an image of cookies. They've diverged slightly since they weren't set up to sync with the standard welcome as it's changed, but that doesn't change their fundamental similarity.

If we're not yet ready to wrapperify them (a common-sense measure that would fix the syncing issue), we should at least merge them together. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as the tip of the day is not included...as its banner spam that deters from the inportant links. If I recall correctly the only reason it was made was to include the tip of the day that was originally rejected.--Moxy 🍁 22:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the tip of the day should definitely not be sent along with the welcome. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 02:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to the template without the tip of the day. I support replace / delete, as it is very confusing to have lots of differently named templates around and better to centralise to a single name for similar templates.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some history here from earlier this year for those not familiar. I think the relevant discussions are: VPP proposal (and related user talk discussion), then an ANI discussion and Welcoming committee RfC ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above, but note that this is not in any way a prelude to making them look like, or merging them into, the awful mess that is the new-style ((Welcome)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 21 October 2020 (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 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. There is no prejudice against renomination if the main article is deleted in the future. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:American Capital of Culture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template without an article on the subject. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main article is in draft space. I don't think that is a convincing reason to delete this entity. It does link articles in a way that is useful for navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep especially since main article will probably soon be published. El Johnson (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The draft is actually currently eligible for WP:G13 I believe. It is unlikely to be published, unless someone reading this wants to clean it up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Done some work on the article, added sources and removed copyright issues. Intend on moving it back into main as soon as the copyvio revdel is done. --Trialpears (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2020 (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 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. If cleaning up the template is not deemed to be a success, and there are still concerns about the usage or content (not just styling/redlinks) then this template can be re-nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Maphrians and Metropolitans of the East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on 17 biographies. Red links far outnumber functional links. WP:TOOSOON to have this template before more articles are written. Elizium23 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Template used on 22 articles, and matches List of maphrians, and thus is completely sourced. Linking can be removed, and content can be retained where applicable. This user is pursuing an extreme desire to remove content. Mugsalot (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, per WP:EXISTING again, Unlinked text should be avoided. Elizium23 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been brought to my attention that this navbox duplicates List of maphrians and therefore is unnecessary as a source of information. Elizium23 (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware navboxes exist as a supplement to lists? There are navboxes of popes, patriarchs, prime ministers etc, this is the same. Also the template can be retained and red links removed without deleting the template. It is wholly unnecesary to delete the template. This is a niche subject with little attention, it is unreasonable to expect more articles to be created in the immediate future, considering very few users are aware of this subject. Mugsalot (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to follow template guidelines, however, I really oppose the amount of red links and non-link text here as it far outnumbers the actual links and makes this template needlessly big and unhelpful for navigation purposes. Remove / comment out all red links and dates, leave only blue links. --Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym It would be misleading and unhelpful to remove non-link content, which directly correlates to the aforementioned list. I can accept removing red links, granted the content, including dates, is retained. Mugsalot (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, why can you not accept WP:EXISTING? Elizium23 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:EXISTING, "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result", I would say that applies here. To remove red-linked content would suggest only those individuals with articles existed, which would leave the template inaccurate and incomplete. Mugsalot (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not misleading. A navigation template is not an article or a list article. It's a tool meant to help users navigate between related articles. If you place a ton of text that isn't links in it, it fails its one and only purpose. I entirely support Elizium23 in his opinion on the links. --Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The template represents a complete set of data of all incumbents of the offices named on the template, and removing those red-links suggest only the incumbents with articles existed, which is inaccurate and incomplete. Anyone without prior knowledge of this subject, which by the sheer quantity of red-links should make clear how niche this is, will be presented with inaccurate information with your suggestion. Mugsalot (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, there are various ways to infer that that is not true. You can read the List of maphrians article and see the contiguous reigns. You can read the dates along the left side of the navbox, and knowing that by nature the officeholders are contiguous, there are more that are not displayed. The ordinal numerals are not contiguous, indicating that there are others. The navbox is not viewed in isolation, it is attached to articles, which have predecessor and successor fields. Elizium23 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and maybe refurbish per Gonnym. I would imagine all these potential article subjects are notable enough to receive articles, so if nominator has not done so I encourage notification of the relevant WikiProjects since red links can encourage article creation. Wholesale deletion is emphatically not the right course of action here, however, as this template does provide a clear, historical footpath to trace via navbox. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23, there is little to no point in a navbox if it requires looking elsewhere for information to provide a full picture when that can be very easily provided on the navbox itself. It's frankly idiotic to remove content simply because you don't like red links. The template, as I have written it, includes a complete set of data as provided in sources, there are no other known office holders missing from that template. To remove those that don't yet have articles would go against WP:EXISTING.

Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, I am not opposed to removing the red links but retaining the content. Mugsalot (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would also go against WP:EXISTING. And removing them would not, according to three of us here. And the navbox does not "require looking elsewhere for information", I am simply pointing out that the information is already present in a number of forms if someone needed to find it, which they don't, because they can use common sense. Elizium23 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is remarkably simple. "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data" per WP:EXISTING. You are suggesting removing content so users would have to go to the list of office holders instead. There is no common sense in removing content in this template that forms part of a "well-defined and complete set of data". Mugsalot (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the specific wording of this directive. It does not say "should be retained" or "must be retained/included", it says they can be retained. So their retention here is subject to the consensus that forms, not to any policy that exists to force our hands. The common sense is that, as a corollary to WP:SEAOFBLUE, nobody wants to see a sea of red. Not editors and not readers. If these articles are ever created, it will be very slowly and very stubbily. Red links which do not have a well-founded hope of article creation must be removed from articles, and that is the guidance I observed when editing this template. Per WP:REDNOT, Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template. I think that's pretty clear. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2020 (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 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created for use in one article, Bell Bay, Tasmania, where its use was reverted. Abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2020 (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 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 -FASTILY 23:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bendigo Spirit roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Content exists in the only place it is relevant, 2017–18 Bendigo Spirit season. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2020 (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 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Back to the Egg tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused article content that exists in a better form at Back to the Egg#Track listing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Templates like these are best used on albums where most or all tracks have their own articles. But the standard four or five per album should never be given this treatment. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:23, 17 October 2020 (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 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arild Busterud M55 Record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused content that could go into Arild Busterud if it were sourced and explained and provided with some context, but unusable in the current form. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2020 (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 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 -FASTILY 02:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBL-Pharex B-Complex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template for nonexistent article Pharex B-Complex. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBL-Fern-C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template for nonexistent article Fern-C. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBL-Excel Roof (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template for nonexistent article Generika Drugstore Coolers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBL-Cossack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template for deleted article Cossack Blue Spirits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PBL-AddMix (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused roster template for deleted article AddMix Transformers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All abandoned for five years prior to nomination. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:24, 17 October 2020 (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 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Outer Space Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no links or transclusions. Appears to be an abandoned experiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and unhelpful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (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 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ocean's Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template related to unsourced article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for a template for this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (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 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, not edited for 13 years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and unhelpful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox person/Internet info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being used in infoboxes to add social media info against consensus. Infoboxes contain |website=, to be used to specify an "official" website, presumably where a reader could go to find such information. Even ELs are limited per WP:ELMIN and multiple Social Media links are discouraged per WP:ELNO. Chris Crocker is a good example of how promotional this is. MB 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivia that should not be in an infobox, or Merge any useful parameters into ((Infobox person)). There does not appear to be a need for a separate infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete infobox person already has all the necessary fields. MarnetteD|Talk 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fields which should be in an infobox are already there. A usage example is the "Internet information" at Jonti Picking and that shows non-encyclopedic cruft. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this appears to take no account of WP:EL, nor of previous consensus discussions about what URLs are appropriate in infoboxes. If someone really has more than one official online page, the extant |website= can show more than one. The entire line of template code for that in ((infobox person)) is |data70=(({website|(({homepage|(({URL|(({url|)))))))))))), so it is freeform input. One could put in two links to official sites using ((plainlist)) or whatever. There is nothing to merge from this template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of these uses can be replaced with ((Infobox YouTube personality | embed=yes)) -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a little sad to see this deleted since (as far as I know) it was the first example of embedding with infobox (connected to this edit) but I agree that this one can probably go now that almost all biographical infoboxes have embedding. We could redirect it to ((Infobox YouTube personality)) if the history is important, but I suppose the history for Template talk:Infobox probably has anything important. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:51, 17 October 2020 (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 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 merge/redirect. A few comments would have been beneficial here but looks like that's not happening. Since no one actually opposed consolidating these and two editors supported it that is the preferred outcome. Regarding the redirect left behind there is no consensus and it should be taken to RfD if there is a desire for further discussion. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bio-warn-deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-bio-deleted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bio-warn-deletion with Template:Db-bio-deleted.
Most administrators now use the Template:Db-bio-deleted template. This makes the former template (bio-warn-deletion) outdated and unnecessary. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I can't tell how these templates are even different; they seem to describe the exact same thing having happened, with two slightly different versions of the wording to get out of sync and mess things up. jp×g 05:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any pressing need for two of these, and I have no idea why Amorymeltzer created Template:Db-bio-deleted when Template:bio-warn-deletion already existed. However, I find the argument "most people don't use this, so we should get rid if it" unconvincing. Unless it actually does any harm, is there any reason not to leave it as an option, so that someone can use it if they should choose to? JPxG says that having alternative versions will "mess things up", but gives no explanation whatever as to how that will happen. Likewise, Train of Knowledge says that the original version is "outdated", but does not say in what way, or how that causes problems. At one time I used to use Template:bio-warn-deletion fairly frequently, but haven't done so for years, so it won't make much if any difference to me if it disappears, but I don't see any good reason why I (or anyone else) shouldn't have the option of using it if we choose to, nor do I see how removing it would benefit the encyclopaedia. Equally I don't know why there are people who think that getting rid of templates that they don't like, without offering any explanation as to what harm they do, is a good way to use their time, rather than getting on with things that stand to benefit the encyclopaedia. If it ain't broke don't fix it. JBW (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ((Db-bio-deleted)) was created as part of a full-fledged addition of templates for sysops to leave notices about deleted pages, where previously there had only been a few, such as ((Bio-warn-deletion)). CSD taggers had templates, but if a page were to be deleted without being tagged, there were often no good templates the deleting sysop could use. Thus, basically, templates were created to mirror the nomination templates. A big part of the reason was to add the feature to Twinkle (some links here and here), which was much requested, but they'd been a hole for a while. The few such templates that did exist (you can see others linked at Template:bio-warn-deletion/doc) were few and far between, and fairly ancient; I'm not sure I ever saw one in use. At any rate, since I was creating templates to match the names (i.e. Db-crit-notice) and features of the nominating templates, I made a few that largely duplicated the older templates rather than completely take them over with a new and different style/featureset.
  I have no real opinion on this, except to say that the intent of both of these templates is the same, but perhaps the usage is different. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Amorymeltzer based on your link at Template:bio-warn-deletion/doc, is there any reason all of the -deletion sets there shouldn't just be redirected to the new template labelled "- Similar"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No? They've hardly ever been used, so with the db-whatever-deleted series in use by Twinkle, I can't imagine the older naming style ever being more than extraneous. That's just my opinion, though; JBW disagrees and, I think, not unreasonably. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:20, 26 October 2020 (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 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 2020 October 25. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 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 -FASTILY 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Official website/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Message box/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Infobox road/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Infobox gene/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:ISO 3166/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:IPA symbol/sandbox/future (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Coordinates/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Color contrast/sandbox1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox/beta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus to delete old unused sandboxes was established at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_24#Template-Sandboxes. The exact same arguments apply to modules, so these old module sandboxes (none of which have been edited in the last year) should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As for previous discussion. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question One of the compelling arguments for deletion of unused templates offered at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_24#Template-Sandboxes was that they clog up Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. How does "the exact same argument" apply to unused modules? --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the main argument presented by the delete voters was that they are duplicates of the main sandbox, and may qualify for deletion under T3. That is not changed by being in module namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, the only convincing argument presented was that it clogged up Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. The argument about duplication of the main sandbox is nonsense: it would equally apply to the main sandbox being a duplicate of the main template/module. Multiple sandboxes are created to allow testing of changes without disturbing the main sandbox when it is already in use, in just the same way as the main sandbox is created to avoid disturbing the main template/module while testing. Removing the above modules does nothing other than saving a few bytes of server storage and is a complete waste of editors' time. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I could go either way. On one hand, yeah we should get rid of unused templates. On the other hand, I feel like this TfD will get some of the creators of these old and unused templates a kick in the butt. To that end, I think XfDs are a bad way to get editors moving. I can't speak about other templates, but I know the ((Infobox road)) sandbox2 was on hold because we were waiting for some useful features and/or Wikidata integration (which may never happen) to be added. –Fredddie™ 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the citation module sandboxes. Ancient and unused at this point and it's not even obvious to me they are remotely necessary for attribution in any way. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all unless an editor working on a specific /sandbox asks for it to be kept. While true that they aren't a big problem for the wiki in general, if it indeed is abandoned code, it's still something that can be cleaned up. And seeing as how we are already at TfD, there is really no point in not doing so. Additional /sandboxes are also clearly speedy under G6. --Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gonnym. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep absolutely no benefit to removing these, per the remarks by RexxS. There is some harm, though. The first, indeed WIP stuff can be moved into a second sandbox whilst the first is being used. We're doing this at ((Infobox station)) currently. If I abandon this work for 12 months, due to substantial progress I would expect the sandbox to be maintained to pick up where I left off. I obviously would not remember which sandbox had what content or what its naming was, so deletion is likely to be a surprise too. We do not generally delete sandboxes, and citing that low-activity TfD as establishing precedent seems inappropriate. Third, it can make it harder for people to debug issues later down the line. Many times extensive work (across multiple edits, with edit summaries) is done in a sandbox, and then just synced in one edit using summary "sync sandbox" -- not helpful. If there's a bug, the sandbox (with incremental edits and edit summaries) can be helpful to track it down. I agree this is busywork with exactly zero benefit (unless the WMF cares about a few bytes of database space these days, which they could enforce by office action if they did) but with multiple possible downsides. I have many times found useful code in abandoned sandboxes. We do not need to be creating any precedent for this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Debugging with 6 year old code? That is very unlikely. --Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2020 (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).