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. Primefac (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Asbox/stubtree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/stubtree/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/stubtree/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/stubtree/4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/templatepage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/no-table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Asbox/prelua/Template:Asbox/templatepage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used after conversion to module in 2014. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to delete. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Çomment. Would be good to somehow merge the histories of templates to preserve the contribution history of the original authors of stub-tree. Asbox/prelua/Template:Asbox/templatepage is fine to delete without bothering. Asbox/templatepage was merged into Module:Asbox but also contains a lot of history. The programmers who orginally designed Asbox deserve to have their credits preserved somehow. Perhaps somebody could go through the histories and get the usernames of everybody who contributed to those pages and add them to the documentation of Module:Asbox? —CodeHydro 03:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Codehydro, Sure here's a list of editors with major contributions to these templates: WOSlinker, MSGJ, Scott, TheDJ, Codehydro. A lot of enteries were exclude as only changing protection settings, vandalism, reverting vandalism, or small changes such as changing spacing or margins. Feel free to put the list in the documentation/talk page or something. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I was able to add an acknowledgment section to Module:Asbox/doc from the contributions to Template:Asbox/templatepage. I am a bit short on time lately so if anybody could double check to see if I missed users who contributed to the code. I didn't see Scott and TheDJ in the history of that page prior to the conversion to Lua but maybe those are for Asbox/stubtree. Could somebody else create a similar acknowledgment section on Module:Asbox stubtree/doc? —CodeHydro 01:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Howdy, I have no idea what these are or how I was involved with the templatepage one! So no objection from me.  — Scott • talk 14:16, 21 November 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. This is mainly to deal with the "not used but could be" (i.e. if the CUs feel that this might actually be useful). Primefac (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for check user backlogs. From my understanding of checkuser activities this distinction simply isn't useful since their activities are confined to a small number of venues which all checkusers should be aware of. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (checkuser comment) - this template categorizes pages in Category:Checkuser backlog (analogue of Category:Administrative backlog) for easy central handling of checkuser backlogs. Yes, checkuser requests tend to accumulate on a small number of pages, but "a small number" is more than one. I've personally never seen it used and I don't think it's possible to see the history of template transclusions or category memberships to see how often it might have been used or how recently, but it is certainly possible for checkuser requests to become backlogged, and if it happens then this is the template to use. It's not hurting anything by sitting here idle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector, my impression was that it was simply forgotten and noone using it and knowing about it based on the 2 page views last month (one of which was me), no enteries in the last 30 days based on the category changes watchlist feature and the category allways being empty every time I visit it the last 6 months. If that turns out to not be the case I will of course withdraw. Just out of curiosity which are the other pages that may reasonably be tagged with this template other than WP:SPI? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's my impression as well, that it was more useful at one time but has been forgotten about. I can see the case for using it, notably at SPI but possibly also at AN (it happens, but rarely), definitely at WP:ACC although the actual backlog is technically external to enwiki, and I'm not sure where else. If other checkusers weigh in that the template is unlikely to be useful I'll of course defer to the consensus, but I strongly object to SPI-related pages being deleted without consultation with the SPI team. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unused. If there's a checkuser backlog, the checkusers just have to post on one of their private mailing lists to get the attention of other checkusers. I can't think of a situation where this template would be useful anymore. Risker (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2019 (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 withdrawn to start a new discussion with a new rationale. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:North American soccer box collapsible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

it's not clear exactly why this is needed. I tried changing a couple pages to use ((football box collapsible)) instead and saw no substantial difference. please enlighten me if I am missing something so we can include that feature in ((football box collapsible)). note that I have already added "shootout", but is there anything else? Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 09:27, 12 November 2019 (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 move to Module:Sandbox/Wnt/FindFeatures Primefac (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:FindFeatures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only use is in code that has sat in the sandbox unchanged since 2013. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to sandbox It's a nice module and I could imagine there being a use for it in the future. Might as well keep it easily searchable if someone's looking. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2019 (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) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Features (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Features (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template (or module). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. I'm sure this has come up before; I still believe this template is a rather blatant breach of the guideline at WP:Template that says that "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content". This template is used in a small number of articles to handle a few content sentences that somebody felt should be identical in each, but there's really no reason that shouldn't be done in simple wikitext. (Same goes for the individual templates of the type ((dental)), ((fricative)) etc.; see previous Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 11 for those.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace the transclusions with ((nasal stop)), ((bilabial)), etc. I don't particularly have a strong opinion about these individual templates, but I'd rather them kept as I see in them more good than harm. Nardog (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2019 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2010–11 Baltic League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2009–10 Baltic League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2008 Baltic League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2007 Baltic League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:Baltic League templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary since the information is already presented on the parent page, and the navbox is not used anywhere else. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:27, 12 November 2019 (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 2019 November 20. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hiberno_English_editnotice (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).