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 speedy delete. Izno (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Covid19Data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and the data on Commons it references hasn't been updated since June. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a proof-of-concept for using JSON data on Commons to share COVID-19 case data across language versions of Wikipedia. Editors of the COVID-19-related pages have found better ways to handle this, so there's not a good reason to keep it. --EProdromou (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 28 September 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 5. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lenny (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. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:French Open singles drawsheets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed, already covered by template: French Open drawsheets. Wolbo (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 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 as G7 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Styles import (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that is essentially its underlying implementation. Izno (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one was recreated as part of a larger batch of templates, some of which never got any use. I'd say this one should be removed at this point. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 22:11, 27 September 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 5. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archive_nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Archive_navigation (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 merge to Template:Connected contributor (paid). (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Connected contributor (paid) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Paid article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor (paid) with Template:Paid article.
These seem to be for the same purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Connected contributor (paid)" seems the more widely used/modern template. The "certifies" language in ((Paid article)) is weird (and contains a broken anchor), and it doesn't make clear that all paid contributions have to go through some form of review. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It looks like Template:Paid article is based on older versions of the paid editing policy. While I think the actual WMF Terms of Use language is still the same as it was, the community has adopted much more comprehensive guidelines since 2014, which are reflected in the language and parameters of Template:Connected contributor (paid). Template:Paid article should be retired and redirected to the new template and any existing uses of it (looks like there's only 71 transclusions that I can see) should be updated with the modern template. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. These templates are intended to be used for identical purposes. Since ((Connected contributor (paid))) is similar in style to ((Connected contributor)), I agree that ((Paid article)) should be redirected to ((Connected contributor (paid))). — Newslinger talk 05:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose If Wikipedia wishes to seek to ensure that paid articles are highlighted to the readership, make Paid Article a template for the Article page, not the Talk page. This achieves transparency. Readers have no real interest in talk pages, but ought, surely, to be aware that an article is by a confirmed paid editor. Fiddle Faddle 06:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the ((paid contributions)) template already serves this purpose. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree there's no real purpose for both of the to exist. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reverse merge keeping ((connected contributor (paid))) with all of its parameters. Also, ccp has interlanguage links in Wikidata. Idea of "repurpose" is interesting, but there are already COI-related article-space templates that may be better suited for the task. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 11:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems likely that repurposing is not going to happen. If not I wish us to retain CCP and merge PA into it. CCP is the more useful and flexible template Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if all uses of Template:Paid article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are replaced by the connected contributor template, then the page ((paid article)) should instead redirect to ((Paid contributions)) due to the similarity in template names. That would show the article-side template starts with "paid" while the talk-size template starts with "connected contributor" -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 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. Izno (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only transclusions appear to be in documentation, or discussions about the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion - nominator is incorrect and template is actually in use on multiple article talk pages - see transclusions - this isn’t the most used template out there but it still is in current use to indicate debates and discussions that are stuck. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed that it's on Talk:Reparations for slavery in the United States, where it has sat since 2008, in a discussion about whether or not to include a link to reparateme.com, a website which no longer exists (and where it should have been archived a long time ago); and Talk:Danica Roem, where it has sat since 2017, in a discussion that was hatted as resolved with consensus in December that year. This helps us to build an encyclopedia how? Are they the only two discussions that are deadlocked, on all of Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, indeed, both uses have now been archived by a bot, using standrd settings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The meaning and appearance of the template are confusing to me; deadlocked does not, to me, imply something that can't move, and is also not how this is usually described. This should be replaced by the pinned archive template, and this deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one is quite confusing and I can't see what good declaring a discussion deadlocked will do. The legitimate uses can be substituted. --Trialpears (talk) 08:42, 5 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 5. Izno (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Topical_talk_archive (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Timeline Australian Open Men's Singles Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, not needed. Wolbo (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 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. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:False version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. I do not think a disclaimer is needed here. It is kind of obvious that doctored media is spreading on the Internet. I understand that we are struggling with misinformation related to COVID-19 and mail-in voting on social media, but what does a template do? If a user is taken to an outdated Wikipedia mirror or fork or a completely different website, it does not help. Firstly, all out of date revisions on Wikipedia have a "this is an old revision of this page", so readers can understand that the revision is old/dated. Secondly, we already have a disclaimer that details that not all information that you find on Wikipedia is 100% accurate. It is very easy to use typosquatting to fake the URL for Wikipedia. Plus, its format as an mbox makes it confusing for readers and editors alike, who usually see the messages when there are problems with an article. Aasim 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and suggest withdrawing nom. @Awesome Aasim: this template was brought up for TfD a few months ago and easily survived, and the reasons it was kept are the same now. It was also discussed at VPP. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, I'd suggest reworking the template to maybe have a blue strip instead of an orange strip if the template was kept (or not use the mbox). I agree that we should fight fake news, I am not sure how this template helps. Secondly, it is the responsibility of SNS companies to make sure that misinformation does not spread on their platforms and to make sure that attempts to discredit reliable sources fail. We have had a lot of misinformation before, and what these companies have done to fight this misinformation is show excerpts from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Hoaxes and fake "cures" for COVID-19 are quickly deleted on Wikipedia anyway, and we have authorized sanctions on editors who edit in the "COVID-19" topic area. So far, only one article uses this template, and I do not know if this template helps, especially because it has been 3+ months since the template's first and only use. And with all these browser extensions like "NewsGuard" and Wikipedia's history of being (for the most part) a good starting point to learn about information, people have used it as a great starting point for learning about a variety of topics. Oh, and that screenshot, only the image is from Wikipedia. I do not know where the text is coming from or who it is being attributed to, but I do not think this case counts as a "falsified version of this article", even though it is misinformation definitely for sure. Aasim 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And that village pump discussion has mixed support/opposition, making consensus a little blurry. I think an RfC on how we should handle misinformation attributed to Wikipedia that is not really on Wikipedia may be in order. Aasim 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While not currently in use, has a clear and obvious use case in fighting misinformation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 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⚡ 02:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and seems the consensus is against such templates with 4-5 recently deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 8 days later, still unused. If the articles don't want it, there is no reason to keep it around. --Gonnym (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per nom, or move to user space. There's no indication this needs to exist. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 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) 15:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing to navigate, navbox only contains three links which all go to the same article.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox that doesn't help navigate between articles. Grk1011 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 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 to Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs. Izno (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eponymous medical signs for cardiovascular system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for cardiovascular system with Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs.
It pains me to propose a merge to such a well organised and easy to read template such as Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs, but it is doing a disservice to readers to have these separated. I propose a merge because:

• It is much easier for readers to have cardiovascular signs and symptoms in a single template
• There is significant amount of duplication
• There is no particular reason why something that, for historical reasons is named after a person, is separated from something that, for historical reasons is not. Just makes it difficult to read and edit.
• There is established precedent with multiple other eponymous medical signs templates being merged
• I see the only way forward in simplifying and organising the content to first merge these templates Tom (LT) (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but I would recommend someone with subject matter knowledge should do this one. (I guess it's worth a ping to creator Arcadian even though they haven't edited in years.) --Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 5 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).