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 4. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Bio-warn-deletion ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-bio-deleted ( 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 after replacing usages with {{ Compact ToC}} or another suitable alternative. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:List TOC ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inferior version of Template:Compact ToC, which renders in a vertical format, wasting a lot of space. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment it wouldn't waste space if it were made to float right. If Compact TOC were to add a switch for vertical representation as a float right box it could be merged. -- 67.70.32.97 ( talk) 02:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Replace and delete. Even with a float right it would waste space. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:58, 3 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) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Only used in the user sandboxes of inactive users. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a simple image in this case would suffice. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:56, 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 keep. Izno ( talk) 21:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Only use is an example in a 2016 talk page post announcing its creation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's a tool. You can emulate the edit filter ccnorm function with it, in the Mediawiki edit pane. There's no need to save, and if you do you might very well use subst. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC). reply

• Is there any reason to think this tool is actually being used by someone? If so, it would likely be linked to somewhere other than one talk page archive and this TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• It's also a bit hard to understand what this tool does without any documentation. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Definitely potentially useful for testing purposes. I would imagine most uses being in sandboxes which are regularly blanked which could hide previous usage. I've also added documentation to this template. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:28, 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 delete. Izno ( talk) 16:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I would like to hear from the creator, but until then this looks useful. It could for example enable the creation of a template that can accept a string in Hiragana and then display it along with an automatic transliteration. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Creator here. If I remember correctly, this module was intended to help with converting Template:Nihongo, but it's too long ago for me to remember in exactly what way I intended to use it. Meanwhile, Template:Nihongo has been converted to Lua at Module:Nihongo. I don't see a problem with deleting this; if we need it for something, we can always undelete it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Mr. Stradivarius. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 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. Izno ( talk) 16:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Module:Lunar eclipse ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• comment, seems like this was created for {{ infobox lunar eclipse}}, possibly related to a request by Tomruen. seems like a fairly straightforward modification of Module:Solar eclipse, so could be either merged there or recreated if needed. that is, unless there is some momentum right now to changing {{ infobox lunar eclipse}} to function like {{ infobox solar eclipse}}. if not, then we could probably delete it (or move it to userspace). Frietjes ( talk) 13:39, 15 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. Primefac ( talk) 02:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment is being used to discuss the RfC process itself, not the information page it is parented to. This will need to be salted after deletion, to prevent it from being immediately recreated by a bot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I don't see that purpose as inconsistent with the edit notice. Even though the talk page is often used to address RfC issues, it is also the place to discuss improvements of the subject page. The edit notice doesn't contradict either of those purposes. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  So, what policy or guideline is Wikipedia:Requests for comment summarizing? This edit notice only makes sense if there is an actual distinction between the contents of the page itself, and the consensus it describes. What consensus does Wikipedia:Requests for comment describe that should be discussed elsewhere? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, isn't it? -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Please point to a recent post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment that should have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm not about to go browsing the archives, so I will concede your point, but I don't believe that is a sufficient reason to deviate from the practice of putting this edit notice on all information pages. -- Bsherr ( talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Except that practice has already been deviated from for over a year, with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Lua, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Wikidata, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Unnecessary Template:Wikipedia information pages talk page editnotice uses and so on. This TfD is not requesting a unique exception from an otherwise universal status quo, but instead continuing a trend dating back to February 2019 of removing the editnotice in places where it doesn't belong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Eh. Looking at Archive 16 (latest archive, June 2018 onwards) seems like the de-facto purpose of the talk is not to discuss changes to the information page. At the same time, I think most of this stuff should've been somewhere else. Archive 16 is full of people asking if an RfC is the right thing to do in XYZ case, or for procedural advice on their particular case -- it actually makes up the majority of the archive. Some sections are for general inquiries on the RfC process, and only one discussion seems to be of changing the RfC process (the recent RfC by Guy).
  As it relates to the editnotice, I think an editnotice may be required saying something, but not sure if the current one accurately describes the role of the page. The purpose of the talk, de facto, seems to be varied. Maybe there's a better place to ask for procedural advice for ones particular case, and if so that should be made more clear. Or perhaps WT:RFC intends to be a place for all things RfC related, in which case this editnotice is misleading and should be deleted. More active participants on that page may be able to better advise on what they think the purpose of that talk is, or should be (if de facto usage is contrary to actual purpose, an editnotice+talk notice should be kept/modified). I think it'd be helpful to relist this and advertise it to that talk page for more thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's a stretch to call this an information page anyway; this is used as the authority for the RfC process; there isn't any better authority. If you want the RfC process changed, you change this page, usually after gaining consensus on the talk page.

In addition to there being the long history of discussing the RfC process on this talk page as mentioned above, the scope of the talk page was recently explicitly expanded by consensus (on the page) to include seeking and getting advice on opening a particular RfC (whether/where/wording). Because it's just the most convenient place to do that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 03:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete This edit notice, doesn't apply well to the page, but feel free to create a custom one since a lot of discussions should/could be elsewhere. Also a reminder if this gets deleted that it has to be salted so the bot doesn't recreate it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per others. -- Izno ( talk) 21:02, 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 11. Primefac ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Uw-3rr ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-ew ( 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).