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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Military units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - what's the OR here? All the numbers seem to be pulled from the articles it is used on. That said, this template could use some clarification and cleanup. Seems to be useful for navigation and at-a-glance information on the topic. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when viewed from a different article, there are no sources to back up those claims, hence why it might seem as OR. If the template should be kept it should be sourced. --Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The argument that the contents should be referenced is rational which is, I suppose, why it is contrary to our guidelines. This template is the type of navigation template called a WP:SIDEBAR where a change was made to the guideline[1] the day after someone else placed a prohibition on references. It says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a <noinclude> section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion)." Has anyone ever acted on this advice I wonder? Thincat (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a sidebar. It might look like one, but sidebar and navbox are used for navigation, this isn't that. This is content. In the same fashion as infoboxes shouldn't list information that isn't present somewhere in the article, so shouldn't this. This should follow WP:TG where it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content, but if it's already used, then at least make it verifiable. Technically speaking, this doesn't even use the Sidebar code, so even technically it isn't one. --Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you are right. And it isn't an infobox either or else sources would be required on challenge (such as here?). So, it may well need sources but it doesn't need deleting. (Or made into a genuine sidebar?!). Thincat (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template does not contain original research and is useful. It can be discussed and edited like any template, naturally. --Pudeo (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (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. There's a consensus to replace every instance of {{Geobox}} with a more specific Infobox and then delete it. Conversion must obviously be done carefully to make sure no relevant information is lost. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A breakdown of the geobox transclusions:

• Category:Geobox usage tracking for river type (0) → Already resolved at this tfd
• Category:Geobox usage tracking for protected area type (0) → {{Infobox protected area}} (8,762)
• Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type (0) → {{Infobox building}} (19,020)

Note there are dozens of building infobox templates that may be appropriate {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox museum}}, etc.

There are multiple different WP:TFDs going for the individual sub-templates of this so I figured it was time to get a final, all encompassing nomination to put the debate to bed. I am recommending that we finally fully deprecate any and all uses of {{geobox}}. Every single use of the template has a much better infobox that can be used. Geobox was a great template when it was first created, but it has some serious flaws now. The biggest issue is that it is WAY too broad. You have parameters for geographical features like {{{elevation}}} that were never meant to be applied to structures. Similarly you have parameters like {{{author}}} or {{{owner}}} that have no meaning for a geographical feature.

If there are parameters missing from templates, those can always be added (see the ongoing discussion at {{Infobox river}}. But at this point, I don't think it makes any sense to continue to maintain this template.

To be clear

A support/delete vote here is saying that {{geobox}} should be 100% deprecated and deleted in favor of the other templates.

An oppose/keep vote means that the template should be kept and maintained.

--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussions

• 2012-01-03 Result: no consensus to merge
• 2018-10-19 Result: Closed as deprecated & merge (geobox for rivers)
• 2018-11-03 Result: Closed as already deprecated (geobox for settlements)

@Rehman, Keith D, Hike395, Bermicourt, Shannon1, AussieLegend, Mythdon, Ruhrfisch, Pigsonthewing, and Capankajsmilyo: pinging all those who took part in the discussion for geobox-river (both pro and con). --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion, per nom's argument of lack of parameter checking. {{Geobox}} was created by a single editor, without much input from the community in 2007. It didn't use the standard {{Infobox}} template. It's no longer actively maintained, AFAICT. Let's finally settle on the commonly-used infobox types, maintained by corresponding WikiProjects. Pinging Frietjes. —hike395 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's too widely used. By all means replace it with something better if you want, but you don't need to even list it for deletion to do so. This listing has broken the template where it is used -- very annoying. Dan100 (Talk) 11:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dan100: the fact that it is too widely used isn't really a valid reason to keep it... It is a very simple matter to convert the transclusions over to using a new template. As for breaking the template that was a WP:TWINKLE error that has been corrected. Can you elaborate on why you feel the template should be kept? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion of this template, and I think we should not let the template to persist as it is now. As the nom said, it's outdated and there's better options. At the same time it is widely used, and we need everything replaced. I met resistance from some editors in the past when trying to change infobox templates on pages they frequent. Without deletion or some sort of infobox policy, changing everything without deletion may be difficult. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Geobox is a brave attempt to be a one-size-fits-all infobox, but it is IMHO too wide a field and has resulted in a large and clunky template that tries to cover too many disparate geographical features and consequently doesn't serve any of them well. The individual infoboxes are simpler and more focussed and more likely to be well maintained by a group of editors who have the time and interest to look after them because of their specialist interest in their geographical topic. Bermicourt (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we need less templates doing the same thing. Uses of this template should be converted to use the newer code found in the relevant infoboxes. Any specific need for a field could be discussed later. --Gonnym (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (because I like to keep the XFD counter scripts happy), per the above comments so far. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete will remove duplicacy and redundancy. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: at least in the case of articles about historic bells, the baby has been already thrown out with the bath water. Replacing Geobox/type/bell with Infobox monument doesn't work, because some information is being lost (as has happened, for example, in Sigismund Bell and Illinois Freedom Bell). Perhaps a new bell-specific infobox template is needed, but I wish such a template had been created before the replacements were made. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: lets continue the discussion at Talk:Sigismund Bell about finding the best template for that page. For the sake of this discussion about {{geobox}} it should be noted that the page you mentioned was never using {{geobox|bell}}... It in fact was using {{geobox|monument}} before I changed it here to facilitate better tracking as I converted the pages. I have no problem with creating a new template for bell articles and infact would encourage it. Most articles about bells don't have any infobox at all. But as I said, let us take that discussion to Talk:Sigismund Bell and find a good solution. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there should be a generic geography infobox geobox sidebar should this be deleted, that provides a minimal of functionality, pending replacement by more specific infoboxes, so that generalist editors don't need to know every single infobox out there. {{infobox settlement}} and {{infobox building}} and {{Infobox landform}} does this for civic (and political divisions) and structures, and much geographical geology. A generalist geobox would keep the most basic common information (a minimum of info) of these three in an infobox for general geography, while waiting for other editors to implement more specialized infoboxes. So instead of being a Swiss Army Knife of all geographical infoboxes, this should be replaced by a simple nametag infobox with minimal common information across all types with no elaboration for specific types. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. As long as it is not rushed, and each segment (i.e. river, building, etc) is handled patiently and carefully. As someone who has handled such projects before, mass migrating is very tricky. Yes a bot can do it, but if we mis-translate corresponding parameters, or wrongly get a bot to convert functional parameters (i.e. those that do conversions or automatic functions), we would end up having to correct thousands of articles by hand (or tens of thousands in this case). So apart from that (that we do not rush, and understand each case), I am fully supportive of the idea behind this TFD. All the best, Rehman 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional delete per Rehman. I would be happier if we focused on converting the river articles first, and then moved on to protected areas, and then to buildings, ... it is much easier to focus on one type at a time. so long as the process isn't rushed, I see no problem with do this over a longer period of time. I have already seen cases where the conversion process removed important information from the infoboxes, most likely, because the process was being rushed. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete per Rehman and Frietjes. While the arguments above are compelling, the conversion should not be rushed and must take place tranche by tranche, one at a time. Frietjes' idea of starting with river articles, and then continuing to protected areas, etc. seems logical. - tucoxn\^talk 16:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with Frietjes. Each case needs separate discussion anyway, so this batch nomination does not really make sense at this stage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @MSGJ, Frietjes, and Rehman: (and anyone else interested) let me explain the purpose of this nomination or at least why I felt the need to go this route. As I've been doing the conversions, I'm run up against a couple of editors who have objected completely to the conversion. I'm not talking about those who have very correctly pointed out that I broke pages. Nor am I talking about those who felt that some information was lost and needed to be re-added. Those editors have been very helpful. What I am talking about is those few editors who have basically said "no, I want a geobox on this article for a church instead of {{Infobox church}}" (for example). So what I hope to achieve is a final decision that we are fully deprecating {{geobox}} and working towards converting each page to a better, more specific infobox. I agree with the points that you all stated. Specifically that there is no rush here. Converting the ~15,500 river articles is going to be a slow process and I agree that it likely won't be able to be fully automated by a bot. I'm not trying to rush anything here, just trying to get a documented consensus that we are working towards removing {{Geobox}}. That way when I convert an article and an editor objects to switching templates, I have something I can point to and say "we as a community have made a decision". Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to use this to force anything through. A number of editors have raised concerns that need to be addressed and those will absolutely continue to be addressed on a case by case basis. Does that make sense? Not sure I'm doing a great job explaining this so please let me know if you have any additional questions. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have no further concerns. Good luck, and do please do feel free to ping me if you need any help. Thanks for taking the initiative. Rehman 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost all uses have been replaced by infoboxes and other uses can use infoboxes with the right fields. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 23:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion and diligent conversion of remaining Geobox-using articles to appropriate Infoboxes. - Darwinek (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Geobox is quite broad, capable of being applied to basically anything with a physical location. Is there any single infobox that can do basically anything in the same fashion? I understand that infoboxes exist for most of the current Geobox uses, but I'm focusing on miscellaneous uses without their own infobox type: unless we have a generic infobox that can cover anything with a physical location, this ought to be kept and maintained, because we should never have the case in which an article is switched from geobox to nothing because we're deleting the geobox and we don't have an applicable infobox. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: great question. Couple of things to keep in mind. Right now, there are only 2 uses of the Geobox. There are about 15,000 river articles that use it and then there are 2 buildings that use it. NOTHING else. I have personally converted over 10,000 articles from Geobox and in none of those cases did I simply remove the Infobox. I always found that there was a better template. As for a generic template, There are a couple. {{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox landform}} both come to mind and there are others. I would challenge you to find an article that would use Geobox and doesn't have an existing infobox that could be used. That being said, IF you did find one, we (by that I mean I) would 100% want to address it. I wholeheartedly agree that simply removing the Geobox and not replacing it is NOT an option. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Let me know if you have any more questions! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can envision the following uses for geobox: natural locations (use {{infobox landform}}, if there's nothing better), settlements/legal jurisdictions/similar kinds of "locations" and areas (use {{infobox settlement}}), designated natural areas (use {{infobox protected area}}), individual things that are constructed (use {{infobox building}}), individual miscellaneous little objects, and collections of the above. Let me propose a few examples: Prairie Grove Airlight Outdoor Telephone Booth (an individual object), Platform 9¾ (part of an individual thing that's constructed), Garden Spot Village, and Monash University, Clayton campus (both collections of natural areas and constructions). The first one has an infobox already because it's a historic site ({{infobox NRHP}}), the second doesn't need it because it's a section of a larger article, and the third and fourth could use the geobox. If we had articles on a non-historic-site phone booth and a rail station platform and wanted to add boxes, or we wanted to add boxes to Garden Spot or the Clayton campus, the geobox would be useful. What existing infoboxes could serve these purposes? I'm just asking for a really generic infobox (imagine {{infobox geographic location}}) that could be used when a topical infobox doesn't exist or isn't known to the person adding an infobox. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, for a final example, The Old Crescent (no article) is a historic-designated portion of the Indiana University Bloomington campus: half a dozen buildings, a well house, pathways, and a woodlot. If {{infobox NRHP}} weren't applicable, what would be? It's not a settlement, it wouldn't warrant {{infobox university}} because it's not a separate institution (it's administratively the same as the surrounding buildings, and it doesn't have a separate budget or students or employees), the buildings have significantly different histories that shouldn't be combined in a single {{infobox building}} and we wouldn't do well with half a dozen infoboxes (and the woods shouldn't get one at all), and it's not protected more than the rest of the campus (so not {{infobox protected area}}). Let me emphasize the isn't known bit — maybe a little searching would find me a generic "place" infobox, and we could promote such a box to make it better known, but if one doesn't exist, I wouldn't have a chance of finding a single infobox that would fit the Old Crescent. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a generic infobox should always exist, because unknown unknowns are unknown, and one cannot conceivably cover all cases since one cannot think of all cases, since some will be unknown. I suppose if a geocache point came to notability, it wouldn't fit any current infobox. (not a landform, not a structure, not a settlement/political-division). The generic infobox does not need much functionality, otherwise it would have a more specialized infobox. It could also be used as a starting point infobox for a skeleton template of a location article. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning above. If someone can find a generic infobox that meets what I'm asking for, I'll switch this to a delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend backup and Nyttend: so it seems like you are saying to keep because in the future we may have an article that will need this template? Am I understanding correct? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. We may have articles in the future (and quite possibly have articles now, e.g. Garden Spot Village) that need a generic template, and I'm concerned that this is the only such template. I'm fine with deletion as long as we have another generic template, but unless we have another one, I can't support deleting this one. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete I agree with Fretjes above - no reason to delete this at this moment, and it appears as if the deletion is motivated by an content-specific edit war - but we should fully deprecate it starting with the river articles and then delete it. SportingFlyer talk 06:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Let's update and convert the articles and templates here, but immediate/mandatory deletions and conversions are not the answer. Zackmann is on a quest for nothing other than to replace A with B; something with something else. This is not the way to do things here. We're already converting over nearly all of the articles, so what exactly is the harm in keeping a template that potentially people can use if they like it? Zackmann doesn't care however, and has been on a quest to make these changes as rapidly as possible, and keeps claiming there is little to no geobox usage, which is something he himself is causing through his conversions. He's paving over user concerns, both mine and those of editors at WikiProject Rivers, with constant complaints, accusations, and fights. (I'm also surprised I wasn't pinged earlier to this relevant discussion, @Zackmann08:?) As noted earlier, this user has extremely suspect motives, attempting to deprecate as quickly as possible as a result of an edit war he will not drop. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL!!!! So To recap... There are 15,000 or so river pages which we have already agreed to deprecated and convert... Then there are 2 buildings which we are working on. And there is Ɱ's personal Settlement page... That is it for the {{Geobox}}. But yes, This is all me on a which hunt! --06:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How old are you? This isn't a chat forum. And it's clear almost none of the votes to deprecate came from anyone who even writes river articles... This is ridiculous. Your last 'vote' to deprecate geoboxes took place in less than half a day, with 0 actual discussion about the merits, and a user closed it for being as pointless as this discussion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: not sure what my age has to do with anything... You aren't here discussing the merits of keeping the geobox though. That much is clear. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As well, WikiProjects need to be notified here - at least Rivers, Architecture, and Cities, which have or had used geoboxes in articles under those projects. Without that, few to none of the actual past users of Geobox will be notified. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again... There are only 3 transclusions combined in architecture and cities. And the rivers have already agreed to be deprecated and there is a wonderful discussion ongoing to make that happen. So really not sure what you are complaining about. Feel free to notify all the wiki projects you want to. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you and other template editors have removed all the rest. That doesn't change anything. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: it does change everything... Because the template isn't needed... You are advocating keeping a template to be used on 3 pages and have yet to explain why other than that you don't like my method of nominating the template for discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/delete. Badly obsolete and surpassed. Needs to be replaced with modern infoboxes, however. This can't be used an excuse by anti-infoboxers to remove [old] infoboxes from thousands of articles as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI action. I have no objection, of course, to discussions of removing unhelpful infoboxes from particular articles; I just don't want to see another "infobox war" erupt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: as the one kinda spear-heading this, I can say with confidence that no one is planning to remove infoboxes from any articles. In fact, the opposite! We recently found that some articles about famous bells (Sigismund Bell) were using {{geobox}}. Since we are removing it we made the decision to create a new infobox for bells. The end result? A bunch of articles that didn't have any infobox will ultimately have infoboxes added. So this is a net gain! Bottom line, there is no intention to remove infoboxes anywhere, only to replace the Geobox with better and more specific infoboxes. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, as a neutralist on infoboxes, I would also have concerns about willy-nilly adding infoboxes to articles that didn't have them (though for purposes of this analysis, I consider Geobox to be an infobox, just not a modern one). That's also likely to spark dispute. If that's also a concern I need not have about this, then I'm glad. I want to reiterate support of getting rid of the old Geobox stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @SMcCandlish: There was an infobox war!? I knew there were disagreements (after seeing it added to the list of active discretionary sanctions) but maybe it was worse than I thought. That's it, Wikipedia projectspace needs to discuss major Wikipedia disputes and incidents to a greater extent than it is now. I think I understand the proposal. I but it seems like Zackmann08 wants to replace existing instances of Geobox with a more specific infobox. The issue here isn't 'Should we have an infobox in this article?', but instead 'Should we keep this article's infobox, or do we replace it with a different one, and if so, which?'. This is a 1::1 exchange. Zachmann08 isn't targeting pages without infoboxes. He wants to replace what he sees as a bad infobox with a more appropriate one. As he said, Every single use of the template has a much better infobox that can be used.. So I don't see why you are concerned.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been at least three WP:ArbCom cases about infoboxes, including WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, plus another focused on a particular editor or two. Anyway, I'm glad it's a 1:1 exchange, and that's all I wanted to confirm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should be noted that at this point, basically all that is left is the river articles. Per this tfd those have already been marked for conversion. Based on that, I think this can probably be closed? Obviously I'm NOT going to close it since I was the one who opened it, but I don't really see anything else to discuss here... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: There's a better, more specific option for every use. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2018 (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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Georgia Statewide Executive Officials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to {{Current Georgia statewide political officials}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (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 06:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TOC001.5a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TOC001.5b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{TOC001.5a}} & {{TOC001.5b}} were superseded by {{TOC001}} ~2.5 years ago and remain unused.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. There will be some cleanup required, as they are referred to in a number of documentation pages. Urhixidur (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They are not transcluded in the main space at all. By the way, {{TOC1001}} (WhatLinksHere) has also been superseded by {{TOC001}}. Rfassbind – talk 22:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (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).