Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 28

Jump to navigation Jump to search

February 28[edit]

Myanmar township templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The good news: this should be the last series. The Banner talk 10:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Campaignbox Lithuanian–Muscovite War (1368–72)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Navigation template with three red links that are very unlikely to ever be turned blue as there is not enough info on these battles. What is known is already included in the article about the war. Other language Wikipedias do not have the articles on the battles. Renata (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete nav template with only redlinks - entirely pointless. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete navigational template with no navigation. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Use English English[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Template:Use English English. Izno (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Use English English with Template:Use British English.
There is no difference between "British English" and "English English", so "English English" should be merged and redirected to "British English" template. This would match the redirect we already have for "Welsh English" and "Scottish English" Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Nigej (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought this was already discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "Use English English". Actually, should we just consolidate the many different templates? {{Use Australian English}} is almost the same as {{Use British English}} or {{Use Commonwealth English}}, so we do not really need separate templates. IceWelder [] 15:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous deletion of {{English English}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect as proposed. The title "Use English English" is unencyclopedic and surely confusing confusing to most editors, certainly those of us us in the US. —24.191.101.223 (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect "Use English English" to "Use British English". "Anglo-English" is a more elegant way of saying it, but it's not unheard of. Compare Template:Use Scottish English, Template:Use Welsh English. Nardog (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems more like a political statement than a useful alias. And I agree with User:IceWelder that it seems we have too many templates for national varieties of English that are indistinguishable from Commonwealth English when written in an encyclopedic register (versus when spoken or used colloquially). Anomie 14:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "Use English English". Less is more. — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:OM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a copy of {{OMN}}, which produces an Oman flag icon. I don't see redirecting as viable – its title doesn't follow the established pattern for flag icons, and at just two letters long, it's likely to be ambiguous (one plausible former use was for the now deleted {{om}}, another may be for the om symbol). – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Clearly should be a redirect if it is to remain. Per nom, the OM seems obscure, perhaps related to .om url suffix. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Delete as duplicate. Template:OM is also somewhat ambiguous, as it could refer to Olympique de Marseille (also often written as OM), so I'd prefer delete over redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. OM can refer to several different templates, so I do not think it should be a redirect. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Wikipedia disambiguation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Disambiguation. Clear consensus that the two templates should be merged. The implementation of namespace detection can be done independently of this close, I presume, since I'm no template expert. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Wikipedia disambiguation into Template:Disambiguation.
These templates serve the same function across different namespaces and can be merged with namespace detection. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • To which title are you proposing to merge them? BD2412 T 18:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the colleague who established the Template:Wikipedia disambiguation could give us some reasoning that the Template is different and has a special purpose different from Template:Disambiguation. At least I need to hear his/her defense of the Template werldwayd (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh which turns into a default Agree if all the differences can be handled and changes to templates doesn't disrupt. Widefox; talk 19:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate - The template Disambiguation is for disambiguating articles while Wikipedia Disambiguation is for Wikipedia: namespace pages. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @WaddlesJP13: The template can display different content on pages depending on namespace, which is how the merge would be carried out. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: Wikipedia Disambiguation is basically the same as the regular dab template. And plus, I'm pretty sure you can just make the regular dab template change depending on the namespace. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 20:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is used on about 200 pages. {{Disambiguation}} is used on 200,000. I don't know if namespace detection is computationally expensive, but even if it's cheap, adding it here means that any edit to one of the 200,000 pages will trigger an extra computational step that's only really there because of those other 200 pages. I wouldn't normally worry about these issues, but isn't that the sort of scale where they may become relevant? – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's an insignificant issue. There are far more costly templates in wider use. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • When stating that this is an insignificant issue, then I imagine you have some sort of quantitative estimate? When making such a large-scale change, it's good to have an idea of the costs involved – I'd be willing to wave them away but not when the counterbalancing benefits are so minuscule. – Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
        • {{Namespace detect}} isn't an expensive parser function call for one. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I would assume that any difference could be handled by adding a "|wp=yes/no" parameter, which could be toggled yes for project pages and left out of all others entirely. Only the relative handful in project space would need to be changed at all. BD2412 T 21:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Even if it's implemented this way, the code that checks for this extra |wp= parameter will need to be added to the main template, and it will be executed on every page, whether it's got that parameter or not. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Doing so would not make sense - since it can be detected automatically. Also, please, this is entirely insignificant. Unless you can show how this is a performance issue, then please drop this. I've linked the relevant information page - it's not an issue. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I'd be more than happy to withdraw my objection if the estimate of the added computational cost turns out to be insignificant. – Uanfala (talk)
  • Merge as the templates are very similar and the difference can be easily solved with a namespace check combined with an explicit parameter for the one case I can find (MOS:EL) where {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is used outside the WP/WT namespaces. The performance concern above should not be an issue at all. — The Earwig (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge I've created several disambiguation pages for Wikipedia policy pages and I have always used the standard article disambiguation template since I didn't know the other existed. Assuming it's technically doable, it's better to have a single template so that people don't need to know that there are separate ones. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also {{Template disambiguation}}. If {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} is going to be merged into {{Disambiguation}}, then so should {{Template disambiguation}}. JsfasdF252 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Forgot about that one! Yes, it should also be merged. Not sure if it's appropriate to edit the original request. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • As well as {{Portal disambiguation}}, ugh. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • {{Template disambiguation}} does a lot of things differently, so merging it will complicate the code a lot. – Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Most of the complicated stuff it does is namespace detection which... doesn't really need to be migrated? Unless someone were to transclude a disambiguation template but that is really not likely at al, and still easy to catch. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)t
            • It doesn't do complicated stuff (at least not yet), but all its content is different from that of the main disambiguation template (except the bare fact that both are built around an invocation of {{dmbox}}). If the templates are merged, then almost every step in the code of the main template will need to be expanded with a conditional that tests for namespace and produces one output if it's a template, and another for everything else – this will make the code absolutely horrible to read. Of course, this could be avoided if the template begins with a single test for namespace, and then depending on the result leads into two separate blocks of code – one identical to the current {{template disambiguation}}, and another identical to the current {{disambiguation}}. This avoids most complexity, but it defeats one of the main points of a template merge – shared code. – Uanfala (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Perhaps? I'll draft a merge and see how cleanly I can write it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
                • Even if the two are ultimately merged, I'd rather that {{disambiguation}} invokes {{template disambiguation}} (rather than incorporating its code) – the latter template should ideally be extended to allow more meaningful error output on transclusion. I would also rather the two aren't merged at all – work on the template dab will likely involving a fair amount of tinkering, and I really dislike the idea of forcing a reparse of 200,000 dab pages every time some piece of code is changed that's only relevant to a dozen pages. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • Uh, {{template disambiguation}} doesn't need constant updates - it needs to be merged/written and that's it. I've already done most of the merge in the template sandbox. Maybe there's an argument for having a separate disambiguation template for templates so that transclusions outside of template-space raise alarm, but I don't think that is necessary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
                    • {{Template disambiguation}} is an experimental template used on about 35 pages. It won't need constant updates, but it will need tinkering with – and if it's merged into the main template such tinkering will become a lot more difficult because: a) it will only be accessible to the small number of users with advanced permissions; b) changes could risk breaking the 200,000 pages that use the main template; c) its code will be interspersed into the code of the main template. What I see in Template:Disambiguation/sandbox is precisely the sort of code convolution I was trying to warn about. – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
                      • Fair enough - a merge does inherently prevent its way of detecting usage in the wrong namespace. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{disambiguation}} unless it can be demonstrated that there is a significant processing cost. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Limorina (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{disambiguation}} per nom, and also the same with any other similar namespace-specific disambiguation templates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Wikipedia space disambiguation is still a disambiguation page. If they need to be distinguished, you can add a parameter to the merged so people can mark Wikipedia space disambiguation pages. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. {{Disambiguation}} and {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} are clearly different disambiguation templates. The original disambiguation page template is used for disambiguations only in the article namespace, and the Wikipedia disambiguation template is used for disambiguations only in the project namespace. Also, {{Template disambiguation}} and {{Portal disambiguation}} are also the different disambiguation templates used in separate disambiguation pages. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all dab templates Oiyarbepsy said that they didn't know the other existed, and this is doubtlessly true for other editors. If the software can pick the proper template code for the given namespace, why make editors do the work manually? Even if no code sharing was possible, this is still an improvement over the current situation. Paradoctor (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge All into a template with namespace detection code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As long as the end result is that categories such as Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages are still populated. The original template creator probably just didn't know how to implement namespace detection code. –– wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all. This will make it simpler for editors adding them. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all, and I mean all, of the dab templates. The cost of the namepsace check is paltry, and the benefit to unification is potentially great. Huntster (t @ c) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge all. Having looked at more DAB pages than most (something north of 100,000), I had never heard of the variants before, and (provided there is no significant overhead in merging) see no need for them. If merger means that User:DPL bot picks up links to them so that they can easily be found and fixed, there will be a benefit.
Comment. For completeness, I mention {{siadn}} which hardly anyone knows about and is currently unused; see Category:Monthly clean-up category (Set index articles with links needing disambiguation) counter. Narky Blert (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlike {{disambiguation}}, {{siadn}} does not classify dabs but appears in articles, against bad wikilinks which might be tagged with {{disambiguation needed}} except that the target is not a dab. {{siadn}} used to be widely used but someone has clearly done the work which it requested and only one instance remains: Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Nehemiah 11, which I tagged in October. If we're being complete then I should mention several specialised templates such as {{Station disambiguation}}, which distinguishes a list of stations from one which happens to contain a few stations amongst other topics. These are useful and I hope they are not within the scope of this TfD (though the redundant {{Letter disambiguation}} is being discussed elsewhere). Certes (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Certes no, specialized disambiguations aren't in the scope of this TfD, unless they could be automatically detected from page content - which isn't possible. The reason I nominated this is because it is possible to automatically detect where to use {{Disambiguation}} vs {{Wikipedia disambiguation}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge. Starzoner (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: per nom. Reasonable decision to merge the templates following the introduction of new features. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Composer sidebar[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Now unused; all templates based on this one having been deleted by consensus, in TfDs on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, January 14, January 24, February 7 & February 16. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused and not a style to be encouraged in new articles, per consensus in a number of recent TfDs. Nigej (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    If we delete this how would be reconstructed that fighting this was (or rather:should have been) the key topic in WP:ARBINFOBOX, see Talk:Das Liebesverbot? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, I think this works with minimal changes and no real change to the output appearance. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    delete, yes, it does, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused Aza24 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Myanmar township templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Airreg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose deletion – I was once a fan of this template, and on one occasion I saved it from a previous delete nomination, [1] but I now think that Airreg is broken beyond repair. Because it relies on external websites supporting direct inks to search result pages (technically, HTTP GET requests), once such websites get redesigned not to do that (HTTP POST, which is currently the norm), this template becomes useless.
These template occurrences used to work: N470A[1], G-APFE[2], C-GAUN[3], PH-LKY[4], but now at best they link to the aviation registry's generic search page where the user has to enter the registration manually (and solve a captcha too), so the original purpose of this template is lost. Considering that template occurrences for the US FAA, UK CAA, and Canada's TSB alone constitute almost the totality of this template's usage, I don't see the point in keeping this template any longer and am happy to remove it from all articles that still use it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  —   Following Techie3's intervention below, this template probably deserves a reprieve (even if the UK registry seems lost for good). I can think of a way to reform it to make it more sensible and will post on the template Talk page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: I agree, it has basically been "overtaken by events" and no longer works as intended. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete allways has been pretty useless as it ignores the fact the registraions are not unique and can and are re-used so not much use and doesnt add anything of encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as no longer working as intended. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. This is too soon, maybe it can be made to work adequately again, see comment by Techie3 below. At least two previous AfD's kept it only because, back then, it did what it can no longer do worked.[2][3] BTW, shouldn't those discussions be linked to above? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait!/Keep I have updated the template to make the US example work properly, and the Canadian example still works somewhat correctly as well. Techie3 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now) - if after a while Airreg is still broken then I am happy to change to Delete but in the meantime, a final stay of execution wouldn't hurt IMO. OH NO IT'S cmn HIDE YOUR MUM HIDE YOUR WIFE ( ❝❞ / ) 09:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is now under reconstruction. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Let's wait and see if the problem is fixable before taking such a drastic action. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "FAA Registry (N470A)". Federal Aviation Administration.
  2. ^ "G-INFO Database". Civil Aviation Authority.
  3. ^ "Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (C-GAUN)". Transport Canada.
  4. ^ "Civil aircraft register (PH-LKY)". Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport.
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).

Template:Collapse bottom[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Collapse bottom with Template:Hidden archive bottom.
As many of you may know, these are actually the same template with two different names. Their purpose is to transclude the end table tag |} in a way that matches their "top" counterparts ({{Cot}} and {{hat}}). One can be safely redirected to the other without any concerns of incompatibility or breaking things.

For the record, this was kinda/sorta discussed 10 years ago (here) when I was twelve-years-old. Users who participated in that (only sorta) related discussion include: xeno, Martin, and PBS.

As a note to the closer of this discussion; the combined template should be left with this edit notice, this documentation, this talk page, and full protection. Please also make sure the template shortcuts are quickly retargeted to whatever title this ends up with. –MJLTalk 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge of course, literally the same template. Probably makes more sense to redirect {{Hidden archive bottom}}, since {{Collapse bottom}} is shorter and already has full protection. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. Did you actually look at the templates? Collapse bottom contains |}</div> and Hidden archive bottom contains |} They are not the same. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    @WOSlinker: {{hat}} should probably be given the |indent= functionality than. That doesn't seem too severe to ask. –MJLTalk 19:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not merge per above. These are different templates, and adding a flag to remove the div would defeat the purpose of having matching begin/end templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • keep separate, clearly different. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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).

Module:PassMath[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Module:Math. Izno (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:PassMath with Module:Math.
A separate module for division is not necessary because the function is within the scope of Module:Math. I would also be okay with deleting Module:PassMath entirely as redundant to the #expr parser function. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The divide function in PassMath is not finished yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The functionality of divide is now finished, but it may need to be revised for calling with other than strings. The error semantics of this module is different from Module:Math: PassMath forwards errors generated below, Math always outputs its own errors. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge indeed. Redirect/replace & depr is good and harmless.
btw I do not agree with the #expr part, because it is cumbersome oldstyle coding, and out-of-editing-pattern. (Recently I had to spend hours & frustrations looking for a "floor" function, any). But if I understand this correct, this is moot for the merge. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
#expr is beside the point, but because the purpose of the module is to forward any sub-expression errors before attempting the operation. And Module:Math does not do this, so these functions do not belong there. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thx, Trigenibinion. Allow me to skip this tech detail, unless I should rethink my !vote logic ;-) Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Stadium organists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 March 9. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox disputed islands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. — The Earwig (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Essentially the same scope for the primary geographic parameter set (which I haven't analyzed but I would assume that the main template is a superset), the ownership of these islands is just kind of tacked on. Whether a territory is disputed should be a facet of the territory itself rather than its own infobox. Izno (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Merge to Infobox islands, no reason to separate, however I do think that the disputed island template is pretty cluttered and needs to be simplified. Like "country_claim_largest_city_population" is pretty unnecessary to add to something that is about the island and not the country claiming it. PyroFloe (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per PyroFloe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge: per PyroFloe. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Infobox disputed islands}} for the same reasons as previously mentioned in the last nomination (which wasn't linked here for whatever reason). To quote a number of the reasons given last time, as they still apply:
    "well-defined subset of articles with special requirements. Island box doesn't support the crucial "claimed by" fields." (Future Perfect at Sunrise)
    "That they are islands is secondary (and superfluous IMO) to their status as disputed territory." (Int21h)
    "It is absolutely not redundant. Before I decided to create this template, I tried to come up with a good way to incorporate it into the regular islands infobox template, but I could come up with a way to do so due to the reasons already mentioned above. I spent a lot of time researching how to do this and trying to figure out the best way to do it. There's really no efficient way to merge these templates." (Me)
  • I will say that I'm open to some sort of Lua module addition that incorporates and streamlines the functions of this template, though I don't know how to do that myself. However, as I mentioned the last time this template was nominated here (and contrary to the opinions expressed by PyroFloe and Izno), there are (currently) many reasons to keep this template separate, foremost among them the fact that the disputed nature of the territory is usually the thing that gives the territory its notability. Most disputes are decades or centuries long, and most of the places using this template are uninhabited (or barely inhabited). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. It's not just because this template needs to cover additional pieces of information compared to the standard islands box (those could obviously be merged into the generic template). It's more because some of the same pieces of information that the generic box also supports need to be presented differently – e.g., info about administrative parent divisions need to be integrated into the several "claimed by..." groups. If that were to be merged properly it would lead to an enormous piece of conditional clutter, which would presumably make the resulting super-box even harder to maintain. I just don't see the benefit in that. Fut.Perf. 10:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:State results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. It might be worth looking at US election templates as a group - is there a "happy medium" to where there are a reasonable number of concise templates without being bloated (either in number or in content)? Right now there is no consensus for this particular template, but participants indicated that the "issue" is not solely relegated to the 2020 templates. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The pages are already linked on {{2020 United States elections}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:Russia–United States proxy conflict[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This template is infrequently used and many of the articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict between Russian and the United States. The category with the same name as the template was deleted. The redirect page should be deleted as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator's rationale for the CFD. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and the CfD. Was the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation a proxy conflict between Russian and the United States? Just because the US supported the Ukraine surely doesn't make this a proxy war/conflict. All seems somewhat tenuous to me. Nigej (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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).

Template:China–United States proxy conflict[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar to the Russia-United States proxy conflict template; should be deleted because it is infrequently used, articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict. Some of which include before the U.S. and China reestablished relations in the 1970s when Nixon visited China. Those conflicts have nothing to do with a proxy conflict between China and the United States. Its former category of the same name was deleted as well. The redirect page should also be deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • The former category link is a copy paste from the Russian above. Was there ever a Chinese category, and where? --Izno (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Izno (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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).