Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:16, 16 October 2020

< September 28	September 30 >

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 8. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FaxonRash (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).

Template:Surviving ocean going ships

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 convert to list. Note that Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships exists, which I am going to histmerge this template into, and can be moved to the article space if and when appropriate. Extant uses of the template will be removed. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Surviving ocean going ships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox does not meet the critiera 1, 2, 3, or 5 in WP:NAVBOX (and probably not 4 either though I haven't looked) and should be deleted (or listified/category-ized) accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split. - The collection of links could be useful if they are repurposed as was done with Template:Oldest surviving ships (pre-1919) which links to List of oldest surviving ships. I have no problem with a List of surviving World War II ships type list for example if it is done properly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That template probably also should go. What a mess. :^) --Izno (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split as above (if that is the appropriate word for "convert"). Or perhaps convert to a category. As a template it makes "What links here" completely useless by linking articles with no commonality other than existence and no textual link or even reason to have such a link. Such a large and unspecific template collection completely breaks the key editing function for finding and maintaining textual links between articles. Palmeira (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Palmeira: 'split' means turn the single navbox into a number of smaller navboxes, which will reduce your problems of polluting 'What links here', but not eradicate it. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support a list, not smaller problems. The comment above mine indicates a list then with repeated use of "list" — I have no problem with it going to a list. Just having smaller levels of corruption of "What links here" is not a good solution. So, I support your comment below. Palmeira (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify: there's a maintenance problem with links when so many barely related articles are linked together with this sort of navbox. A good list article would be much better. As a tabular list, it would allow more information than a simple link (year of launch and notes come to mind). A list article would be appropriate for the See also section for any of the articles on the list, so there would be no loss of navigation functionality. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A tabular list would be a much better option. Palmeira (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the point of this template - or indeed a category or list with the same content? I am struggling to imagine a practical use. It looks a bit like CAT:LP, but that has a clear content management purpose related to WP:BLP. Davidships (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I dislike the thing's effect on finding links I see some value in a list as a collection of survivors from the period. The ships have nothing else in common, but such a list would be helpful for anyone looking for period ships that survive as museum or even operating vessels. I do not think they should otherwise be associated by links or sub-groups unless there is a real association that could be a category rather than links. For example a builder, line, navy or perhaps event — such as ships at "Pearl Harbor" or "Normandy" or such events. I believe there are already categories for some of those type of connections. As an alternate to a list there could be a category for the listed vessels with sub categories. The advantage of the list would only be the potential of a table as discussed above. Palmeira (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify such a huge template serves no navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've created Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships to show how a tabular list might look. If it's useful, please feel free to knock it into shape as a stand alone list. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Promising and potentially much more useful with a brief description field. For example a location for museum or other localized ships. Another possibly for particular significance; "first xxxx" or "did this" sort of thing. In my view it would be worth while doing some "system engineering" on such fields before an implementation — is it really useful, what functionality and so on hammering out things rather than retrofits after people start filling them in. Location can be short with a link helping people even plan a visit. Significance could be thorny because some don't have clear basis, Lady Hutton for example. Hanne Marie is easier, "Original gaff ketch sailing vessel" for example. Palmeira (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar If we are going to make a list then we have to be sure that it is readable per WP:TOOLONG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sample in two categories. Each can be subdivided into decades with navigation at the top just as in many other such lists such as any of the built or in List of shipwrecks. Palmeira (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: WP:SPLITLIST applies. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the list doesn't need to be split further. Proper sectioning will take care of any navigation issues. What about ships from C19th and earlier that survive, how will they be handled? As the original intention of the template was ships over 50 years old, surviving vessels from Category:1970 ships should now be included. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1900 (in fact pre-1919) ships are already at List of oldest surviving ships, which seems fine to me. Why not just follow that format (with or without images)? Davidships (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent format across related ship lists is a worthy requirement. I would say just follow what has been, even photos which are more likely available for the later ships. Palmeira (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per WP:SPLITLIST. Pahlevun (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, or straight up delete. If I'm reading on a boat that happened to be built in 1934, what will be interesting is other similar boats, not boats that happened to be built in the same year. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, as the topic is almost certainly notable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:12, 7 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).

Appalachian League rosters

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 7. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bluefield_Blue_Jays_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Burlington_Royals_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Danville_Braves_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Princeton_Rays_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pulaski_Yankees_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bristol_Pirates_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Elizabethton_Twins_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Greeneville_Reds_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Johnson_City_Cardinals_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kingsport_Mets_roster (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).

Template:Current events portal

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 16. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current_events_portal (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).

TransLink templates

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) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TransLink (SEQ) color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TransLink (SEQ) style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Translink color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Translink lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Translink stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Translink style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink left/Eastern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink left/Northern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink left/South East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink right/Eastern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink right/Northern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:S-line/Translink right/South East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/TransLink. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 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).

Old unused module sandboxes

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 16. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Official_website/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Message_box/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Infobox_road/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Infobox_gene/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:ISO_3166/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:IPA_symbol/sandbox/future (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Coordinates/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Color_contrast/sandbox1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Adjacent_stations/sandbox/beta (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).

Template:Dot chart

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 7. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dot_chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Dot_chart (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).

Template:Being merged

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:Being merged, keeping in mind the points raised by the discussion about parameters and categorisation. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Being merged (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Merging (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Being merged with Template:Merging.
This is somewhat ironic, but the first template has fewer parameters than the second. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete the first template per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Nom is correct that these templates are redundant with each other. However, they have at least one parameter incompatibility, and {{Being merged}} is more flexible in that it is not namespace-constrained. The misfeature that {{Merging}} is namespace-limited should simply be fixed. It's not actually reasonable for the template to take partial-page name input and guess at the namespace. It should just required the entire page name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Now we just have to decide which template to tag them with, while that's being done... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; in earlier discussion about the duplication (Template talk:Being merged#Similar template) there was some discussion between User:Trialpears and me about this. The advantage of Template:Being merged is that it sorts pages to a different category to the proposal categories, and hence makes it easier to find articles where consensus has already been reached. Perhaps Template:Merging could follow that model. Klbrain (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to other merge temps. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete A single template name is easier to remember and less confusing than having both templates be merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{Being merged}} is de facto used after a merge discussion has indicated there is consensus to merge, but it is awaiting the implementation. e.g. Third-degree murder. {{Merging}} reads like it's a duplicate of {{Being merged}}, but behaves like a generic version of {{Merge from}} & {{Merge to}} (thus a duplicate of {{Merge}}). You can see this evidenced in the categorisation for this template (which is mixed in with the "a merge is proposed" categories) and in the documentation, which sees itself akin to those templates. {{Merging}} seems like a template which doesn't know its purpose in life. Absent evidence that de facto usage differs from my summary, I think it's best to merge, but to the title {{Being merged}}, for clarity. Further, the template should keep the categorisation structure of the current {{Being merged}}. Per SMcCandlish, it may also be a good idea to redesign the template to support cross-namespace merges, which is something {{Merging}} is currently unable to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 7 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).

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 -->
 ==== [[Template:FaxonRash]] ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-* {{Tfd links|FaxonRash}}
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
-Only navigates two films ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 23:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+The result of the discussion was '''relisted'''<!-- Tfd top --> on [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Template:FaxonRash|2020 October 8]]. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 10:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|FaxonRash}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>
 ==== [[Template:Surviving ocean going ships]] ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
+The result of the discussion was '''convert to list'''<!-- Tfd top -->. Note that [[Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships]] exists, which I am going to histmerge this template into, and can be moved to the article space if and when appropriate. Extant uses of the template will be removed. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{Tfd links|Surviving ocean going ships}}
 This navbox does not meet the critiera 1, 2, 3, or 5 in [[WP:NAVBOX]] (and probably not 4 either though I haven't looked) and should be deleted (or listified/category-ized) accordingly. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 41: / Line 50: @@
 * '''Listify''', or straight up delete. If I'm reading on a boat that happened to be built in 1934, what will be interesting is other similar boats, not boats that happened to be built in the same year. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Listify''', as the topic is almost certainly notable. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 01:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>
 ==== Appalachian League rosters ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-* {{Tfd links|Bluefield Blue Jays roster}}
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
-* {{Tfd links|Burlington Royals roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Danville Braves roster}}
+The result of the discussion was '''relisted'''<!-- Tfd top --> on [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 7#Appalachian League rosters|2020 October 7]]. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 12:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
-* {{Tfd links|Princeton Rays roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Pulaski Yankees roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Bluefield_Blue_Jays_roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Bristol Pirates roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Burlington_Royals_roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Elizabethton Twins roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Danville_Braves_roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Greeneville Reds roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Princeton_Rays_roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Johnson City Cardinals roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Pulaski_Yankees_roster}}
-* {{Tfd links|Kingsport Mets roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Bristol_Pirates_roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Elizabethton_Twins_roster}}
-These teams are now defunct. As they will not be playing again, there is no need to maintain rosters. The only page still using these templates is [[Appalachian League rosters]], which is also no longer needed. [[User:NatureBoyMD|NatureBoyMD]] ([[User talk:NatureBoyMD|talk]]) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|Greeneville_Reds_roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Johnson_City_Cardinals_roster}}
+* {{tfd links|Kingsport_Mets_roster}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>
 ==== [[Template:Current events portal]] ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-* {{Tfd links|Current events portal}}
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
-A single usage that can be substituted. Duplicates {{tlx|portal|Current events}} (which is transcluded at the bottom of [[2020]], btw), except that {{tlx|Current events portal}} is visible on the mobile version. —⁠[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
-* As you wrote yourself: that other template is not visible on mobile. In addition to that, I hope that the template can later be improved so that it transcludes parts of the Current events portal. The existing templates can't be aligned to the right. --[[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 15:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+The result of the discussion was '''relisted'''<!-- Tfd top --> on [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Template:Current events portal|2020 October 16]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|Current_events_portal}}
-* '''Replace and delete''' per nom. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>
 ==== TransLink templates ====
@@ Line 85: / Line 100: @@
 ==== Old unused module sandboxes ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-* {{Tfd links|Official website/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
-* {{Tfd links|Message box/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
-* {{Tfd links|Infobox road/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+The result of the discussion was '''relisted'''<!-- Tfd top --> on [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Old unused module sandboxes|2020 October 16]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
-* {{Tfd links|Infobox gene/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
-* {{Tfd links|ISO 3166/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Official_website/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|IPA symbol/sandbox/future|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Message_box/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Coordinates/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Infobox_road/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Color contrast/sandbox1|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Infobox_gene/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Citation/CS1/sandbox4|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|ISO_3166/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Citation/CS1/sandbox3|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|IPA_symbol/sandbox/future|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Coordinates/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Color_contrast/sandbox1|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox2|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Citation/CS1/sandbox4|module=Module}}
-* {{Tfd links|Adjacent stations/sandbox/beta|module=Module:}}
+* {{tfd links|Citation/CS1/sandbox3|module=Module}}
+* {{tfd links|Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-Consensus to delete old unused sandboxes was established at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_24#Template-Sandboxes]]. The exact same arguments apply to modules, so these old module sandboxes (none of which have been edited in the last year) should be deleted. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3|module=Module}}
-*'''Delete''' As for previous discussion. [[User:Fleet Lists|Fleet Lists]] ([[User talk:Fleet Lists|talk]]) 05:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox2|module=Module}}
-* '''Question''' One of the compelling arguments for deletion of unused templates offered at [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_24#Template-Sandboxes]] was that they clog up [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates]]. How does "the exact same argument" apply to unused modules? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+* {{tfd links|Adjacent_stations/sandbox/beta|module=Module}}
-*: No, the main argument presented by the delete voters was that they are duplicates of the main sandbox, and may qualify for deletion under [[WP:T3|T3]]. That is not changed by being in module namespace. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>
-*:: On the contrary, the ''only'' convincing argument presented was that it clogged up [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates]]. The argument about duplication of the main sandbox is nonsense: it would equally apply to the main sandbox being a duplicate of the main template/module. Multiple sandboxes are created to allow testing of changes without disturbing the main sandbox when it is already in use, in just the same way as the main sandbox is created to avoid disturbing the main template/module while testing. Removing the above modules does nothing other than saving a few bytes of server storage and is a complete waste of editors' time. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 16:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
-*I could go either way. On one hand, yeah we should get rid of unused templates. On the other hand, I feel like this TfD will get some of the creators of these old and unused templates a kick in the butt. To that end, I think XfDs are a bad way to get editors moving. I can't speak about other templates, but I know the {{Tlx|Infobox road}} sandbox2 was on hold because we were waiting for some useful features and/or Wikidata integration (which may never happen) to be added. –[[User:Fredddie|Fredddie]][[User talk:Fredddie|™]] 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
-* Delete the citation module sandboxes. Ancient and unused at this point and it's not even obvious to me they are remotely necessary for attribution in any way. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
-* '''Delete all''' unless an editor working on a specific /sandbox asks for it to be kept. While true that they aren't a big problem for the wiki in general, if it indeed is abandoned code, it's still something that can be cleaned up. And seeing as how we are already at TfD, there is really no point in not doing so. Additional /sandboxes are also clearly speedy under G6. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
-* '''Delete''' per Gonnym. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' absolutely no benefit to removing these, per the remarks by RexxS. There is some harm, though. The first, indeed WIP stuff can be moved into a second sandbox whilst the first is being used. We're doing this at {{t|Infobox station}} currently. If I abandon this work for 12 months, due to substantial progress I would expect the sandbox to be maintained to pick up where I left off. I obviously would not remember which sandbox had what content or what its naming was, so deletion is likely to be a surprise too. We do not generally delete sandboxes, and citing that low-activity TfD as establishing precedent seems inappropriate. Third, it can make it harder for people to debug issues later down the line. Many times extensive work (across multiple edits, with edit summaries) is done in a sandbox, and then just synced in one edit using summary "sync sandbox" -- not helpful. If there's a bug, the sandbox (with incremental edits and edit summaries) can be helpful to track it down. I agree this is busywork with exactly zero benefit (unless the WMF cares about a few bytes of database space these days, which they could enforce by office action if they did) but with multiple possible downsides. I have many times found useful code in abandoned sandboxes. We do not need to be creating any precedent for this. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 13:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Dot chart]] ====
@@ Line 120: / Line 130: @@
 ==== [[Template:Being merged]] ====
+<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
+The result of the discussion was '''merge'''<!-- Tfd top --> to [[Template:Being merged]], keeping in mind the points raised by the discussion about parameters and categorisation. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{Tfd links|Being merged|module=|type=merge}}
 * {{Tfd links|Merging|module=|type=merge}}
@@ Line 131: / Line 145: @@
 * '''Replace and delete''' A single template name is easier to remember and less confusing than having both templates be merged. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' {{t|Being merged}} is de facto used after a merge discussion has indicated there is consensus to merge, but it is awaiting the implementation. e.g. [[Third-degree murder]]. {{t|Merging}} ''reads'' like it's a duplicate of {{t|Being merged}}, but ''behaves'' like a generic version of {{t|Merge from}} & {{t|Merge to}} (thus a duplicate of {{t|Merge}}). You can see this evidenced in the categorisation for this template (which is mixed in with the "a merge is proposed" categories) and in the documentation, which sees itself akin to those templates. {{t|Merging}} seems like a template which doesn't know its purpose in life. Absent evidence that de facto usage differs from my summary, I think it's best to merge, but '''to the title''' {{t|Being merged}}, for clarity. Further, the template should keep the categorisation structure of the current {{t|Being merged}}. Per SMcCandlish, it may also be a good idea to redesign the template to support cross-namespace merges, which is something {{t|Merging}} is currently unable to do. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>