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)
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)
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"
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
|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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — 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)
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)
References
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. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 March 9. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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"
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
|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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — 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)
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)
References
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. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 March 9. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)