Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28

Template:Infobox Upanishad

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Upanishad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox religious text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Upanishad with Template:Infobox religious text.
per WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo, Can you put a copy of the proposed merged template in the sandbox for "Infobox religious text"? It's hard to comment on a merger without seeing the resulting merged template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:ConvertTestcase

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies; happy to userfy if desired. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:ConvertTestcase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken, since {{convert/sandboxlua}} is no longer in use {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me @Johnuniq: who seems to have written most of Module:Convert and is maintaining it, if it is useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw this but am leaving it up to WOSlinker who wrote most of the test which was extremely useful at the time. There is very little chance of this being used again but I'm going to leave it for others to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:GetLatestWikidataAlexaUpdateDate

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:GetLatestWikidataAlexaUpdateDate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Unused~~, way too specific {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made it and I'm using it in Template:WikidataAlexa, which fetches Alexa data from Wikidata. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 17:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just informed of Module:Alexa, which serves its purpose a lot better than my module. I updated Template:WikidataAlexa to use the other module. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 13:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fb r

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. Lots of the opposition is on the replacement, which can be done automatically, and thus aren't a rationale against this. There's a consensus to replace with Module:Sports results and then delete these templates as unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb r2 team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old style, no need. Same usage of Module:Sports results, should be replaced, note that I can not tag some templates, because those template is template-protected Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This change ruin a lot of pages, examples: 2016–17 Liga I, 2016–17 Liga II, 2017–18 Liga I, 2017–18 Liga II. Rhinen (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhinen: We will run a bot to do this after the discussion is over. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Ok, if the bot will do all the job and no need to remake all the tables, then Support Rhinen (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) @Rhinen: TThe issues at present are being caused by the deletion template, which I think I have solved with the noinclude tags. Number 5 7 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Yes, solved, thank you! Rhinen (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the win, draw loss color feature? Bromalayan (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 07:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose until all the functionality is replicated in Module:Sports results. As mentioned by Bromalayan, the win/draw/loss colour coding isn't available in the Lua module currently.~~ Delete now my concerns discussed below have been dealt with. Cheers, 08:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gricehead (talk • contribs) [reply]
Oppose - I find it useful, and it's on several pages I edit, plus many others I've come across. Skycycle (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what about all the old articles that used this before the new one was created. or are you going to personally go through all and update? 46.226.49.236 (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is delete, we will update the table. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is to determine a consensus to eliminate the use of the templates. The templates would first go to WP:TFD/H and later replaced before actually being deleted. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gricehead, Bromalayan, and Skycycle: Although it is useful, it has same usage as Module:Sports results, and colour is also available, you can see 2018 Liga 1 which uses Module:Sports results Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are available, provided you know the "secret" matches_style=FBR argument. I might have found that in the code eventually. Would be nice to see it documented, at which point I will happily change my Oppose. Gricehead (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gricehead:

Done, see [1], thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outdated system, now unnecessary and should be replaced by module. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless there is some automatic way to update all the articles that have this template then no way should it be deleted. A better would be if articles are to be moved to the module method of displaying then the dissemination of the information is important. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brudder Andrusha: Even the discussion is closed, and the result is delete. We will send these templates to WP:TFDH, and then orphan before actually deleting, and bots can orphan/replace after the discussion, such as PrimeBOT and SporkBot. I hope you can reconsider, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - looks better than the 'new' system and is easier to use. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is used in other wikipedias by copying from english WP. --Michczu (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michczu: I don't think it will affect others, can you tell me why you think it will affact? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but how do we replace the tables as quick as possible for the new module? Asturkian (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fb r2 header

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb r2 header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same usage as Module:Sports table, should be replaced Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is to determine a consensus to eliminate the use of the templates. The templates would first go to WP:TFD/H and later replaced before actually being deleted. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 11:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Allround Speed Skating Men

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. Willing to restore/userfy if the contents are desired (for merging into other templates). Primefac (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Allround Speed Skating Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --wooden superman 11:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Olympic champions in speed skating per gender, since the most recent templates for Mass start-winners per gender got deleted. So that every Olympic champions in speed skating have a navigational template at the bottom of the article. Best regards Migrant (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Noleak

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noleak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The ultimate drive-by tag. This stuff can be easily removed. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep this is a talk page template, that summarises work that has been done. Not a tag... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Format

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Vague template, redundant to "copyedit". Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WTF, "vague"? While for various other templates the deletion nominator's reasoning is "overly specific". What, you want it to be just exactly calibrated to be in the middle of what you expect to be commonly needed. Silly. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to think {{cleanup}} suffices. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:San Diego Padres retired numbers

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 2018 May 19. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San_Diego_Padres_retired_numbers (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:Patronymic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patronymic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor issues like this shouldn't be advertised with such big top-level message templates. – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:DabprimaryExpand

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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DabprimaryExpand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why create a new page just so you can move the disambiguation page that used to be there to "{{PAGENAME}} (disambiguation)"? Also, this template is bigger than the AFD tag. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn’t make any sense. The primary topic should already have an article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Iron Chef Gauntlet 1

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iron Chef Gauntlet 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant and unnecessary, it contains the exact same information as in the article itself. It is also not used in any other article nor will it be. It has also been removed from the parent article Iron Chef Gauntlet. SanAnMan (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty easy to say that the template isn't used in any other article after you removed it from another article. Anyway, I think I'm going to have to bring up WP:OSE in this case due to several other reality cooking competition series that have templates like this (and it would be different if only one entry in the template had an article). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: But that's the point, the template is only used in the article that the template is about in the first place. The template is about the results of Season 1 of Iron Chef Gauntlet. which is the article that it was removed from; in other words, the exact same article that the template is about. It's not that other stuff exists, it's that the template is an exact repeat of information in the article that the template is about. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true; it is featured on the chefs' respective articles as well. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PERFNAV. --wooden superman 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ESSR elections

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESSR elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Soviet Estonia Elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessarily duplicates elections already listed in {{Estonian elections}} (where the creator of the new template has repeatedly tried to remove them and has created both of the above templates in the last couple of days in attempt to justify doing so). For more background on this, see my talk page). Number 5 7 09:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{ESSR elections}}, I only ever edited the template {{Estonian elections}} twice[2],[3]. It seems somewhat disingenuous for the nominator to claim I "repeatedly tried to remove them", given that he added it five times:[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the nominator here[9] and here[10] regarding the current template.

The Republic of Estonia is an independent state and Soviet Estonia was a constituent part of the Soviet Union, both with very different political, economic, legal and electoral systems as well as slightly differing geographical areas. It is incongruous to lump them into the one template. Seeing that the template {{Irish elections}} focuses on the elections of the Republic of Ireland (1918 to present), with the bottom of the template having "See also" links to the elections of the Kingdom of Ireland {{Irish (Pre-1801) elections}} and elections in Ireland as part of the UK (1801-1918) {{Irish (UK) elections}}, that represented a good solution, providing reader utility in navigating to past elections while bringing clarity to the reader with links piped to the relevant topics related to the respective entities.

So the aim is give a similar treatment for the Baltic states, a template for the current republic (1918 to present) with links to templates for the 1940-1990 period (as part of the USSR) and eventually the pre-1918 period (as a part of the Russian empire), all with appropriate article links. With that in mind I created {{ESSR elections}} to work in conjunction with the original Estonian elections template[11].

The other template {{Soviet Estonia Elections}} can be deleted, it was my first attempt which mysteriously disappeared (perhaps the current deletion log will show), and apparently recently restored. --Nug (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on my talk page, the Irish example is not an appropriate comparison because Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are not the same geographic entity ({{Lithuanian elections}} or {{Moldovan elections}} are appropriate comparisons), and changes in political systems is not a valid reason to have separate templates as numerous countries have seen similar changes and gone through periods of independence and non-independence yet all the elections are on the same template (this is all in the discussion on my talk page). Including all the elections through different political systems and independence/non-independence is the standard format for such templates, not simply my preferred style (as such, I invite other editors who frequently edit these templates to comment (pinging @Aréat, Nightstallion, and SPQRobin:). Also, the above claim by Nug that "[his] aim was give a similar treatment for the Baltic states" is patently untrue; {{Soviet Estonia Elections}} was created before he was even aware of what was on the Irish template – this is a justification that he has scrambled to find in retrospect to justify his desire to remove the Soviet-era elections from the main template. In addition, this template was never deleted or restored contrary to the comments above. Number 5 7 12:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are openly canvassing three like minded associates to pile onto the discussion? Amazing. The templates {{Lithuanian elections}} and {{Moldovan elections}} perfectly illustrate what is wrong, the flags are that of the current republics and Parliamentary elections row heading pipes to Seimas and Parliament of the Republic of Moldova the respective legislative institutions of the current republics, yet incongruously include soviet era elections (all of them red linked!) (and please don't remove those flags and Parliamentary elections pipes while this discussion is on going, people need to see). That is my justification. You reverted/deleted my changes before I had a chance to complete them, so do not claim I am lying, that is a gross assumption of bad faith. But some may wonder at this apparent obsession on shoe horning soviet era elections into templates that are clearly structured around the current republics. --Nug (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting editors who regularly edit the election templates to give a view on a relevant issue that they will be familiar with. You were the one that claimed this was a personal preference of mine, so if it's just me that wants the templates formatted that way, then surely you have nothing to worry about from other editors commenting? And what you said is untrue – you created the first template separating the elections before you came up with the Irish template argument, so to suggest that the aim was "giving the same treatment" is false. Your aim was simply to delete the Soviet ones from the template, and you have since developed a retrospective justification for doing so. Number 5 7 13:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you want to canvass like minded editors who have had a long association with you in editing these templates to support your case. As to your accusations about my motive, more of the same WP:BADFAITH BS. Again, The template {{Estonian elections}} as I found it [12] has the flag of the current republic and Parliamentary elections row heading piped to Riigikogu, also the legislative institution of the current republic, yet it incongruously includes soviet era elections. A separate template for Soviet elections with appropriate linking is a better approach. --Nug (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want editors who frequently edit these templates to have a say on an issue which will potentially have ramification well beyond this template, and I think that's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. Given your past behaviour and the fact that you have done virtually nothing except argue about this for the last four days, no good faith is assumed I'm afraid. Number 5 7 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that was eight years ago, that is no justification for continued bad faith. However one result is that I do know what canvassing is when I see it. --Nug (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your problematic editing was trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR. The edits to the templates appear to be a continuation of this behaviour, so your previous is relevant I'm afraid. Number 5 7 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No more than {{Croatian elections}} makes it appear Croatia was not a part of Yugoslavia, which it doesn't. --Nug (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the comparison with the Irish templates seems reasonable here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clearly not though – a neighbouring country with a near-identical recent history would be – ie {{Lithuanian elections}}. Number 5 7 12:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of them. Historical reasons. Can't put together in one template the elections to independent Estonian Riigikogu and elections in occupied Estonia. Also Number 57 did not notify in Template{{Estonian elections}} that his strange edits there were to push the deletion of these templates. Klõps (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't they be put together? Elections during periods of independence and non-independence are in virtually every other countries' election template (and please don't restate the misleading Irish example). Number 57 14:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder why every other country, that I check, it isn't so. {{Czech elections}} includes elections in Czechia and {{Slovak elections}} in Slovakia with {{Czechoslovakian elections}} covered separately. Also all the Yugoslavian countries as {{Croatian elections}} for example covers elections in Croatia excluding the Yugoslavian period. Anyway it's really OSE. I see that you have pulled out the old Russian trolls favorite "how dear You say that Baltic countries weren't part of the USSR" I'm not saying You are one, but that's the Russian nationalists main argument, always. The answer is that nobody denies that Estonia was in the Soviet Union, but it was an occupation that was not recognised by rest of the world. And Republic of Estonia existed in exile with its government-in-exile, diplomatic service and Estonian refugee communities. You just can't put together two separate entities Republic of Estonia and the other that was under the control of foreign power. It isn't a singular line of elections as You want to present it. Klõps (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for raising the examples of {{Czech elections}} and {{Slovak elections}}, as they prove my point quite nicely. Those templates include the elections to the legislatures of the Czech (1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1990) and Slovak (1928, 1935, 1938, 1948, 1954, 1960, 1964, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1990) parts of Czechoslovakia, whilst the Czechoslovakian template contains the national level elections, which wouldn't be appropriate on the other two (it's the same as having {{Soviet elections}} (national elections) separate the Estonian template, so there's no equivalence with having a separate template for the Estonian SSR elections). Similarly the Croatian template links to the national-level elections in Yugoslavia, but would include Croatian elections if the dates were known (as {{Montenegrin elections}} does). Number 57 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It makes no rational sense to include Soviet elections in the {{Estonian elections}} template, they represent a completely different polity, any citizen of the Soviet Union could vote in Soviet Union's constituent republic elections only if they resided there, on the other hand only Estonian citizens can vote in Elections in Estonia regardless of where they reside. Can you not see the distinction? The template {{Soviet elections}} has a section "Regional elections", which links to articles on elections held for the Supreme Soviets of the Soviet Union's constituent republics. So if you do not like separate templates for Estonian SSR elections, then they can be placed in an expanded {{Soviet elections}} template. --Nug (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The principle should be "one country, one template", otherwise they will not fulfill their porpose, i. e. allowing the convenient navigation through the articles and the provision of an overview over all elections in the countries history. Actually, in the history of many conutries, the character of the elections has changed over time (extremely limited franchise in the European monarchies & the Latin republics of America [sic!] of the 19th century, the colonial LegCos in the 20th century, the pseudo-elections in the fashist and communist states of the 20th century and of course the wide-range of semi-free, semi-fair elections through the history. That complicated situation must be simplified of such templates are used (some historian in the German WP even criticize such templates in general, "history cannot be fitted into datasheets"). But one thing should be done, that is highlighting the fact that such elections had been soviet ones.--Antemister (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the only purpose is to allow convenient navigation, then that is achieved by having a link at the bottom as shown here. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Nug. Btw I see you editwarred on the same subject already in 2009 with Moldova. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Manichitrathazhu character map

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 2018 May 9. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manichitrathazhu_character_map (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:Open draft

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 no consensus. NPASR, possibly with an invitation/note for WP:AFC participants to comment. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

States the obvious about Wikipedia. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I added a |text= parameter to {{draft article}} to allow for specifically inviting open editing (even when the draft is in userspace). Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as serving a useful function. Wikipedia might be a (relatively) open encyclopedia, but with respect to drafts the tacit convention has been to avoid interfering unless invited. – Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Plot hook

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 redirect to Template:Hook. Should there be any significant content from this template that should be merged into {{hook}}, feel free to do so. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plot hook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um what? This is a specific and common issue that needs resolving.
Keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

delete, {{hook}} is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be redirected to Template:Hook?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a redirect to {{hook}} (or merge with {{hook}}) would work for me. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect looks like this template is the older one, but {{hook}} is the one used. Redirect makes sense, they say the same thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Switch

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Switch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Module:Data {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:RuGrammar

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RuGrammar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The English Wikipedia is not written in Russian. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a draft made before Scribunto was turned on on Ruwiki. If nobody needs it here, why not to delete. Ignatus (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:NumberUsers

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:NumberUsers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to parser function {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:PassArguments

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 Module:Template wrapper. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:PassArguments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Module:Template wrapper {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Edited 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Module:Template wrapper. It does have a few existing transclusions via Template:Cite compare, so we should make sure that they don't break, but after that I see no problem with deleting it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Mw

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Mw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to mw.text.tag, {{LOCALURL:}}, {{URLENCODE:}}, and {{FULLURL:}} {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on this at the moment (other than there would be no benefit from deleting it) but for anyone wondering why it was created, the reason is that it was used at test2wiki: in 2012 while Scribunto (the system of modules) was being developed, and before the now-standard mw was available. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Middleclass

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Middleclass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I experimented with using this to add mixins, but all of my modules now just implement inheritance manually. If it's not used anywhere, then deleting it is the right thing to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Lv

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Lv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Always returns "en", therefore useless {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:London ward populations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:London ward populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the exception of the feature for generating a reference, which is just as easily to implement in Wikitext as Lua, entirely redundant to Module:Data (note: Module:London ward populations/data is not nominated here). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no objection with merging this into Module:Data or another similar module, but it does do things that Module:Data can't do at the moment, like return a formatted reference. We would need to put the code that outputs references etc. somewhere - Pppery, was your plan to put that back in Template:London ward populations? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since all it is doing is expanding a template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rewrite it, go ahead - personally I don't think it makes much difference whether that logic is in Lua or in template code, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Log10

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 Module:Math. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Log10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Math (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Log10 with Module:Math.
We don't need to have separate lua modules for every mathematical operator {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would even agree with deleting because it seems it was never used. I wonder why I created it in the first place. Petr Matas 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused, although if someone actually does need this functionality then I agree that Module:Math is the place it should go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah delete the module, if someone has a use they can (request for) add it to Module:Math Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Assyrian elections in Iraq, 2018

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 2018 May 9. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assyrian_elections_in_Iraq,_2018 (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:AQA Holding S.p.A

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AQA Holding S.p.A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, header article doesn't exist. (page has been blanked by User:CBG17) Richard ⁰⁶¹² 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company was found to be not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AQA Holding) throwing doubt on the usefulness of this template. The Banner talk 03:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hadn't checked AfD. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 11:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page AQA Holding has been deleted (not by me). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).