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) 18:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Find sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Find sources mainspace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Find sources with Template:Find sources mainspace.
Template:Find sources should be merged with Template:Find sources mainspace as both templates do basically the same thing (except Find sources has a longer list of sources and does not work in the mainspace) and Template:Find sources could be made to act like Template:Find sources mainspace (through a parameter). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are implemented using Module:Find sources, which specifically generates an error if used in mainspace. This discussion should include whether that error is appropriate to include at all. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is also a non-trivial merge, as Module:Find sources is currently designed to choose the output template based on the name of the input template (it uses Module:Arguments with the wrapper set as the name of the calling template). Any change to consolidate the templates would require changes to Mr. Stradivarius's underlying Lua module as well. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment notability tags are lit up with this merge proposal, suggest investigating depth of this proposed change. Widefox; talk 23:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The templates are essentially already merged through their use of the Lua module - the current situation is pretty much "Template:Find sources could be made to act like Template:Find sources mainspace through a parameter", as KAP03 describes it. However, there are a couple of improvements that could be made to make the templates more in line with what KAP03 was perhaps thinking:
  1. Rename Template:Find sources mainspace to Template:Notability/find sources. ((Find sources mainspace)) only exists because there needed to be some way of putting a find sources template into Template:Notability without it triggering the "wrong namespace" error in Module:Find sources, and with the way the module is set up you need to make a template to use it - you can't use it directly through #invoke. I don't think ((find sources mainspace)) is used in any other mainspace templates (correct me if I'm wrong), so we could simply rename it to better reflect what it is intended to do.
  2. Sync the sources in ((find sources mainspace)) to those in ((find sources)). This is pretty easy to do by editing the configuration module, and wouldn't require any special setting up. That way every time anyone adds a new source to ((find sources)), it will automatically be added to ((find sources mainspace)) without anyone having to remember about it.
• What I wouldn't want to do is to let ((find sources)) be usable in mainspace, as allowing this would probably lead to the ability being misused. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mr. Stradivarius: How is it even possible to abuse a tool whose one job is to facilitate verification?— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 22:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mr. Guye: You insert its output into encylopedia articles, that's how. :) I can't think of many places where it would be appropriate to add a find sources template in mainspace - the ((notability)) template is a rare exception. It isn't my idea to have a namespace check, by the way - it's been in the template since 2008. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mr. Stradivarius: Be advised that ((Find sources mainspace)) is also used in ((Prod blp/dated)). – Train2104 (t • c) 21:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The namespace check on ((Find sources)) should either be removed, or be overridable by a parameter. Since ((find sources mainspace)) can already be used in mainspace, I don't see this expanding the capability for abuse, and honestly I think going to this much effort to stop people doing something breaks WP:BEANS. For reference, ((find sources mainspace)) is also used by ((importance section)), ((BLP unsourced)) and ((redlinks)). TheDragonFire (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The current system is fine. ((find sources)) shouldn't generally be placed in the mainspace, so the error message when placing it there is due. When it is appropriate to do so, ((find sources mainspace)) should be used. The only way to merge them and retain the error message would be to add a layer of complication (e.g. a parameter) to turn it off, which I don't think is the way to go in this case. It is really only appropriate in the mainspace as part of a maintenance template.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:Find sources per TheDragonFire. We don't need two templates to do the same thing, as we can make Template:Find sources work in the mainspace by removing the namespace check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis150902 (talk • contribs) 15:19, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Could someone find a way to prevent the TfM tag from spamming every article that uses ((notability))? KMF (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KATMAKROFAN: I've disabled it in mainspace. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
    to reply to me 06:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; since both templates use the same Lua module anyway and one is only supposed to be used within maintenance templates, merging provides no benefit to editors. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 06:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – There is no issue of code duplication, and limiting the use of this template in mainspace is a valuable feature. Kanguole 10:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UNSC Permanent Members-Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use, outdated, not needed/redundant to simply listing the heads of state of the permanent member states of the UNSC within the respective article Mélencron (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to use standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a coherent series of topicsGonejackal (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Inesperado track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single-use template Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:CTA stations. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CTA station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:CTA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:CTA station with Template:CTA stations.
Identical purpose; the former template no longer works correctly since every CTA station has been renamed, and there is no parameter for specifying whether or not "(CTA)" should be appended. (If there are loading concerns due to the large switch parser function for the latter, it can be converted to Lua like ((HK-MTR stations)) was.) Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 15:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• merge Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) feminist 14:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is hardly used: the only usages are to compare different English respelling customs, which means they don't need the template in the first place as all it does is link to the help page. It was once very reluctantly mentioned on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, only to be removed anyway. ((IPAc-en)) and ((Respell)) suffice the purpose, as the MOS instructs. Nardog (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; unnecessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 11:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – if you want funky signs, use ((IPAc-en)); if you want readability, use ((Respell)). There is no need for a respelling that at the same time uses funky signs. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2017 (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).