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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Not merged. This is a rather confusing discussion with the actual template changing halfway through. As Armbrust pointed out the templates have different purposes and I can't see a strong argument for why they must be merged. There may be a need for a discussion on whether an article space template is appropriate but this is not the right venue for that. Salix (talk): 09:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Mrv with Template:MRVdiscuss.
Template Mrv was originally designed for mainspace (article) pages, in order to more widely advertise move review discussions (move discussion notices are only posted on talk pages) Mrv was boldly re-purposed to be used on talk pages (see diff), which seems to now be the de facto consensus, however now the text of template Mrv is confusing on talk pages, and use there is redundant to template MRVdiscuss. If Mrv use isn't going to be restored to article pages, then the template should be redirected to MRVdiscuss. Perhaps some form of the Mrv language can be incorporated into MRVdiscuss, if the current MRVdiscuss text is not sufficient. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support merge It would seem a simple piece of scripting to merge these into ((mrv)) and to make them produce appropriate messages, per host namespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to merge the talk page version of the code. Based upon this nomination, I've BOLDly restored it to the previous version (for mainspace usage/notification). This is the best of both worlds, I would think. - jc37 23:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge I don't see any reason we can't have two templates - one that is shorter, more discrete, targeted at going to articlespace to inform readers of the article that a (obviously) contentious debate about the title is going on. The other can be used for the talk page, giving more detail, the results, etc. Two templates is fine, they serve different purposes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you don't understand. I've just merged the ((MRVdiscuss)) code into ((mrv)). This was accomplished by simply using ((talk other)) to split the talk page code from the other pages code. The purpose of the merge is to prevent misplaced usage of the article template on talk pages and vice versa. Still need to merge the documentation and then redirect ((MRVdiscuss)) to ((mrv)). Compare Hillary Clinton with Talk:Harry S. Truman National Historic Site. Both are now using the merged ((mrv)). The appearance to readers is unchanged, one template is now serving two purposes. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand, if you did the merge, why are we here? Discussion wasn't over, no consensus was found, and you did the merge anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's back up a bit and I'll give a status update. In early January, this template was boldly changed see diff by a user who is now blocked even from their own talk and email, without, in my opinion, adequate discussion. Arguably, this was a disruptive edit. Granted there was some discussion prior, see Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2013#Six months in, time to review this process?. There was from that, perhaps a limited local consensus that ((mrv)) tags should not be placed on articles, and that only talk pages should be tagged. Then this now-blocked editor updated both the ((mrv)) template and the instructions, to use ((mrv)) on talk pages. Not discussed, however, was why we need two templates for talk pages: should ((mrv)) be used instead of ((MRVdiscuss)) or should both be used together? If we only want to tag talk pages, why isn't just ((MRVdiscuss)) sufficient for that? Why not just delete((mrv)) if it wasn't desirable to use it for the purpose for which it was designed? I was confused seeing it used on talk pages, until I did research into this blocked editor's edits. But since several months passed without anyone else objecting to these changes made with limited local consensus, I assumed that they were the new de facto consensus and submitted this item to templates for discussion. Two editors immediately responded, with one boldly reverting the now-blocked editor's template change, in essence, these two editors also support use of the template on article pages as well as talk pages. I'm fine with putting the template on articles, so I agreed to the "simple piece of scripting to merge these into ((mrv)) and to make them produce appropriate messages, per host namespace". With nearly two weeks passing without further input to this discussion, I made the suggested changes on 23:09, 21 June 2013. Only after I did that, you jump in with a last-minute objection to what had been, until then, a unanimous consensus. And confusingly, while objecting, you seem to also be arguing in support of exactly the implementation as I've written in, rather than in support of the blocked editor whom we are belatedly reverting (while making it a bit harder to make such a change in the future without anyone noticing). So please, look again at the current ((mrv)) source, and implementation on the article page Hillary Clinton, and the talk page Talk:Harry S. Truman National Historic Site, and tell me again what your objections are. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the advantage of having 1 vs 2 templates? Is this frequently done? I think it will be more confusing to the user. I'd rather have one clean, simple template for the article space, and another one intended for talk pages. While it's certainly programmatically possible to have one template that does double duty, it complicates the code and makes it harder for a user who just wants to tweak the language.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far there has been no response from the creator of these two templates, but it is correct that it is inappropriate to edit them while a discussion is in process. My understanding is that one is used to indicate that there is an MRV in progress, the other that there had been an MRV and it was now closed. Per prior discussion both of these belong on the talk page, not one on the article as originally created. No clear indication of where they should appear on the talk page, but normally both appear below the relevant move discussion section heading and before the close box (before the colored section). The names are confusing, as to the best of my knowledge ((Mrv)) was created to indicate a previous discussion was closed, and ((MRVdiscuss)) to show that there is an ongoing discussion. I have no objection to merging these into ((Mrv)). It is clear that both belong on the talk page, and I would recommend locating both just below the relevant move discussion section header, outside of the closed discussion. The reason for this is it only relates to that specific close. Apteva (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Disagree. Why should mrv not be in article-space? That was it's original intent, and I don't see anything wrong with that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion at WP:Move review talk page, and concluded that it should be moved to the talk page, and that no requested move templates appear in article space. While it is true that editors are also readers and readers editors, only about 0.1% of all readers make even one edit ever (one out of every thousand). If any requested move template should be in article space, it is one notifying an RM, but that also has been rejected. It was proposed here and here, and rejected here, and here, as well as the above noted Move review discussion. I see no point in bringing it up again. Apteva (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that Apteva's block must have expired. ((MRVdiscuss)) is quite capable of both informing that a discussion is currently in progress and that the discussion has closed, depending on whether the |result= parameter has been set or not. There is no need for another template just to say that discussion has closed. If you don't feel that an article template is appropriate, then the solution should either be to redirect ((Mrv)) to ((MRVdiscuss)), or delete ((Mrv)) altogether. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather use Mrv, as it is less characters to type. Apteva (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can Obi and Apteva please come to a consensus on whether it is ever appropriate to tag non-talk pages with notice of move reviews? I don't really care one way or another about that, and don't want to waste more time arguing about that. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge The Move review process was created on the example of the Deletion review process. As I see it ((mrv)) is the counterpart of ((Delrev)), and therefore should go on the page, which was the subject of the requested moves discussion. ((MRVdiscuss)) is the counterpart of ((Delrevxfd)), and therefore should go to the actual RM discussion. I don't see any benefit in merging these two templates. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article is a big deal, and has to be on the article. Renaming an article changes almost nothing, and is only done through the talk page (renaming changes content, and where we discuss content is the talk page). Apteva (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at Talk:Deadmaus for a strong counter example. Readers are up in arms. This template should be retained, to be placed in article space when an editor believes in good faith that readers will be interested or want to weigh into there move. After a move article content changes, so this is relevant to readers. The discussion 6 months ago had 2 participants, so that's a pretty weak consensus, we should re-open this. What is so bad about an article space notification? How are readers harmed? We already spam then with tons of content templates at the top of the page, and title is ur-level content.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on where the template goes is frankly off topic. Responding on user talk page. Apteva (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's completely on-topic. The wording of the template has everything to do with where it's placed, and for simplicity's sake, if we have one template for article and another for talk, that makes it a lot easier to understand which goes where.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there has never been "one template for article and another for talk". There has always been one template for open MR's and one template for closed MR's, and it has been suggested and already done, to combine them into the same template. Discussion about where they go is not relevant, has already been discussed, and should be brought up completely separately from this discussion if anyone wants to revisit the topic, as it clearly would have zero impact on the current discussion. Apteva (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there has never been "one template for article and another for talk"." Apteva, you're flat-out wrong about that, and you should know better, since it was you who made the change, which I linked at the start of this discussion. It's annoying me that I'm forced to repeat myself. Are you on some sort of probation? Be more careful about what you say. Please re-read this entire discussion before replying. That Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2013#Six months in, time to review this process? "consensus" that you base this on is just a local consensus of you and one other editor. Seems there is enough consensus here to overturn it. Since you've been such a **** about this, I'm !voting with Obi-Wan Kenobi. My position is that there is no harm in allowing an editor, at their option, to tag articles, but we don't need to require that. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since 98% (plus or minus about 2%) of all MR's are upheld on review, putting it on the article is a useless measure. I agree that using the template to advertise an MR in progress is optional, as some editors have instead created a section on the talk page with a link, but the time to discuss location is after this discussion is closed, and at a forum that is better watched. Location is secondary to function. The function has always been to advertise a move review in progress and a move review that previously occurred. In the meantime the location of each template (and function) should be reverted to what they were before this discussion was opened, except that it was defacto closed on June 9, and the code merged on June 21. During that time I was unable to respond, but would have reverted the bold undo that was done on June 9 to move it back to article space. Bold means "with no discussion". It can not be applied to a change that was done with the consent of all those watching (and that is definitely more than the two who participated). Apteva (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 of 22 move reviews in Category:Closed move reviews have not overturned the decision, so the current rate is 100%. Should the next decision happen to be an overturn, then the rate would drop to just under 96%. That might be an argument for "move reviews are a useless measure" but I don't follow that rationale for not using the tag on articles. One of the two reasons for review, per the instructions, is that the closer "was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM". In my opinion, tagging the article makes it more likely that someone not involved in the original discussion will become aware of it and perhaps make available additional information that none of the RM participants were aware of.
There are two issues here:
Should articles be tagged? I'm voting yes.
Can the templates be merged so that one template tags both articles and talk pages—including both open and closed discussions? I'm voting yes to that too. The template source can be adequately commented to make clear which part of the template source applies to talk pages and which part applies to other pages (as I was demonstrating with my edits, which were not intended to override procedure, but rather to demonstrate the changes I intended. Sorry, I could have created Template:Mrv/sandbox for that, but at the time it didn't appear to be contested, so I was just looking for a rubber-stamp approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult and highly confusing to take a poll on two issues at the same time, and I recommend that we stick to the question of merging the two templates. Apteva (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And which version of ((mrv)) are you talking about merging? Your edit of 03:22, 5 January 2013 or the version of 23:10, 9 June 2013? I'm fine with merging the current (June 9) version. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically neither. I recommend merging ((MRVdiscuss)) into ((mrv)). Where it goes can be discussed later. Apteva (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any problems with that, although of course I will recommend removing the sentence about locating it on the article page, and removing any code that supports that. It appears that instead of a closed= parameter, you are using a result= parameter to tell if the discussion is closed? Apteva (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the presence of |result= is what causes the template to interpret the discussion as being closed and to categorize it in Category:Closed move reviews. I think, after this "merge" is completed, then to remove article page support, as I believe you want to do, then the entire section labeled "<!--this part is processed on article and other non-talk: pages-->" would simply be deleted, and the documentation updated accordingly. Then, if placed on article pages, the template would do nothing. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear above, I oppose merging these. As someone noted above, the mrv process is based on the same foundations as drv. - jc37 05:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused now, as above you said "Feel free to merge the talk page version of the code". As you reverted Apteva, I understand that you are opposed to discontinuing usage in mainspace, but do you support merging into a single template that "produce(s) appropriate messages, per host namespace", as Andy in effect counter-proposed above. I support Andy's counter-proposal. Also supporting this is Template talk:MRVdiscuss which describes a "hack" made to the talk page version. I believe a similar hack needs to be made to the article version, and hasn't been made yet. If they were in one centralized template, that would have less likely been overlooked. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, every template on Wikipedia could be merged to one big template with various sorts of data structures : )
That said, we don't tend to do things that way. Generally, we have "wrapper" templates doing more fundamental things (to streamline code updating, among other things). template:mbox is probably the most widespread example, though template:userbox is another.
The goal it to make things easier for those who use the templates, not those who code them.
So for this and several other reasons, I oppose merging the templates. They are used for different things in different "space"s. - jc37 06:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the consensus I thought I had after the first two weeks has evaporated in the third week. I'll revert my changes and implement what I think is current consensus and hopefully someone not involved can come along and close this out. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all we have is a mess now. It is always best to wait until a decision is made before trying to implement that decision. So basically we have proven that both functions and locations can be performed by one template without any difficulty. So the next logical step is to put all of that code into both of them and then do a TfD to delete one of them as redundant. Fortunately we have not had very many uses for either template, so replacing the deleted one with the other will be trivial, or if not used anywhere, not even needed. Apteva (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we have a mess now. Everyone please examine the current templates, documentation and instructions, and reply here if you see anything that you consider to be against consensus. Ordinarily I agree we should wait until this is closed to make changes, but in this situation where simply the word merge is ambiguous and can be taken out of context (merge what?) I feel that bold, revert, discuss as part of this process should be acceptable. Now when you say the next logical step is to put all of that code into both of them and then do a TfD to delete one of them as redundant, I have to roll my eyes and ask what planet you come from. That's just what I did two weeks in, except, rather than delete the redundant template I was just planning to redirect it to the other one, and that's precisely what I feel we no longer have consensus for (I guess I was mistaken that we ever did), so that's just what I've finished undoing (the part that wasn't already reverted by other participants in this discussion). Now if, after this closes (hopefully soon), you want to submit a TfD on ((mrv)) feel free, but it doesn't seem to me like that would succeed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way we've just had the first overturn decision come down, so now 1 of 23 reviews (4.3%) has been overturned, and move reviews are thus not entirely "useless measures". Wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template is not used in a useful fashion, and trnasclusions have been migrated to use ((wrong license)). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((Wrong license)) is for files with a wrong licence whereas ((NFUR not needed)) is for correctly licensed free files which have a fair use rationale. It's unclear why ((NFUR not needed)) redirects to ((maybe free media)) as the templates ((NFUR not needed)) and ((maybe free media)) obviously serve different purposes. There need to be two separate templates: ((wrong license)) and ((NFUR not needed)). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redudant to NFUR not needed and wrong license. Definitely don't delete either NFUR not needed or wrong license. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really is no room for error when it comes to whether something is free media or not. If it's not certain, it probably should not be used. When in doubt, assume there's a copyright. LazyBastardGuy 02:26, 29 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Transparency
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. If its unused we don't nee dto keep it around. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.