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. It seems like there are issues with the naming and "use" of this module, and it might be worthwhile to actually add a description of the module to the /doc subpage so that it's not as confusing. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:TNT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is completely unnecessary to store the text and/or TemplateData of English Wikipedia templates in commons datasets. subst and delete ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery:, please stop, you don't need to delete everything you do not agree with. This template is the core effort that has been requested since the begining of Wikipedia - to make Wikipedia templates and modules easily sharable between languages and projects. You seem to think that English is the only language out there, and the efforts required to translate things is of no concern to any other language. Please stop. Thanks to TNT, it is possible to share templates and modules without modifying them. P.S. this template is used in 15 languages, clearly there is some value in it. --Yurik (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As annoying as the TNT stuff can be to use sometimes, it's useful when copying templates cross-wiki to avoid having to change them for l10n. Anomie⚔ 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The current name is horrid and doesn't indicate the intent of the module--it shouldn't take reading through 5 lines of documentation to get the general gist of the module. The "please don't rename" doesn't strike me as necessary, as anyone actually interested in the module will be able to access its other names via the Wikidata item. --Izno (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the module to function as intended there would still have to be a soft "redirect" at Module:TNT (like return require [[Module:Whatever the new name is]]) and everything that uses it would have to use it via that redirect. That might turn out to be more annoying than informative, then, since anyone coming across uses of the module would have to manually follow the soft redirect to your new name. Anomie⚔ 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • or change the primary name on all other projects (syntax is return require('Module:Whatever the new name is').) Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not a decision that can be made here. As for syntax, what I posted works too. Anomie⚔ 00:04, 15 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).

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:Ref expand. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cleanup partial cites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ref expand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cleanup partial cites with Template:Ref expand.
These two templates seem to cover the same thing. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the wording can be slightly merged and then the former redirected Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daask (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This template was intentionally modeled on ((Cleanup bare URLs)) aka ((link rot)). It also is intended for other missing data than just publisher. I would prefer to retain both of these aspects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:30, 13 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).

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) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:ChemElem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, seems to be redundant to ((SymbolForElement)). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete abandoned unfinished duplicate Daask (talk) 22:07, 11 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).

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) 00:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:External links 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, associated with deleted template ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed? The use of this module is not at all obvious to me. Even so, it's not very focused given that it has a dozen different publications. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 10 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).

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) 00:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lauren Jauregui (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It doesn't navigate enough articles for a navbox Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am in favor for this template to remain because the artist herself is currently releasing music and will release more music in the future. The music in her template matches the amount of music Liam Payne released. After four singles his template was created. I voted in favor for Lauren Jauregui to keep her temple as she will release more music and the result will have to keep regardless. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Welcometothenewmillenium, is there a particular reason you invited four other editors and I to participate here? At first impression, this seems to be an attempt to WP:CANVASS opinions for keeping. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Eggishorn, I am inviting everyone to contribute their thoughts thank you much! Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Welcometothenewmillenium:, You've been here to know it doesn't work like that. "Everyone" who cares already can find out about this. The TfD is already listed on the log and linked from the template. Anyone who is interested in either the template or in TfD generally will already know. Picking individual, unconnected editors to come and participate is usually considered canvassing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:, okay like I said ... everyone's opinions, comments and votes are welcomed! Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I would imagine it will be recreated in the future as the singer expands her body of work. But right now this navbox doesn't quite follow the Navbox Guidelines sufficiently. Navboxes are intended to link between the various subjects for ease of navigation. As is, all of the links in this navbox lead away from the primary subject. None of the singles currently linked are themselves candidates to have this navbox at the bottom of their respective pages, so they do not represent a navigational cluster. -Markeer 16:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Markeer:, I understand your argument and yes I agree with you. However, she has released four singles and those need to be listed and mentioned. I quickly checked back and saw some of the glitches and am currently in the process of doing so. The links are no longer indirect links but are primary now. These are in fact her songs and she collaborated on all of them.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Welcometothenewmillenium: the article you just created for the album track "In Your Phone" (not a single) fails in WP:NSONGS and I believe is a candidate for deletion since it doesn't have notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Cornerstonepicker: It is a single because it was released from Ty Dolla Sign Beach House 3 album. Some research you need to check yourself.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Welcometothenewmillenium: That can be discussed on its own afD page. It's an album track. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: Oh I see how it is, this always have to be a problem when it comes to my edits. Mhm I see well I am sure you liked my response comment back.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Welcometothenewmillenium, just in case this back fires and doesn't turn out the way I expect it to be. I have taken the liberty to place it in a draft box. As this template will be kept regardless of the outcome. Her template will be made regardless might as well save it now before it all gets destroyed.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete, with one more article, I would say "keep", but for now, there isn't enough there. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 14 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).