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 December 31. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mister_Philippines_winners_in_the_Male_pageants (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).

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 separate but another discussion can be had after other mergers regarding ((Infobox Chinese)) are done and/or it is renamed. I note arguments based on the name of the template are quite weak since mergers can and do involve renaming templates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Korean name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Chinese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Korean name with Template:Infobox Chinese.
Other templates that serve the purpose of Infobox Chinese (such as Infobox name module and Infobox East Asian name) are currently being merged with Infobox Chinese for being redundant, and I believe Infobox Korean name is equally redundant. Infobox Chinese, though not aptly named, covers a wide variety of Asian language transcriptions, including Korean. Thus, the only thing that would need to be changed is allowing more than one Korean name parameter, with specifications for stage name, birth name, etc. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 22:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template is not redundant because it currently fulfills requirements not available in the Chinese template. Also, incredibly problematic to sandwich all East Asian languages into a Chinese template as if they're branches of Chinese, which they're not. Potential alternative is to create an East Asian languages template, though this could end up being unwieldly. Amys eye (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If ((Infobox Chinese)) is to be used as a generic template for all things East Asian then it really needs to be renamed and repurposed accordingly. As it stands I agree with Amys eye that such a merge would be highly problematic, since it implies a cultural or nationalistic ownership of things that are not Chinese. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the two cultures are clearly distinct. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Amys eye, PC78, Inter&anthro, the template is poorly named, but I'm moreso talking about the usage of the templates. It's why I'm surprised that ((Infobox East Asian name)) is being merged into ((Infobox Chinese)) instead of the reverse due to the problematic name. And of course I do not want to in any way imply that these languages or cultures are the same. But ignoring the name for a moment, if you look at the actual parameters in the template ((Infobox Chinese)) you'll see it has Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Mongolian, Hindi, Manchu, Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese, and a plethora of other Asian languages, including the exact same parameters and functionality that ((Infobox Korean name)) has. I do think ((Infobox Chinese)) should either be renamed to reflect these other languages, or said other languages should be removed. With that said, I still very much fail to see why we should have two templates that serve the exact same purpose -- transcribing Asian languages, including Korean. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Suggest infobox is renamed and then discussion is had again. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - all of the above "keep" arguments are missing the point of a "merge" - all these "Infobox name" templates do the exact same thing. The final name will of course not be "Chinese" or "Korean" or even "Asian", it will be "Infobox name" (or something similar). The culture or history does not factor here as it does not matter, what matters is the function, and the function for each one is exactly the same - present the name in a specific language. To the closer, please look at the above keep arguments rationals. --Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which needs to be discussed and carried out first. I don't think anyone is missing the point, only that we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. I for one don't object to having a single template for such things, I just don't think that ((Chinese)) as it currently exists is that template. PC78 (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The various ((infobox name)) should be kept so the default interpretation of the first parameter can be set on per language basis. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge no harmful Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending more details of merger proposal IIRC Chinese name template has mainly been created and maintained by Hong Kong Wikipedians and the proposal has been rejected in the past because they wanted to make sure that this template was focused on their needs. As others have said, the template would also need to be renamed (e.g. ((Infobox East Asian names))) and rewritten (to ensure complete equality of treatment for different languages). I suspect that will prove to be a lot of work. Having said all that, I support the proposal in theory on the grounds that maintaining fewer templates is better in the long run, but in practice wouldn't it be better to have the debate with some sort of project plan or draft of the merged template before us? Matt's talk 02:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Different language, different cultures, badly named for a catch all of Asian names, and this Chinese template has too many parameters which will scare off new editors. Keep the separate templates separate as they are easier to use and work just fine. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Users of the "Chinese" template wanted to make sure that this template was focused on their needs. That's great ! It seems that User:DanielleTH very much fail to see that any community of users of a given template want to make sure that this template remains focused on their needs. All these "language" templates have been shaped by a long series of discussions, RfC, etc. They embody the consensus (or at least the status quo) that resulted from large walls of text... and quite all of us have better ways to spend their free time than to reignite all these discussions. Thus, the question is not only about the stupidity to propose that Korean matters be ruled by a template named Chinese, but mostly about the fact that Korean matters and Chinese matters are not the same. Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fully invite you to disagree, Pldx1, but I very much ask you refrain from attacking my character. Thanks, DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. very much fail to see is not attacking the 역 you are playing. This is only your own words. Are you requiring a diff ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've started a makeshift discussion about the name of ((Infobox Chinese)) here for those who are concerned about it. Thanks, DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support merge, with the caveat that merging would not be very easy and would have to be done as part of an overhaul of the templates (if there's no overhaul/Lua module, the maintenance problem just gets larger). Jc86035 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are several separate issues here:
  • All of the templates do mostly the same thing, except ((Infobox Korean name)) is more specific about what should be put in its subsections.
  • ((Infobox Chinese)) has a misleading title for what it does, and should be renamed to something like ((Infobox transliteration)) or ((Infobox transl)).
  • ((Infobox Chinese)) relies on an unnecessarily complicated subpage system (which is also used by ((Infobox Korean name))!) and is difficult to deal with, hence the merger with ((Infobox East Asian name)) not having been completed yet.
  • The templates should probably be converted to Lua to make maintenance easier. However, no one has decided to take on the task despite the previous two merger discussions having concluded more than a year ago. (Additionally, Module:Infobox can't currently be called directly from a module.)
  • Users in the discussion are misunderstanding the point of merging the templates and are assuming that DanielleTH is being culturally insensitive. The templates' function is the same and they already use the same subtemplates to generate their tables, so merging them would be sensible (and possibly necessary) after overhauling ((Infobox Chinese)). (Also, none of the templates or subtemplates use |1=, so merging would not necessarily have to involve parameter replacement.)
  Jc86035 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename and I support the new template name DanielleTH suggested in the link above. LONEDIREWOLF 16:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Until the issues mentioned above are resolved, especially the ((Infobox Chinese)) name which does not / would not reflect correctly that it would support other languages and what it does. Renaming or changes to this should be discussed first before ((Infobox Korean name)) is merged. So keep as currently is. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've just had a look at the Chinese infobox as it stands and it looks unwieldy to use at it's present length and I can imagine adding Korean names to it will only exacerbate this. Red Fiona (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate Editors at ((Infobox Chinese)) already have difficulty switching the order of Mandarin with Cantonese and Hakka in Hong Kong and Macau-related articles. What makes those advocating for a merge now think they can efficiently incorporate the Birth, Childhood, Courtesy, Pen, etc. names into the multitude of varieties of Chinese as well as Korean? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Templates are only tools to write articles. Before someone proposes to change how these tools are programmed/organized, the said someone should prove that she (general gender pronoun) understands what are the editorial choices that are to be embodied in the said templates. In this respect, the very names of the templates: Template:Infobox Chinese/Burmese, Template:Infobox Chinese/Tibetan, Template:Infobox Chinese/Dunganese, Template:Infobox Chinese/Vietnamese, Template:Infobox Chinese/Thai, Template:Infobox Chinese/Zhuang, Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean, Template:Infobox Chinese/Mongolian, Template:Infobox Chinese/Japanese, Template:Infobox Chinese/Uyghur, Template:Infobox Chinese/Russian do not reflect the editorial choices of the writer's community. And therefore, they must be changed ASAP, i.e. right now. A suggestion for the wrongly named Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean is Template: Both Koreas Infobox. Pldx1 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No good reason to merge provided. — regards, Revi 06:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge - Despite the presence of Chinese characters in Korean writing (hanja), the main focus is still hangul. Just as Japanese is more oriented towards kana despite the presence of Chinese characters (kanji). Hansen Sebastian^Talk 10:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji is one of the main scripts used in the Japapnese writing system, but Hanja is subsidiary in the Korean writing system. --Brett (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Chinese template puts the Chinese names on the top, regardless of the topic of the article being mainly Chinese or not. --Brett (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only if ((Infobox Chinese)) is renamed. Clearly the name is not showing the true usage of the template as it is used for a whole lot of Eastern and Southeastern Asian languages. Even if they are not merged, ((Infobox Chinese)) still needs to be renamed. Faragona (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Chinese template seems overly complex and can be daunting to new users. The Korean template is doing fine as it is and there is no reason to make it unnecessarily complex and hard to use. Koraskadi (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Trappist the monk is currently converting ((Infobox Chinese)) to Lua. Jc86035 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not sure if User:Trappist the monk ignores the very existence of the present discussion and of the concerns that have been underlined, or if he simply doesn't care. The best thing to do is therefore simply asking the question. Pldx1 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If you have concerns with the Lua conversion, Pldx1, there's an ongoing discussion about it here. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)@Editor Pldx1: I am aware of this discussion. The outcome of this TfD either way will have relatively little impact on what I am doing at ((Infobox Chinese)) – in the 'merge' case, new features get added to ((Infobox Chinese)); in the 'don't merge' case, nothing. I am not sure why you seem to demean my attempt to convert ((Infobox Chinese)) to Lua in this public forum when the concerns you apparently have about my conversion work have not been voiced to me at the template's talk page or at my own talk page. I am not a mind reader, if you have concerns speak them; do not demean another editor's work in the way you have done here.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Once again, models are just tools for writing articles. Therefore, what is discussed here is not the programming language that should be used to implement these tools (Lua, or not Lua, or whatever). The main question is the adequacy of these tools with the requirements of the writing community. If User: Trappist the monk or User: DanielleTH have difficulty to perceive what are the priorities, a simple solution is to rewrite everything from scratch and let them play with their Template: Infobox Chinese/Korean. It's so simple to do that it's already done: see User:Pldx1/Factions/IBox and sub-pages. Pldx1 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why you mentioned me, Pldx1. I am far from someone capable of editing templates, I'm just a frequent editor of Korean and Chinese related articles who noticed the similarities between the two functions of the templates. As is obvious through this discussion, they have different purposes. To label ((Infobox Chinese/Korean)) as "mine" when I have neither edited nor even used the template is quite confusing to me. I'm not sure how you perceive me, Pldx1, but I have no deep care for ((Infobox Chinese)) or its subtemplates. I made a discussion, got feedback from the Wikipedia community, and that is the end of it. If you dislike ((Infobox Chinese/Korean)) you are welcome to rename it, or request a merger into ((Infobox Korean name)) if you would prefer that. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rewrite from scratch this Template:Infobox Korean name

• I have provided a tentative rewriting at Template:Infobox Korea. May I ask three things to the community ?
  1. Please, try what happens when temporarily replacing Template:Infobox Korean name by Template:Infobox Korea in your favorite(s) pages(s). If anything turns wrong, put a kind remark here (and/or a more stronger worded message on my talk page !)
  2. discuss these main changes: (1) independance from the Chinese templates (each writing community has her own needs and feelings). (2) Obtaining a more human readable code... and having a more straightforward execution: everything uses directly the Template:Infobox itself.
  3. discuss these cosmetic changes: (3) Put on stand-by all the tracking categories that were implemented. What are the useful ones if any ? (4) Replaced the two huge labels "Revised Romanisation" and "McCune–Reischauer" by shorter ones: most of the time, they are using more space than the romanisations themselves.

Pldx1 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: What does anyone gain out of this? ((Infobox Korea/Both Koreas)) is literally just a copy of ((Infobox Chinese/Korean)). The solution to "these templates are similar and use the same helper templates" isn't "make these templates superficially different". Jc86035 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: What does anyone gain out of this? From this very discussion, one can see there are different kinds of "anyone"s. There are "anyone"s who very much fail to see that all these far-East people are in fact very different, to the point that independent templates are required to implement the relevant cultural differences, as well as the different needs of the different communities of writers. And there are "anyone"s who are aware of this simple fact, may be due to this other fact they are part of the writers of the corresponding articles. Again from this very discussion, one can see there is a large set of "anyone"s that want to make sure that this template 'remains' focused on their needs.
But, as anyone with any experience in programming knows, to make sure that a program will remain alive requires to make sure that any dependencies will also remain alive. This concerns the Header and Footer parts of the ((Infobox Korea)), and even more so the core of the thing, i.e. the loop on the various names: ho, ja, etc. Since the whole ((Infobox Chinese)) is under a full rewrite, discussing the differences between the Both Koreas and the infamous Chinese/Korean templates seems disingenuous. But, in any case, these differences are documented just above, at (2),(3),(4). Pldx1 (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Jc86035 here. I also disagree that the notion that bad code, as the one currently used in the various language infoboxes, should be supported. Sometimes, when the code is just bad, it gets deprecated and intentionally broken. It makes life a bit less fun in the intimidate aftermath, but it makes much much easier in the long run. I'd personally wait and see the new lua before creating any new infobox templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: The template mergers are not about cultural difference but about reducing technical redundancy. If this were about cultural difference we would already have split ((Infobox Chinese/Chinese)) into more than twenty other templates, but that's not technically necessary or functional in any way, and would probably introduce edit wars over which of these nearly identical templates this historical person or disputed island or whatever is supposed to use (imagine what ((Infobox Chinese/Taiwan)) would do). East Asian languages are not so different from each other that they would require separate templates to indicate transliterations. It is not necessary to use a separate template just so that [[Courtesy name]] can be hard-coded into a header.

Presume that Trappist the monk has created the module, with the whole template being generated by the module and multiple alternate names allowed for each language (possible with Lua, would require some extra coding time). The only additional features required for a complete merge would be |type= to autofill the header (for the default headers in ((Infobox Korean name)) – alternately some header values could be automatically detected and replaced), |order= to indicate the order in which the languages are shown, and tracking categories. ((Infobox East Asian name)) and ((Infobox Korean name)) would presumably then be converted into wrappers so that all of the parameters can be directly converted to whatever the new parameters are. Jc86035 (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jc86035 should read and ponder what is said at Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese. The Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean was intended to be used in the context of a Chinese topic, where the topic has a so large notoriety that it deserves a list of translations in various languages, including Korean. No more, no less. This template is intended to implement the editorial decisions of the writers of articles about China. This is a legitimate use, and I have nothing more to say about such an use. On the contrary, there is an editorial consensus about articles concerning Korea. It is absolutely clear from the present discussion that the consensus is to keep separate the templates ((Infobox Korea)) and ((Infobox Chinese)). This clearly implies that the core of them, i.e. ((Infobox Korea/Both Koreas)) and ((Infobox Chinese/Korean)) have to be separated and live different lives, according to the different editorial consensus that will be relevant. It seems clear that User:Jc86035 has no intention to act according to this consensus and is rather preparing to mix everything, paying only a lip service to the consensus. I don't know if saying that East Asian languages are not so different from each other is willingly inflammatory, or simply the result of a daltonism that only distinguishes the different shades of pink. But this is nevertheless false. Pldx1 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: I'm not deliberately trying to be inflammatory, although because of my background I may be biased. I hope the second half of that sentence is clear enough – both templates exist solely to indicate translations and transliterations. The only actual functional difference between the templates, other than the subtemplates used and their order, is that ((Infobox Korean name)) has tracking categories.

You've misrepresented the "intent" (if any) of the subtemplate. The subtemplates were created by Underlying lk in 2013 as part of a simplification and rewrite of ((Infobox Chinese)), and then ((Infobox Korean name)) was also completely rewritten by them the next day (to use ((Infobox Chinese/Korean)).

I am not trying to ignore the consensus. However, most of the particpants commented before Trappist began converting the template to Lua; and regardless, there is nothing wrong with me expressing my own opinion about this, regardless of what the consensus of the other participants is. Jc86035 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2019 (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) Hhkohh (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mister India winners in the Male pageants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not actually aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just one link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Just one link. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:16, 28 December 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Television shows by U.S. city (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Use of this navbox is primarily in categories linking to other categories (therefore, also misnamed as "Lists of television shows") and a few poor list articles, and this might be a case where navigation through categories outweighs any additional benefits for this navbox. First, there are now 74 cities under Category:Television shows set in the United States by city (at the very least, this needs to be updated to match), which means this template will be unwieldy and large to be productive. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this list is that unweildy, and the template does provide some navigational benefit when used in articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to category navigation. No opposition to recreation as a navbox for lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per LaundryPizza03. --Bsherr (talk) 03:08, 27 December 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough links to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 11:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. --Bsherr (talk) 03:08, 27 December 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodensuperman: if it is possible to get some days, there are many link's which I would like to include, instead of deleting this template. If answers is no, then you can just delete it :-) Amjad Khan 13:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some additional time has been had, but not to fear, the articles still remain! Delete per nom. Thanks to Amjad Khan for your edits in this space, this and the above template proposed for deletion (((Lukasa))) both illustrate our global bias amply, vis a vis the lack of articles relating to these topics. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too few links, so it has to go for now, but it can always be WP:REFUNDed once more articles on the topic are created. --Bsherr (talk) 03:11, 27 December 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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gamma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Lambda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Theta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TAU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The short version is that these templates are no easier to type than their HTML entities that they produce. A longer version is that that they also are used inconsistently. Theta uses ((IPA)); Tau and TAU use a <span>...</span> that duplicates ((math)). I want to keep the main listing fairly short, but I'll add a bit more information in a comment below. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've finished converting all uses of these in article spaces (which were invariably used in math formulas, even theta, which seems to be intended for IPA, but I don't know if it even works as intended) to HTML entities, and think they're ready to be deleted. A further problem is that there are templates with the names of other Greek letters but have completely different functions (((alpha)), ((beta)), ((ETA)), ((kappa)), ((NU)), ((Sigma DJs)), ((Psi)) at least). I'd like to get ((pi)) as well, but it's in rather wide use and will take a lot more work to get to here. Two others worth pointing out are ((delta)) and ((phi)), but these both have some other functionality, so I'm not doing anything with these for the moment, although input would be welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. One other thing to mention is that ((mu)) is transcluded from Module:Val/units, but I can't see how, so hopefully someone can clear up what's going on there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Never mind, it was just there indirectly because of the /doc subpage which I went ahead and converted as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. γ λ τ γ λ τ 𝛾 𝜆 𝜏. On the Google Chrome browser I'm viewing this with, the version of tau produced by the template is distinctly better than the one produced by the html entity, although it is still lousy, and the templates for gamma and lambda produce results just as execrable as what the html entities give us. The template for π, on the other hand, works well. If templates can be created for other Greek letters that make them look as good as π, then they should be kept, since html performs abominably in this regard. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These Greek letters are mainly used in math. So, they should normally used inside ((math)), and must be italicized per MOS:MATH#Greek letters. I have put Michael test list inside template ((math)), and added the templates between double quotes for an italic result: γ λ τ γ λ τ 𝛾 𝜆 𝜏 𝛾 𝜆 𝜏. It appears that, for getting 𝛾 in a math formula, one has to type either ''&gamma ;'' or ''((gamma))'', that is 11 or 13 characters. The least that should be do is to modify the templates for returning italic greek letters, at least inside ((math)). The only other acceptable alternative is to recommend using LaTeX when Greek letters are involved. D.Lazard (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more importantly, these templates aren't used. Having them around adds more complexity to the editing experience. For the few remaining talk pages I vote substitute then delete.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We discourage non-Wikimedia markup in general. Moreover deleteting these would break history for no very good reason. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  
• On the fence. As the creator of one of these templates, I guess I can't close the discussion, so I'll just opine about it instead. I think the nominator and others make valid points regarding the fact that these templates all use different methods of portraying the various Greek letters. That, to me, sounds like we should just standardize them instead of deleting them.

My main argument for keeping these templates is that while yes, ''&gamma ;'' or ''((gamma))'' are a trivial number of characters different, I suspect many editors will be able to remember the latter (which is common template usage) much easier than the former. That being said, I don't think I've used any of these since the time they were created, so I'm not particularly fussed if they do get deleted but I really don't see much of a reason to get rid of them. I do, however, strongly advocate (if they're kept) standardizing their output so that we don't have the issues mentioned by the OP. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – An experienced computer operator may know how to use HTML entities, or Latex, or ((math)). But for the rest of the world who doesn't live in a tech bubble, a template is both easy and intuitive. Sure, things could be better, but optimizing to the max runs the risk of alienating novice editors. Wikitext is hard; let's not make it harder. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:49, 2 January 2019 (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).