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 July 14. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Presumed_self (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 relisted on 2018 July 14. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Media_by_uploader (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. Primefac (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Other MeSH codes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see why this module is necessary; why can't ((other MeSH codes)) be implemented as ((for|other categories|List of MeSH codes)) directly? ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; the module form causes this module to inherit its functionality from Module:Other uses, which is a semantically purer way of implementing this than transcluding ((for)). Moreover, avoiding implementing hatnote templates in terms of others is generally better for ease of maintenance. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Nihiltres. -- GreenC 16:27, 9 July 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. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Hatnote inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Hatnote inline with Module:Hatnote.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for Module:Hatnote to take a parameter to decide whether to use a span or a div, rather than forcing a separate hacky module for inline hatnotes? ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I meant to deal with that years ago and just forgot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: Just to be clear, this was a request to merge the backend modules, and not necessarily the templates. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I know. For any of the templates that need to merge I can do that easily myself, but I was never motivated to do it because the modules were separate. There are some special-purpose templates that shouldn't merge; they can just call the merged module with the right parameter, instead of the separate module. However, it would be handy if the basic cross-referencing templates like ((See also)) were upgraded to support a |inline=y parameter or something. It would obviate a lot of manual ((crossreference)) coding or old-school ''(see also [[Article name here]] and [[Article2 name here]])'' inline markup, and consequently make it easier to manage inter-article selfrefs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: purely in terms of functionality, it's probably just as well to merge these, but I've never been happy with the idea of "inline hatnotes" because that's an oxymoron. Hatnotes occur at the top of articles and sections thereof; an "inline hatnote" ought to have different template/module names and semantics entirely. I'm not opposed to a parallel "prose note" system, but it seems likely that, the vast majority of the time, inline functionality would be needless bloat on the hatnote system. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Nihiltres is "happy" with it or not, it's heavily used, everywhere from MoS itself to our glossary articles, in various templates, and throughout mainspace in the ((crossref)) template and several others. This seems to be some kind of hangup about the word "hatnote". I.e. it's a hat ergo it must be on top. This is a semantic confusion. The module provides consistent markup for self-referential notes that we need to style and track consistently. For no reason beyond historical accident, the module is named after hatnotes. But only some of them are hatnotes, per se, and sit atop pages to disambiguate, or atop sections to do things like ((Main)). Others are inline, and are explicitly intended to work mid-sentence or at the end of one. The actual reason we even have a separate module for inline cases was because of WP:FILIBUSTER stuff several years ago based on this same sort of "I just can't get it through my head that inline cross-references can exist and aren't at the top of the page" stuff. It's silly and we really need to get past this. Most if not all of our "hatnote" templates aside from the disambiguation ones need a parameter to make them work inline. We could then merge a lot of templates, and clean up both a) a lot of unnecessarily wasted space and awful layout in articles from using <div>-based hatnotes where they are not appropriate, and b) inconsistent and often mis-coded inline attempts to replicate the functionality of hatnotes in a span, for people who have not yet discovered the ((Crossreference)) template. So, yes, "in terms of functionality, it's probably just as well to merge these" – there are no other terms to consider. The idea that Module:Hatnote can only possibly be of use to page-top or section-top hatnotes in the literal sense is counter-productive and illusory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this as a design problem as well as a practical one. Keeping semantically-distinct templates and modules separate helps us write cleaner code and styles (hatnote is one of the few classes bundled into MediaWiki:Common.css) and reason about them consistently. "Hatnotes go at the top of sections" is a reasonable assumption to make, so we should avoid surprises like creating in-prose notes based on them. I'm not opposed to adding a layer of abstraction and moving most of Module:Hatnote's functionality into, say, "Module:Navnote" that would then help implement a simpler Module:Hatnote and a Module:Prosenote or whatever. We might not strictly implement inheritance per se in the code, but the pattern should be obvious. While it's certainly more verbose, the clarity that a system like that would have by design is valuable. That is why I oppose this merge proposal. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Nihiltres. -- GreenC 16:28, 9 July 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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:About-distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Labelled list hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:About-distinguish with Module:Labelled list hatnote.
(note: this could also be considered a deletion nomination rather than a merge) The first half of what the module does is just basic Wikitext, as seen in the history of the template (the Wikidata description may look ugly, but it isn't really better in Lua). The second half is just a standard list of hatnote targets, which does not need yet another module.

The things that need to be merged in are "or" instead of "and" (also needed for #Module:Distinguish below) and an option to skip the first numbered parameter, both generically useful features. I expect this merge to be more controversial than the other hatnote merges. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The rationale I used for opposing the Module:Distinguish discussion applies here as well, plus the functionality of this module diverges more significantly from Module:Labelled list hatnote than that one. I don't think they're appropriate for merging. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly support, or alternatively support Nihiltres's meta-module idea at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 5#Module:Distinguish. But without that actually being set into motion, I'm not sure I buy the idea that "needlessly bloating" one module to do more is better than needlessly bloating Modulespace with near-identical modules. Just doing nothing seems like not the right path. We might end up with dozens of redundant modules doing almost the same thing. This code really isn't all that complex, and we've merged plenty of other modules. If the meta-module is the best way to do it, then let's do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose making a new meta-module: that's just even more module namespace bloat; all functionality needed here is should be or is in Module:Hatnote list or Module:Hatnote. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This module clearly has functionality that doesn't exist in either of those two, namely treating the first parameter separate from the others, and the Wikidata integration to insert appropriate pronouns. To elaborate on the meta-module idea: I could see bundling multiple basic functions into a Module:Simple hatnote or similar the way that labelled-list hatnotes are implemented with Module:Labelled list hatnote (and the latter would be merged into the former), but this particular module has features beyond what such a module would contain. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 18:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Add "... or have no reason to be in Lua" to my above comment and your left with just ignoring the first parameter, which can just be simply merged without any kind of module reorg. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, per User:Nihiltres -- GreenC 16:30, 9 July 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).