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) 02:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2018 in Faroese football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this Chinese? Un-understandable. The Banner talk 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, and replace with a table in the articles that use it (2018 Faroe Islands Premier League and 2018 Faroe Islands Cup). Grinner (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonsense. GiantSnowman 12:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 16:13, 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 relisted on 2018 July 14. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Footpaths_in_Scotland (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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Other uses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:For (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Other uses with Template:For.
As far as I can tell, ((other uses)) is just a version of ((for)) that hardcodes the first parameter to be "other uses". Therefore, there is no need for two almost duplicate templates. (Additionally, ((for)) with no parameters functions the same way as ((other uses))). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've noincluded the tfd tags on both templates because of the high number of transclusions and the fact that little changes on the reader side from this merge. Notice left on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as doing this won't break things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose; I believe that the use of ((for)) to produce "other uses" messages is an abuse of that template. While it's easy to have the functionality overlap, the two templates are semantically distinct and ought to be separate for that reason. In particular, I believe it can be confusing for newbies to see ((for)) used with a blank parameter the way that produces the "other uses" message. For that reason, I've separately and earlier proposed that the "other uses" defaulting be removed from ((for)), instead with an error message instructing people to use ((other uses)) instead when appropriate. That is a better solution to the overlap here. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Template:Other uses is transcluded on over 50,000 pages, so editing such a large number of articles (even if done by a bot) is going to result in a large aggregate total of editor time spent reviewing the edits. This means that we need really good long-term benefits from the change to balance that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 1 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) 01:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Labelled list hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Distinguish with Module:Labelled list hatnote.
Almost duplicate modules: Module:Distinguish has two features that need to be merged:

1. Support for custom text
2. Use of "or" instead of "and"

Both of which could be added to Module:Labelled list hatnote to add additional flexibility. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Whoever does the merge, please also add a parameter to use ";" instead of "," as a delimiter. We've needed this for a long time to deal with cases where we need to link to multiple things but some of them contain commas in their own titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I implemented semicolon usage in Module:Hatnote list back in 2016; if a linked title, as displayed, contains a comma, the list should automatically switch to semicolon delimiters. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; while the code is similar, it would require needlessly bloating Module:Labelled list hatnote (in particular, the way that multiple templates are created by simply supplying label arguments at invocation) to support the extra options needed for the sentence-style message of ((distinguish)). It is more valuable for maintenance purposes to keep that module narrowly focused on the label-style hatnotes it currently implements. I could support merging some functionality to a higher-level meta-module if more modules than Module:Distinguish ought to be generalized into this form; an option to use an "or"-list instead of an "and"-list, and a way to supply different defaults to what is the defaults.labelForm item (currently containing "%s: %s") would be reasonably easy to implement. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Nihiltres -- GreenC 16:26, 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 convert into a navbox. There is no prejudice against renomination if it's decided that a navbox for this subject is not necessary, but the consensus at this particular point in time is to have it as a navbox. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wyoming Sessions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this really needed? No explanation on what the "Wyoming Sessions" actually are, and better suited as a list/Category rather than a template to be put within the article. ^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 00:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The albums are already listed in both the prose and infoboxes of each page which includes the template. I agree that this template is unnecessary. Jimmio78 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the "Wyoming Sessions" chronology from the infoboxes. The template makes it far easier to see the order of which the albums were released and be able to access their articles. Nice4What (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the Wyoming Sessions are a series of recording sessions that have so far produced critically notable albums from high-profile artists; it is likely that the sessions themselves will soon be its own topic a la the Berlin Trilogy. I think it's important to have some sort of list template gathering the albums produced and presenting them to readers to be able to easily navigate. Tagging Jimmio78 as creator and Nice4What as contributor to the template. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Berlin Trilogy template isn't used in spaces other than the article itself (nor there is a infobox addition), and in that case I would approve of the Wyoming Sessions' use. However, at the moment, the template is only used within articles, creating unneeded clutter within the articles.^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's a series of five and the template makes it easier to navigate to each album's article. As per @PhilipTerryGraham:, these are "critically notable albums from high-profile artists". Nice4What (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Navbox A conclusion hasn't been reached yet, it's about time to compromise and close this discussion. I've also bolded any other statement made by a user that said "change to navbox". Nice4What (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, it would seem to better as a bottom of the article navbox than a sidebar. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I could absolutely see this as a reasonable compromise between those who want to keep the template and those who want to delete it. The problem people seem to have expressed this far is the apparent clutter the template adds to articles as a sidebar. Repurposing it as a navbox would solve those issues. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Navbox 100% ^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 14:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or change to a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or change to navbox. No reason for this template. Sock (tock talk) 14:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I turned it into a simple navbox with elements from Template:Navbox musical artist to give it a base to start off with.† MunRis † 14:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Unnecessary template. The editor whose username is Z0 15:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary to have this information in the template format, would work better as a list or a category Lazz_R 20:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should be noted that currently there is inconsistent use of the template within the articles listed, creating some confusion. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 16:11, 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).