< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

Template:WikiProject Ottoman Empire

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 wrong venue. Discuss with the affected WikiProjects. If they agree on accepting the task force, then they can proceed with the merge without needing a TfD discussion. czar 06:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Ottoman Empire with Template:WikiProject Turkey.
This is a defunct project, but there is still a lot of interest in the subject and it is certainly not a fringe WP:CRUFT topic. It would be good to merge this template and its project into WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Former countries as a taskforce, where the likelihood of upkeep is much higher.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:04, 30 December 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).

Template:Wushu-practitioner-stub

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 Moved to CfD. I have moved this nomination to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_30#Template:Wushu-practitioner-stub since CfD is the proper venue for stub templates and has an audience more experienced with stub templates. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused stub template created in July 2019, no corresponding category Le Deluge (talk) 16:43, 30 December 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).

Template:Mr. Robot

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 2020 January 10. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2020 (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).

Template:ASCB helpme

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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A user using a helpme template will expect to get help. This 2008 template made for a specific event will not attract any help anymore making it completely useless. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:40, 30 December 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).

Template:Enlisted rates and insignia of the United States Navy

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 redirect Template:Enlisted rates and insignia of the United States Navy to Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/United States. czar 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Enlisted rates and insignia of the United States Navy with Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/United States.
The former template is redundant, considering the existence of the latter which has everything the former has. Suggest we turn the former template into a redirect to the latter one. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 04:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge with Suggested Isn't the entire point of having a NATO template to have a listing of all the ranks of the different NATO navies? I find it hard to believe that every NATO navy is exactly the same for its enlisted ranks. The NATO template should be expanded. If the NATO template is expanded then the template for the United States should just be redirected to the NATO page instead of merged. (or are merging and redirecting the same thing?) Someone should not have to know that the United States is a NATO member in order to find the enlisted ranks. And although there are probably a small number of people on this earth who are English speakers and do not know the United States is a NATO member, there needs to be a way to access the United States template wihout using NATO in the search parameters. Boston1775 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I/m afraid I don't follow. In regards to your last point, that's why I suggested replacing the former template in place with a redirect to the latter. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 08:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then I guess we are in agreement. I'm new to editing on wikipedia. I thought merging was another way to say to delete the article. But if you are suggesting that it will create a redirect to the NATO page then I am in agreement. Sorry for any confusion. Boston1775 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no worries. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 02:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (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).

Module:Check for deprecated parameters

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. Given the required syntax changes, I suggest continuing the discussion at Module talk:Check for unknown parameters Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Check for deprecated parameters with Module:Check for unknown parameters.
This module has almost the same exact code and a very similar scope. Instead of duplicating the code, this can be turned into a separate function ("checkDeprecated") or even just a simple parameter and handled in the same tracking category. Gonnym (talk) 00:39, 30 December 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).