- 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]
- Wrong venue? / Disagree OE is a vast topic and Turkey is a modern nation state. I don't see the harm in keeping the WP templates in the event the WikiProject is reinstated. I think this is probably best addressed in the Turkey WikiProject; if there are active editors that want to create a taskforce great, these can eventually merge. Until there is an active task force I disagree with a merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 3 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: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 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]
- Delete. Existing templates such as ((helpme)) cover this use case. This specific iteration is unlikely to see future use. czar 06:53, 7 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).
- 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 (talk • contribs), 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 (talk • contribs), 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 (talk • contribs), 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).
- 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]
- Dumb question: How do merges and the subsequent redirects work in module space? I do not see any mention of redirects at Wikipedia:Redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be no "subsequent redirect". Anything that called the "deprecated parameters" module would have to be changed (likely by one of the two TFD bots) before being deleted. Primefac (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What Primefac said. See as an example Module:String which earlier this year merged Module:Join, Module:Str endswith, Module:PatternCount and Module:Text count into it. --Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: despite the seemingly big transclusion count, it's only used by 4 templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I wasn't even aware that we have a separate module for deprecated parameters, and I was using the "unknown parameters" one for checking deprecated ones. Just shows they are identical in purpose.--Muhandes (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect that a module code change would not even be needed, just some documentation updates. See this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged, some code must change. This module lets you setup a "x = y" replacement (unlike the unknown which is only "x") and the preview message is changed as well. While not very big changes, these are still changes. --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Module:Check for deprecated parameters per Jonesey95. note there is also Module:ParameterCount which can be used to track known parameters (possibly others). I have no problem with merging some of the features from Module:Check for deprecated parameters but that can be sorted out on the talk page for Module:Check for unknown parameters. since Module:Check for unknown parameters has so many transclusions, I would prefer keeping that code as small as possible, so we should really have serious discussion before adding any new features there. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Module:ParameterCount does not do the same thing this does. While this does have a very limited scope, I have found it useful when I used it a few times. I've used it when a parameter was deprecated but still availble in the template. This module gave a warning to use the parameter with something else. As an example, your change here in my opinion is a worse implementation than using this module. Why add so much boilerplate code when that can be reduced to one invoke (or even less if merged correctly)? --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonnym, sure if you ignore the fact that
|location_map=no is not deprecated, something that the prior code did not support. in addition, the prior warning told you to replace |location_map= with |none=, which is clearly wrong. also, I never said that Module:ParameterCount did the same thing. I have no problem with adding functionality to Module:Check for unknown parameters, but given the massive number of transclusions, any additions should be made with extreme care. Frietjes (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to not checking the template in detail; I expected whatever was written to be deprecated was indeed deprecated. But I totally agree with you that any additions and changes need to be done correctly, but I naively thought that goes without saying in technical discussions such as this. --Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- per this denied request when you have a separate code path the best action is frequently to keep the code in separate modules to avoid the overhead of code not used in a particular code path. of course, if the additional code is very minimal, this is not a concern. it would be helpful to see the proposed code and syntax for the merged module before merging anything. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how the example given is connected to this issue, please explain. Regarding your request, just look at the code of this module and see that it's almost identical. This isn't a separate code path, this is the sub-set of the same issue. Having both in the same module (and if possible, in the same call) will save editors time with setting up pointless boiletplate code.--Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to see any code for the merged module. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate your attitude. While I am working on something, there is no requirement for any template or module merger to first show a working version. You are basically asking that someone code a complete module and then decide if you want it or not. That to me is in very bad taste. --Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- it would be more productive for you to address the issues instead of attacking my attitude. proposing changing a module with over 9 million transclusions with no example code, or even examples of the merged input syntax. the use of named vs. unnamed parameters seems problematic. it would probably be easier to add functionality to Module:TemplatePar. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 9 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).