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 2019 July 10. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Images_of_England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:National_Heritage_List_for_England (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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2012 K-League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013 K League Challenge table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013 K League Classic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2014 K League Challenge table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2014 K League Classic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2014 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 K League Challenge table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 K League Classic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 K League Challenge table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 K League Classic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 K3 League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2016 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 K League Challenge table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 K League Classic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 K3 League Advanced table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 K3 League Basic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 Korea National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 K League 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 K League 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 K3 League Advanced table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 K League 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 K League 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Category:South Korea football standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:39, 27 June 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 redirect to Template:Mid Wales League. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mid Wales League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate template - the other one ((Mid Wales League teamlist)) has now been updated for the 2019-20 season. Zanoni (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ((Mid Wales League)) was created two years before ((Mid Wales League teamlist)), so really the latter should be redirected to the former (which should be updated). Number 57 15:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and update ((Mid Wales League)), and delete or redirect ((Mid Wales League teamlist)) (per N57). GiantSnowman 09:40, 27 June 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 Template:Other sandbox has been deleted via CSD:G7. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Template:Other sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sandbox other (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose replacing usage of Template:Sandbox other with Template:Other sandbox.

There is an old and established template Template:Sandbox other, which is widely used to wrap categorization of templates inside <includeonly></includeonly> tags on documentation subpages. It is done so to avoid putting /sandbox subpages into the same category as live version of the template. In this usage, the first parameter is almost always empty. As far as I can tell, such pattern is the predominant type of usage of Template:Sandbox other. The template checks if its being transcluded onto page named /sandbox and chooses first parameter for sandboxes, and second parameter of other places.

The template is established in the sense that there is a family of templates (like Template:Main other), which check if transclusion is on page in a particular namespace.

Feeling silly typing the extra pipe character to signify an empty first parameter every time I've been adding categories to /doc pages, I created Template:Other sandbox, which just flips the parameters around and passes them into Template:Other sandbox. After a short discussion, DePiep nominated the template for speedy deletion per CSD T3.

What is more important: consistency of Template:Sandbox other with Category:Namespace manipulation templates or not having to pass an empty parameter every time the template is used? Side note: Template:Sandbox other technically does not manipulate namespace, but ((SUBPAGENAME)) and ((PAGENAME)). —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Initial comment: Having two templates that do the same thing but with parameters in the opposite order is something that should be avoided at all cost. So at the basic level - one of these should be deleted. Now the question comes, which one? On the one hand, I agree that having a mandatory parameter (which is essentially what an unnamed |1= is) that is almost always empty is pointless, but replacing the order is counter-intuitive to how "if..else.." code blocks work - which this is. To also answer your question, consistency with all other family templates is definitely more important, that said and without checking their usage or code, whatever is decided here, can also be used on them. --Gonnym (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No change, delete new ((Other sandbox)). So the only argument brought forward for this change is "Feeling silly typing the extra pipe character to signify an empty first parameter". As an argument, this is extremely trivial (or silly by itself). You want to turn this over to reduce having to type an extra pipe?

Quite simple, parallel with the ((main other)) series having the same existing pattern, the eternal confusion caused by changing this pattern is utterly nonsensical (I cannot put that more reasonable). As far as predominant usage could be relevant: the template /doc situation (that is referred as being eh problematically silly) is often entered through template:Documentation/preload, e.i. no extra pipe typing needed. Anyway, for the whole ((Main other)) series (together some ~10M uses) this is not an issue at all. Also, on top of all this, to understand the if ... else ... contruct that is behind them, it is counterlogical and countergrammatical to start the pseudo-code with the exception 'other', before naming to what the 'other' is an exception of. (IOW starting with 'other pages' opens the hanging question 'other than what?'; or: starting with the 'else' clause similarly: else from what?). -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The preload is indeed very helpful when creating new doc subpages. However, there are templates which need fixing. Perhaps, it's something that should delegated to WP:BOTREQ, I don't know. With regards to having to flip if-then-else: what if we deviate from this naming convention, and have a template ((if not sandbox)) (or ((not in sandbox))), which would have a single parameter? —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) By now, I am seriously convinced that Andrybak is not actually interested in a serious TfD discussion or any template improvement at all. So for enwiki health reasons, I leave this thread. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No change. Speedy delete Template:Other sandbox. Arguments by Gonnym and DePiep have convinced me that this is the way to go. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:49, 26 June 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A template displaying a link to a third-party tool displaying Wikidata content. There are several problems with this. First, the tool seems to be somewhat slow and buggy; it outputs text such as "population 123867 (NaN–NaN)" and "official name Cambridge <small>[en]</small>". Second, it has so far seen very little use, except that people are now using it in body text, putting ugly and unituitive gear icons into articles. Sandstein 09:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Reasonator is not perfect, and it's been a few years since User:Magnus Manske last updated it or gave it much love, but it can be a very useful tool, in particular because (a) it shows the information on a Wikidata entry much more succinctly than the Wikidata page itself, and (b) it includes a survey of the statements that have the particular Wikidata entry as their object rather than their subject (the "From related items" section), which can be immensely useful and is not directly available from the raw Wikidata item. As a result it's quite a useful thing to be able to link to in maintenance tables such as ones like this set for painters covered by the Art UK site, many of whom are only redlinks here, where in all this template had about 10,000 transclusions (now broken by this TfD nomination). On Wikidata a link to Reasonator is a standard sidebar gadget that I would encourage anybody regularly working with the platform to install, because of this usefulness.

Per the final RfC cited in Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate_usage_in_articles, like other direct links to Wikidata, the template should not currently be used within the body-text of an article. Jheald (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Not everything in this world deserves a wikipedia page but by turning raw wikidata in something readable reasonator provides a bridge. Reasonator also enables a new way to create articals in that it encourage articals to be build "from the facts, up" allowing something useful to exist whilst enough facts are gathered to start building an artical. Reasonator can also help with multilingual support as it could be made to generate pages in all the languages wikidata support. In short, if there are bugs and speed improvements to be made, lets concentrate on that, not on "cutting it adrift" Back ache (talk) 19:50, 18 June 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Section transclude (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. (Wikitext version: ((#section:((FULLPAGENAME))|(({1))))} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:15, 31 May 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 nothing. It looks like it has been functionally redirected by the original author, so I don't think there is anything else to do here. As far as I can tell, module-space redirects are being discussed at RFD, so, if you still want to have it deleted, you can take it there? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Testcase table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Module:Template test case, as evidenced by Special:Diff/636399687 . * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• history merge since it was essentially forked without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frietjes: History merges are used for cut-and-paste moves, which this was not. Rather, I added functionality to display test cases in columns to an already-established module. A history merge would not accurately reflect the history of the module - it would look like I just deleted all your code and replaced it with something completely unrelated. Also, attribution is required under CC BY-SA when copying copyrighted content, but I didn't copy your actual code. What I copied was your idea, and the testcase table API. Ideas aren't copyrightable, and APIs probably aren't either. I did add a header to attribute your contributions after we talked about this previously, but I don't think there is anything else that can reasonably be done. If you think of anything - other than a history merge - then let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  in my experience, the history would still indicate that it was a new creation. but, since that is unacceptable, replace with return require('Module:Template test case') which is the lua equivalent of a redirect, and redirects are usually what we do to preserve history when pages are forked without attribution. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 20 June 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 no consensus. The OTHERSTUFF argument cuts both ways, and there is no clear consensus about what to do. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canned-response templates are generally substituted, with the exception of templates for venues that don't have a permanent archive (RfPP, AIV). WP:BOTREQ is archived, so its template should be substituted for consistency reasons. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make subst-only per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've advertised this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Bot requests. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't typically make templates with files in them subst-only. --Izno (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno: Yes we do: Template:HD's subtemplates, and Template:ESp and its ilk are all subst-only despite containing files. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<moved from TfD> ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific problem that would be fixed by making this subst only? It seems like a net-negative IMO. Legoktm (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems in line with all the other reply and message templates to keep archive history consistent. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed at TfD. * Pppery * _survives 00:37, 26 May 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox religious biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Similar infobox and WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 07:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How does the proposer envision dealing with the parameters listed under "Specialized information for Latter Day Saint Leadership", "For Political office holders", and "Military Service" in ((Infobox Latter Day Saint biography))? This would not be a straightforward merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Oppose Changing to Comment: Per Jonesey, there are a number of parameters in the Latter Day Saint biography which would need to be addressed. Several are unique enough to warrant a unique template. If the parameters are dealt with, I support the merge. Rollidan (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• create a module with the LDS specific information and refactor ((Infobox Latter Day Saint biography)) to use that module. by the way, this actually looks closer to ((infobox officeholder)). Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with a module per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the templates are merged, a module to reflect the unique LDS info is absolutely essential. However, a merged template would become like so many of our templates: incredibly unwieldy for new and non tech-savvy Wikipedians. We should make templates as easy to utilize as possible, and the longer the template, the tougher to utilize. schetm (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. PPEMES (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It seems "not so" controversial to me. Is it? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 11:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - requires unnecessary work to get the module to work, as noted above it's more confusing for people using the infobox. In short not worth doing, the situation is broken.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 10 July 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).