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 -FASTILY 01:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Singapore Democratic Alliance/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Singapore Democratic Party/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Singapore People's Party/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Workers' Party of Singapore/meta/shading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused color templates -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:09, 15 July 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 speedy delete as G2. Performed by JamesR on 15 July 2020 with summary (G2: Test page). (non-admin closure) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:En-verb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Adam9007 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious test with the edit summary being litteraly test. Tagged for G2. --Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 15 July 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 Merge. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Stardust (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Housemarque (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Stardust with Template:Housemarque.
Similar to the video game navbox ((Project Gotham Racing)), which has been redirected to developer ((Bizarre Creations)), I think this template can be merged / redirected to developer ((Housemarque)). Everything is already listed there and there isn't a Stardust (series) article. I've made a Stardust subgroup in the Housemarque navbox. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. IceWelder [✉] 14:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. No reason to have both, especially when there's no primary article for Stardust. Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:23, 16 July 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 relisted on 2020 July 29. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Grand_Ducal_Family_of_Tuscany (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 2020 July 28. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archiving (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 merge to Template:Talk archive. Izno (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talk archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Archive with Template:Talk archive.
These templates are very similar. ((Talk archive)) has vastly more uses and include all functionality in ((Archive)) as well as options to customize the image and add a time period to the message. Redirecting ((Archive)) to ((Talk archive)) would make it a simpler process to set up an archive by eliminating unnecessary choices, give users more customization options and make it possible to optimize the wording of the message which I believe is slightly better for ((Talk archive)). --Trialpears (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some archives are not talk archives. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I once considered proposing this very same merge request, until it was clear the differences. Basically, it's what the anon above me said: ((Archive)) is intended for archives in non-"Talk:"-type namespaces and/or archives not related to discussions, whereas ((Talk archive)) is intended for "Talk:"-type namespaces. I mean, I can't even support merging these two templates together by creating a namespace check to change the wording of the template when it is in a "Talk:-type versus a non-"Talk:"-type namespace. I think the resolution here would be to remove the sentence "Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page." from ((Archive)), and replace any transclusions of ((Archive)) in any "Talk:"-type namespaces with ((Talk archive)) (provided that the transclusion of ((Archive)) is not on the same page which a reader would arrive if they used the ((FULLROOTPAGENAME)) magic word.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Steel1943 Thank you for explaining the subtly different purposes! I didn't manage to catch that when looking through the documentation and I don't think I'm the only one considering that 73% of pages using ((Archive)) are talk pages and over a thousand non-talk pages are using ((Talk archive)). This would suggest that many editors don't have any problem with using the "wrong" template and message which is hardly surprising since the text is basically identical between the templates with both of them stating that the page is an archive, that you shouldn't edit the page and that new comments should go to the current talk page. Even if there should be more differences between the messages such as replacing the "current talk page" clause in ((Archive)) like you suggested I think it would more productive to do it with namespace detection since so many pages use the "wrong" template. It is also possible to do a large scale replacement like you suggested but I don't really see a reason to when some quick template changes using ((Talkspace detect)) would be sufficient and ensure the problem never arise again. The merged name should of course be the more general ((Archive)) when considering non-talk archives. Again I would love to hear if you have any better suggestions or any problems with my updated proposal but I think we can both agree that there should be some change here. --Trialpears (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trialpears: I've been looking these over, and ... umm, looking at the current state of Template:Archive, there is another issue ... first, the text "This page is an archive.", look where the link goes, and I cannot find an alternative which is for non-talk archives. What a mess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep it is quite messy. The best solution seems to be renaming Help:Archiving a talk page to Help:Archiving pages or something which would accommodate for non-talk pages. --Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. Help:Archiving a talk page is written from the perspective of addressing what to do when a talk page becomes too long. That is not necessarily the situation for pages archived outside of the talk namespace, as some of those pages are archived as a matter of process, such as when a discussion is closed. --Bsherr (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is not necessary that we would need to mark these two templates. As said above some archives are not talk archives. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per reasons above. "Archive" is for (Main/Article) namespace, while "Talk archive" is for Talk namespace, in which they are not the exact same. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  CruzRamiss2002 Archive isn't actually for article space in which it has exactly zero transclusions but for noticeboards such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. The question here isn't whether they are different since they definitely are but if it is a useful distinction. The text in the templates are very similar and I don't see anything specific to either talk pages or non-talk pages in either and if there should be a distinction it would be simpler to use some template magic and automatically detect the namespace making sure the message is always the most appropriate one which wouldn't be the case with the current system since plenty of templates in talk spaces use ((Archive)) instead of ((Talk archive)) and vice versa. --Trialpears (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Trialpears Okay, so when I looked to the "View history" of each template, they created by the same user last 2005 which the date was nearly 2 days apart. This is by far for me the most confused on why the user made the two template that are almost the same. I might going to withdraw or change my decision and probably dug deeper with this one. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - While I appreciate there is a subtle difference intended in the templates, its clear from usage that editors either don't understand it or don't care for it. This is based on the numbers Trialpears has provided above. There is also nothing to gain here from two templates, where one can easily do it with a simple if/else check if the page is in a talk namespace or not. No reason to continuing making this harder for editors to use. See ((Archive/sandbox)) for how simple this is. --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having just spent the last few minutes walking around Category:Archival templates, I'm convinced that standard practice is to make your own fork of an existing one rather than improving it (see ((tan)), ((aan)), ((UserTalkArchive)), for just one example of the problem). This is unfortunate, and further cleanup may be necessary. --NYKevin 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some archives are not talk archives. I think this templates are can't merging. — Gomdoli4696 (토론) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you have not even bothered reading the discussion. Both templates are used on both types of pages and I've shown that the template can be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Only ((보존))(en: Template:Archive) is used in kowiki. I think it would be fine if we just say "This is an archive" instead of "This is an archive of past discussions." on this template. — Gomdoli4696 (토론) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Clearly, redirecting is not the solution, but a thoughtful merge would have usability benefits. Mbox style and banner text should be properly differentiated by namespace. I think Gonnym's sandbox proposal is a credible start. --Bsherr (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bsherr. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge practically duplicate templates. Their name and 'use case', ie one being not for talk (by name), isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that they're functionally pretty much the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Two templates, one purpose. Parser functions like #switch, or ((Namespace detect)) as demonstrated at Template:Archive/sandbox, can be used to deal with namespace differences. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I understand the opposes, but this is exactly the kind of thing we have parameters for. It just makes sense to combine the two and then allow the wording to be changed either automatically, manually, or both with parameters and/or namespace detection. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can anyone clarify what an archive in non-talk space is? It sounds like there's some overlap with ((historical)).  — Scott • talk 17:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Namespace detection makes this an obvious case for merging.  — Scott • talk 17:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:Archive. Template:Archive is a general use template, while Template: Talk archive is used for talk pages only. 125.238.46.1 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 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).