Unblock templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging with Template:Unblock
Reason: To simplify usage of the template, merging the templates would make it easier to maintain and easier to use. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, probably. [Unblock reviewed] and [Unblock on hold] are part of the recommended workflow for [Unblock]. Merging them would mean changing the unblock workflow, and I'm not sure what technical solution would enable that and if it would be worth it. [Unblocked] survived a 2017 AfD as users were finding it useful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would be easier to judge the feasibility of this proposal if the nominator could mock up a basic sandbox version. I can imagine something like
((Unblock|on hold)) that could be changed to ((Unblock|reviewed)), but the devil is in the details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been doing some testing in the sandbox of Template:Unblock, you can see the testcases for some of the results. There certainly will be more work that needs to be done but yeah. I can see how this will make maintenance a lot easier; instead of maintaining and syncing four different templates we are just maintaining one. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. They have outputs that can be replaced with a single template and accompanying module. Having them split into four templates makes it a little more annoying from the template side of things. Do automated tools use these templates? SWinxy (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a major project. There's more than just unblock; there's unblock-un, unblock-spamun, unblock-auto and all of their reviews. there's very different language for these and very different functionality. It might be a neat trick from the elegance point of view to have a unified theory of unblock templates. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the seperate templates have different uses and as Jpgordon has mentioned there are unblock-un, unblock-spamun, unblock-auto as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment due to the large effect the outcome could potentially have I have placed a notification at WP:AN. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This would over complicate things. Please, leave be.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- per Firefangledfeathers and lavalizard101. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Makes things more complicates and shakes up people's workflows for no apparent benefit. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose. I can see from a programmer point of view that we've got a messy pile of special cases that, with a proper object-oriented design, could be turned into something pretty instead. Might be fun to write it. I'd say, go for it -- just don't impose it on the relatively small number of us that frequently use and respond to these templates. Create your own "deblock" structure, pump it through some sorta testing, show it's an improvement from the points of view of usability, functionality, and maintainability, and some of us will play with it. For example, I'd wire my personal copy of Enterprisey's unblock-review to emit "deblock|declined" instead of "unblock reviewed|decline". You can do all this without any of the current objectors having any reason even to notice you're doing it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to "oppose" to make it clear -- you don't need anyone's permission to build this. Putting it into production is another issue. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It ain't broke, so no need for a "fix". Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Seraphimblade. Skyerise (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I use them regularly and would personally be fine with this. We're currently using multiple templates for something that could be done with one template and one parameter. Especially the way ((Unblock on hold)) currently works is confusing: Changing ((unblock)) to ((unblock on hold)) already requires modifying parameters because their order doesn't match ("2=original unblock request" is bad design). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW close as No consensus. I see no reason to keep this discussion ongoing as its opposed by several admin who would use these templates the most. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knowledgekid87, I don't enough opposition to warrant immediate closure over waiting 1 day now for the discussion to be closed normally (or relisted, as the case may be). — Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Seraphimblade. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 01:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and would only consider supporting if a clear benefit to merging the templates is shown on a working alternative. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 03:40, 18 August 2023 (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:Al Ain S.C.C sections
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 bluelinks, which is not enough to justify a template, especially when the 2 links are being used for completely different parts of the template (one is for an active club, other is for defunct club). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2023 (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:List of oxidation states of the elements/row/datacheck
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Orphaned after recent deletions of related unused templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2023 (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(s) or module(s) 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:Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa. Primefac (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa with Template:Islamic structures on the Temple Mount.
These two templates cover the same topic; the "Islamic structures" navbox mostly overlaps with the larger navbox. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Islamic structures on the Temple Mount to the Mount and Aqsa navbox as this navbox has a section for Islamic structures in the complex. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not sure. This template is not tightly confined to Islamic structures, but instead contains lots of fluff (a problem in its own right) - might it not be better to simply preserve one template as the host for strictly Islamic structures, and the other for more general material (which is what the template here appears to be)? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While a merge can be made, the end title will have to be worded as such as it won't be "Islamic" only. A lot of the entries at Template:Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa are Jewish related and not Isalmic. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2023 (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).