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 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 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 mergetoModule:Example. Clear consensus for a merge, going for Module:Example as the merge target as it was the most commonly cited one. Whether the other names should be redirected or just deleted I'll punt to whoever knows whether Module pages work as redirects, as it doesn't seem to be critical here. Also probably worth remembering that (the pages which have) links need to be changed/updated as appropriate, per the last comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we only need one example. I'd say a merger of the best qualities from the different modules, but that is really something that can be a work-in-progress. Name should probably be "Hello World" or "Example" (if this is chosen, there could be a function called "hello world" for a basic string example). BTW mw:Module:Bananas is on MW so we don't need a local copy. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 13 February 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).
Not actual testcases; instead itself a test page, and no tests could be added here because there is no testable content. (As with my other testcases noms from a few days ago, I cannot tag the page) * Pppery *it has begun...22:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per no transclusions. If someone wants to have this undeleted to their own sandbox, I have no objections to that, but we don't need this. Doug MehusT·C12:56, 15 February 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 mergetoTemplate:WikiProject Television per the past (recent) consensus on a dozen similar task forces/subprojects as well as past precedent on task forces merging with their parent. As far as WPTV goes, other task force templates can be merged as found/needed. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 13 February 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).
Pppery, sure all I care about is consistency and that it handles missing parameters and gives the appropriate step two template. There have been repeated issues with people not being able to edit, I implemented an edit request just yesterday, and it will likely continue. In a case like this I would usually like input from the creator, but since they are blocked that's kind of hard. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to point out that if kept, this template is still unused (making it still appropriate for deletion). Was there any action taken to make it used somewhere? --Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should tag Module:Cfd in this discussion as well and advertise it at Template talk:Cfd and WT:CFD so we can have a proper discussion about which implementation should be used and then delete the unused one afterwards. I'm mostly ambivalent to which one we use they both achieve the same goal. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Trialpears I would have no problem with tagging that Module:Cfd, but my thinking, and perhaps it's my layperson's understanding, but from my perspective, the learning curve for learning wikiformatting versus Lua is much lower. So, I think there's a bigger potential pool of editors able to edit the template {{Cfd all}} than Module:Cfd. This may differ from Pppery's rationale, though. Doug MehusT·C00:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - in my opinion it's much easier to edit a template (whose formatting I learn from being around the traps here in WP) than Lua. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 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 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. It does not appear that opinions have changed much since the last time this was nominated for deletion. If someone wants to take ownership of this template and userfy it (to their userspace) there is no prejudice against that move (since it was suggested by multiple editors but a target not chosen). Primefac (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userification doesn't mean it's limited to just that user using it. User templates are cheap, so why not mothball it in storage? There's no consensus here to deletion. Doug MehusT·C12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors use templates from user space. I myself use a few:
You both missed the point. This template isn't used by anyone. The creator did not ask for it to be userfied to their userspace. So to where exactly should this be userfied? --Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 21 February 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).
Pigsonthewing, Okay, fair enough. I see what Tom is saying now. It's just a warning saying that notifications will be archived; it doesn't archive them. It's not necessarily adversarial, but I'm fine with deleting this. Doug MehusT·C18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If anyone is getting so many warnings that they need a special page for them, they need to figure out what they are doing wrong. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 18 February 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 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 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).
Subst and delete This is the sort of template that should always have been substituted, so no "Keep because its used" arguments are valid. One is therefore left with a template that has no possibility of being needed (since Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was shut down) and should clearly be deleted. * Pppery *it has begun...18:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to the creating editor's account, then substitute and delete the trailing redirect per Tom (LT) and Pppery's point about that it should never be transcluded (thus, if it has 81 transclusions, that's wrong and needs correcting). Doug MehusT·C19:19, 16 February 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).
Substitute and delete or userfy to creating editor's userspace and delete as I see no purpose to a template that says one has never edited, other than maybe for alias accounts? I'm not sure. Low usage likely means we can do either of the two options. Doug MehusT·C19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr, thanks for clarifying that, which makes sense. I do appreciate the reply. What I meant, though, was why would someone to advertise they've never edited? Doug MehusT·C21:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beg your pardon. I speculate that the template would indeed never be used on one's own talk page by a editor who has never edited: firstly, because indeed no one would likely want to promote that; and secondly, because, by the very fact of having edited one's user page, one has edited at least once. That's why I was pointing out that the template has other, more likely uses. --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 16 February 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).
I don't see the harmful interface variance, or anything equivalent. It links to history pages rather to a "new section" form. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'll oppose the deletion. --Chriswaterguytalk13:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userify not seeing the harm here. Not everything is 100% standardised around here so I don't think that is a good reason for deleting. It's in or has been in use by some editors, I don't find the rationale for deleting convincing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 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).
