Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29 edit

Template:Heraldic tinctures edit

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 keep. Consensus against merger. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Heraldic tinctures with Template:Heraldry footer.
Completely redundant. Merge ready. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: There is still quite a lot left to be added to the Heraldry footer template. Adding the tinctures as well will make for a template that is oversized and cumbersome. Tinctures make a well-defined subtopic that is more easily maintained as a separate subtopic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is far from redundant. It's in use in many places, where the larger navbox would be excessive, and would probably need to be collapsed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2018 (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:European nobility edit

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 January 9. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 9 January 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).

Template:Location map Czech Republic Central Bohemia edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; low quality image; better to use {{mapframe}} for local area maps Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2018 (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:Location map Estonia Harju County edit

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) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; highlighting can be achieved using the |AlternativeMap= parameter with the main Estonia location map Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2018 (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).

Category:2018 Asian Games baseball team roster templates edit

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) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per this discussion, no need to keep the rosters in a separate template when they can be included in Baseball at the 2018 Asian Games – Team squads directly Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2018 (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:Cat main edit

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 Keep. However there is no consensus regarding where the {{Catmain}}'s functionality should reside: in a separate template or in {{Main}} template. So, both should be kept. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Template talk:Main#Category namespace, there is no reason that categories should use a separate style of hatnote than articles different language than articles in their hatnote template for describing their main page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC) (Clarified per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 1#Module:Main {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Pinging participants at that discussion: @Black Falcon, Nihiltres, and Izno:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be more appropriate & accurate, based on the linked discussion, to request merging {{Cat main}} with {{Main}}, instead of outright deletion of {{Cat main}}. Would support a merge.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to merge here: the eventual goal is to abolish the sentence-style main hatnote entirely, which would entail a clean deletion of this template and the duplicate functionality in {{main}} for categories. The only thing that comes close to a merge is the fact that any transclusions of {{cat main}} will be replaced with {{main}} rather than deleted, but I wouldn't call that a merge. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose then, due to differing template functions that I think should be retained. The only result I would have supported was one with Steel1943's rationale, which may even present some confusion if combined, per BrownHairedGirl.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template differs from {{Main}} in that it bolds the article name, which can be resolved via merging this template into {{Main}} and adding a namespace check to bold the article name/link. Either way, I oppose deleting this template for the aforementioned reason. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confused. I'm trying to make categories use the same template and the same wording as articles do in their main page hatnote: (Main article/page: ...), not trying to make categories and articles use the same template with different wording (which would be a merge). Therefore, whether the page name is bolded is irrelevant. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, with respect, I think that you are the one who is confused. See my comment below: the difference between the two is not just a matter of wording. They serve very different purposes, and should produce very different output. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion, which is why you !voted oppose on this TfD. In my opinion, the two templates, as currently implemented, say the same thing except one is pointlessly more verbose than the other. My TfD proposes to unify the two by deleting the template with the needlessly verbose wording, which makes "these templates don't do exactly the same thing", the argument which Steel1943 used, a non-argument. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, I described the difference of purpose in some detail. It's a pity that you simply dismiss it as an "opinion" rather than explaining why you disagree with the reasons I set out.
    Given your rude dismissal of Steel1943's point as a non-argument, I would have hoped that if you a substantive disagreement with my points then you would explain why, rather than just saying. But instead of addressing the reasons why this one is different, you prefer dismissive terms such as "needless" and "pointless". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Despite the similarity in title, the {{main}} and {{Cat main}} templates serve very different purposes. The nominator @Pppery and the other editors discussing this at Template talk:Main#Category namespace appear to have not considered these distinctions.
  1. {{main}}: As noted at Template:Main/doc, its main purpose is for use in summary-style articles, where the subsections link to a more detailed article.
  2. {{Cat main}} is often the only text on the whole page, apart from the list of categories. Its purpose in those cases is more akin to the WP:LEDE of a list article, explaining to the reader what the category is about. We don't format the lede of a list a hatnote, so why do we do so on a category? (A category is just a list by another technology.
Ideally, {{Cat main}} should be used in conjunction with explanatory text (e.g. on Category:Orgies in Ruritania: {{catexp|[[orgy|orgies]] in the fictional country of [[Ruritania]].}} {{cat main|Sex in Ruritania}} ... but in most cases it used alone because the category title is self-explanatory.
It's quite right that {{main}} is styled as <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">, because it is a hatnote. However, I have long believed that {{Cat main}} and its sister {{Category explanation}} should not styled as hatnotes, because they are effectively the lede on the page. Cat main's output is currently styled as <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable relarticle mainarticle"> ... whereas it is not actually a hatnote, and probably should be searchable.
This is not just a theological issue. There is a real, practical disadvantage to styling {{Cat main}} and {{Category explanation}} as hatnotes, because hatnotes are not displayed when using WP:POPUPS ... so currently, a mouseover a link to a category which has either or both of {{Cat main}}/{{Category explanation}} shows no body text at all. That is simply wrong.
So the effect of this proposal would be to narrow the gap between two templates which should really be much more widely distinguished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. We can have two entirely separate templates, for whether something is linked from a mainspace page or from a category. I agree that these are quite separate tasks, and potentially could go in all sorts of directions (the idea that being similar today is reason to delete is a terrible one). However, two different template calls in the wikitext is confusing for users and leads to the wrong one being used in the wrong places. Much simpler would be to combine them under {{Main}}, then just switch internally. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andy Dingley: if you agree that they are separate tasks, why combine them in one template? That just makes the one template more complex, and creates barrier to developing them separately.
    If editors get confused between the two, then correcting any such misuses is a trivial task with AWB. And it would be easy to make each template give a warning if used in an inappropriate namespace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer "Don't confuse the editor" to "We can sort out the mess with scripts". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of editors do understand the difference. I prefer "don't try to make one tool do two completely different jobs". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I would support making the output on category pages more lead-y and less hatnote-y, since as BrownHairedGirl says, it's usually the only text on the page. That would entail: keep the bolding for the main article title, keep the period at the end, and then also don't indent or italicize. Can that, and searchability/popup text, be achieved with coding at {{main}} for categories? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply deleting {{catmain}} unless its output is replicated or improved at {{main}}, per my comment above and BrownHairedGirl's. Remove the category-specific coding from {{main}} to reduce confusion between the two different templates. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template. Much better functionality for categories than {{main}}. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they really do don't perform different functions, keep catmain template, fix the 8000 category pages that incorrectly use the main template and warn the editor when they're using the wrong one. But do they really do different things? Happy first day of the week, last day of the year.the eloquent peasant (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the two serve completely different purposes, as BHG observes with typical clarity and eye for detail. {{main}} should indeed be changed to {{Cat main}} throughout category space. Oculi (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save it Please save this template from merging because that would be upsetting please save it cause it needs to be kept the right way. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Do not merge – The discussion at Template talk:Main#Category namespace, which is cited as the reason for this TfD, does not show the necessary consensus necessary to delete, as the opposition in this page shows. And the rationale of "uniformity" is not a sufficient basis for merging with {{Main}}. Senator2029 “Talk” 17:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite the similarities these templates serve different purposes and should be maintained as separate templates. There is no advantage in combining them. Forcing one template to do two distinct jobs just makes that template unnecessarily complex.--Srleffler (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify the request - depending on how closely you read this discussion, the other discussion, the documentation, and the actual function of the running code, which does not match the documentation, we could all be saying the same thing in different words, or different things with the same words. The request and the entire situation is confusing. So, let's take a step back and boil this down. The request is to "delete" this template. It is used on 161,671 pages (including its redirects). Opposed. Do not delete it. Redirect it to {{Main}}, perhaps, but do not delete it. Now, what does the current code actually do? The nominator seems to be making his argument based on what the documentation says it does, and not what it really does. Why he seems to think his change is needed is beyond me, but what his proposal actually does is replace this code (cat main) with code that almost, but not quite, duplicates this code (main). The wording of the actual output of {{cat main}} and {{main}} (when applied to a category page) are deceptively similar. It appears that someone attempted to (but not quite successfully) merge the two. The subtle differences are accurately described by Black Falcon as the four differences in the other discussion. At the moment, there is a fifth difference: cat main throws up a nasty warning about this discussion, and main does not.
Why do editors use one versus the other in the category mainspace?? Well, let me tell you why I use main rather than cat main: I copied the mistake from someone else. I never noticed the difference until now. The wording is so similar, that unless you really nit-pick at them, as Black Falcon did, you may be seduced into thinking them identical. Most editors aren't going to lift under the hood of every template they use to such extensive detail. They're more concerned about building things than on how they work, or on minor differences that originated from a careless attempt to duplicate the functionality.
The request by the proposer is not to just delete this template, but to also eliminate the category namespace code from {{main}} as well. In his words "the eventual goal is to abolish the sentence-style main hatnote entirely". That, I think, the consensus is, quite clearly, Oppose.
The request seems to be being passed through by confusing folks as to what they are voting on. People who only look at the documentation of the two templates are lead to believe something very different than if you actually try the templates in the category namespace. If you're not clear on the point, try it. Then read the request very carefully. The proposer says he wants "a clean deletion of this template and the duplicate functionality in {{main}} for categories." (emphasis mine) That I very strongly oppose. LibraryGeek (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: The nominator has since posted an edit to "Clarify nomination statement". He now states that "there is no reason that categories should use a separate style of hatnote than articles different language than articles in their hatnote template for describing their main page." Frankly, I see this as an edit without a difference. His intention remains the same. He believes that categories and articles should be forced to be treated exactly the same way, when they are not the same thing. If this proposal were to be passed, I would be forced to re-create this template to achieve the results I want. The proposer seems to be trying to enforce consistency for the pure sake of consistency, without any consideration of why there should be consistency or not. Enforcing consistency must have a reason. I still fail to see one, and still oppose this request. LibraryGeek (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 147,490 pages which transclude {{Cat main}}.
(In case anyone is concerned about pre-empting the outcome of this discussion, that was not my intention. Obviously, if the consensus is to delete or merge {{Cat main}}, that will still proceed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. I see you've even edited my template which contained the "mistake" I was referencing. I actually refrained from making that edit to avoid the rather alarmist language that this template "is being considered for deletion" out of concern that my users may think I was doing something "wrong" by using cat main over main, which does not trigger the warning. At any rate, the argument that editors were willfully choosing main over cat main in categories because of a "preference" in Black Falcon's four differences (or my five) has been mooted. I think at this point, I could support the argument that the attempt to duplicate this template's functionality within {{main}} can be removed. The attempt to do that was done inconsistently, and has only caused needless confusion. Furthermore, the proposer has clearly stated his intention to remove the code there as well as here. I don't see a reason to keep an imperfect attempt to duplicate functionality and cause additional confusion as to the purpose of each template. BTW the total usage of this template with redirects now stands at 168,696. The total usage of {{main}} with redirects is 302,010. If the links to this template were redirected to main, the total would be 470,706. The precentage of sense in this proposal makes remains at 0. LibraryGeek (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My first reaction was that someone should have changed every {Main} in Category space to {Cat main}, first of all, without asking anyone or apologizing, before starting any discussion. Thanks for catching this up. I looked just now and found 5 new cases, so I corrected them. 2 were new creates; the others were edits that added {Main} to an existing Category page, or replaced a {Cat main} with {Main} while changing the destination article (possibly triggered by the scary TfD notice currently displayed by {Cat main}). ((Your wmflabs search link ran really slow - this WP search link works instantly.)) -A876 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/oppose/do not merge. I have nothing to add to BrownHairedGirl's thorough rationale. We could merge just about any two templates and add code to switch between their two functionalities. But as in this case, when the templates have different purposes, a merge does not make sense. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we have merged the two, but did so imperfectly. {{main}} on a category page will display something very close to what {{cat main}} does, but with Black Falcon's four differences (or my five). Are you saying we should unmerge the two? This seems to be where this discussion is going. Main has a purpose and function, and cat main has a different purpose and function, and they should remain separate and distinct. If so, then we should remove the attempt to impersonate cat main in main. This would make the distinction between the two obvious again, and would discourage people from using the wrong template. I believe that's what BrownHairedGirl's efforts were all about. LibraryGeek (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And something that I would support, as it makes no sense, given that categories are going to use different language in their hatnotes than articles, to shoehorn them into the same template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, glad to hear that. Sounds like you're coming round, and we're close to consensus, here. So to be clear, you're willing to keep {{cat main}}, and to remove the category namespace code from {{main}}, restoring the two to their original function and purpose? LibraryGeek (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong agree per martin. There is no way it should work like this. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's martin, and what are you agreeing with?? The proposal that was put forth, or my proposed settlement? Or did you intend to respond to another discussion entirely?? LibraryGeek (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{main}}. If necessary, detect the namespace and bold. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak split: Right now, {{cat main}} exists and is used exclusively for category pages, but {{main}} also has a bunch of code in it exclusively for imitating what {{cat main}} does. What we've got is effectively an incomplete merge, and that creates confusion, especially because it makes the scope of templates murky, and that's just gross for maintenance. I see two main possibilities:
    • Complete the merge, moving {{cat main}} into {{main}} and converting all usage to {{main}}
    • Reverse the merge, making {{main}} used exclusively on articles and {{cat main}} used exclusively on categories.
    Regardless of what we choose, we end up with some secondary questions about what wording should look like; Pppery in particular has advocated for category pages using the simpler wording of {{main}} (implying a merge), while BrownHairedGirl has advocated that it provides the lead for category pages (which suggests a split). I would be OK with either of these outcomes, though I'd suggest that BrownHairedGirl's argument means that {{cat main}} should not be formatted as a hatnote: hatnotes are semantically notes rather than important lead text. If we were to change {{cat main}} as part of a split to not be a hatnote, I'd definitely support BrownHairedGirl's argument. If {{cat main}} is to remain a hatnote, I'm fond of Pppery's argument that we should have a uniform, compact wording that obviates the need for namespace-detection code. Pppery's argument also gets an infinitesimal boost in my book on the principle that having fewer templates doing similar jobs is preferable, but again, if {{cat main}} does something semantically different that's moot. I oppose Andy Dingley's argument for merging, however, on the grounds that it's simple to introduce namespace-based error messages to help prevent "the wrong one being used in the wrong places". Based on the current discussion, I like BrownHairedGirl's option better (on the condition that {{cat main}} stop being a hatnote), but I would not object to a merge as long as it solved the incomplete merge we've currently got. Fundamentally, the main thing I oppose here is "no consensus". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that a split is better than the current situation, although worse than using one template for everything (which I would call a deletion, not a merge - no functionality from Template:Cat main survives with my proposal). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm intentionally calling "using one template for everything" a merge because merging or splitting is the core, semantic issue here: the phrasing and such are the colour we use for the bike shed. While your preferred result from a merge has the same result a deletion would, assuming that your preferred phrasing is bundled with a merge decision is presumptive. Avoiding such presumption helps in collaboration with others who may not agree with your choice of phrasing. We should find consensus on the merge issue before working on trivialities like phrasing—and I'm saying that despite agreeing that your phrasing would be preferable if our core decision is to merge. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{main}}. I have reacted on this redundancy before. I hardly even knew it was established that all categories was to use catmain. I always though main looks better anyway. No reason to have two pretty identical templates and functions. Better agree upon a style that works well for both and stick to that. PPEMES (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate, THUSLY: Assume that some editors will always try to use {Main} in Category space - because the destination is an article; notwithstanding the subtle or increasingly different stylings that it will produce in Article space versus Category space. Many of us knew of the two distinct templates and used them correctly (most of the time). But many others have proved that having two templates is simply too counterintuitive. ((It might seem kludgey to "shoehorn" two conditional stylings into one template, but they arguably belong together, given the similar intent. Also it feels less ugly than the alternative, which would be to set up a robot that overrides the editor's selection of {Main} or {Cat main} whenever they pick the wrong one for the Namespace - either during the edit or as a fix-up edit afterward.)) So the obvious answer is to finish the job (already started) of making {Main} function exactly the same as {Cat main} when it runs in Category space. After that is accomplished, obviously make Template:Cat_main a #REDIRECT to Template:Main. After that, obviously edit the documentation to only suggest {Main} for both uses. (Some editors will continue to use {Cat main}, but it won't matter.) (Obviously, anyone wishing to change the action or styling of {Main}, in Articles or in Categories, will have to edit the unified template.) Lastly, (completely optional), a robot could replace every {Cat main} with {Main}; after doing that a few times, we could consider actually deleting the orphaned {Cat main}. ((A different "obvious" approach is uglier: If in Category space, {Main} redirects to {Cat main}, to assure identical function. If in Article space, {Cat main} redirects to {Main}, to assure identical function. Each template only has code for what it does, except for the redirection wrapper. Yucch.)) -A876 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO consensus I'm VERY disappointed about the way this conversation is going. I THOUGHT we were close to consensus. Now we're moving BACK to no consensus. Everyone seems to have their own opinions that they want to force on each other because they have the "one true opinion". That's exactly the opposite of what this place is supposed to be about. This seems to be about the "fact" that all pages are "equal". An article and a category should be exactly the same, no matter what. Well, should a template be the same, too?? And {{cat main}} does not stand alone. It is one of a set of templates, some of which have parallels with mainspace, and some do not. Uniformity at all costs! No logic permitted! One size fits everything! I asked people to take a step back, and look at the bigger picture. We almost had agreement at that point. Then someone jumps in and brings the narrow view back, and all heck breaks lose again.
We can't seem to agree on what the FACTS are that we're arguing about. That's because the design of the templates have been twisted from their original design, documentation has NOT been updated, and bad edits have been made that confuse everyone. BrownHairedGirl tried to clean up the mess, to make the argument that we should decide based on the mess moot. Now we're back to arguing there will always be a mess so we should cave to it.
Let me tell you this: Bad design will produce bad results.
That's the problem here. We've had bad design, and we've gotten bad results. So now the question is this: Do we FIX the design and get GOOD results, or do we keep the bad design and just pave over the mess, and make things worse in the end? BrownHairedGirl demonstrated that a good solution is possible. But we're still using the argument that it's impossible, so let's just give up on doing things right. I can't tell you how upset and disappointed I am right now.
I propose that we take a step back, again, and cool off. I, for one, need that. I certainly can write a well-reasoned position paper for having {{cat main}} remain separate and have the pseudo cat main code removed from {{main}}. If someone wants to write a position paper on why {{cat main}} must be killed at all possible costs, be my guest. I will need a few days because I have a life and other things that need to get done. The position papers should be written on the facts and not just personal opinion. Making your case on "I don't see a reason why ..." isn't good enough. We need a well-reasoned argument each way. Who ever can make the best case for their position wins. But we need to do this on the facts and not just attempting to shove one's opinions down everyone else's throats.
I propose we close this discussion as NO consensus and take the discussion to a more appropriate forum. Certainly someone here may have an idea where that should be. This argument is NOT about {{cat main}} and {{main}}. This argument IS about Categories and Articles and about templates in general. This decision will set a precedent that will govern all other templates. This will spill over to all other cat templates ... I think we know that, and that's why this discussion is so tense and heated.
Step away from the ledge. Get your arguments together. Base them on the facts and not just opinions. Present your arguments. Then let's make a decision based on what makes sense on things as a whole. This particular discussion has achieved no consensus. Let's step away from the ledge, calm down, and try this again. LibraryGeek (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, The Only True Way to mention these *sacred* Templates is {Main} and {Cat main}, as per their *holy* documentation. Also: one way or another, this will go down your throat, blasphemer. (just kidding)
I found the initial proposal vague, and the "clarification" confusing. This place is called "Templates for discussion", although nomination by default implies that something is up for deletion. ("This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.") In this case, we're discussing what to do - neither template is up for simple deletion. I got my version of the problem from the discussions. I gave several possible solutions (biased toward my favorite). I think the discussion from here on out is which possible solution.
Meanwhile, BrownHairedGirl uncontroversially corrected all 7,600 Category pages that used {Main}. A day later I smacked down 5 more that arose spontaneously.
Meanwhile, it would be great if someone also uncontroversially made {Main} function identically to {Cat main} when in Category space...
By the way: At present, 34 Article pages use {Cat main}. That might deserve looking into. (Are they proper? Do they look right? Should we correct them to {Main}? Should we correct them to {Main category}?)
Problem: Some editors will always [try to] use {Main} in Category space, oblivious to {Cat main} - because the destination is a "main" article; notwithstanding the different purpose and the subtle or increasingly different styling differences between {Main} and {Cat main}. Many of us knew the two templates, but many others never noticed.
  • Please select one solution:
  1. Let {Main} function exactly as it does now when it runs in Article space (or any namespace other than Category). Finish the job (already started) of making {Main} function exactly the same as {Cat main} when it runs in Category space. (Yes, that "shoehorns" two conditional stylings into one template, because they belong together, because of the similar intended destination.) After {Main} performs both functions correctly, change Template:Cat_main into a #REDIRECT to Template:Main. Next, edit the documentation to only suggest {Main} for both uses. (Some editors will continue to use {Cat main}, but it won't matter.) (Obviously, anyone wishing to change the action or styling of {Main}, in Articles or in Categories, will have to edit the unified template.) Lastly, (completely optional), a robot could replace every {Cat main} with {Main}; after doing that a few times, we could consider actually deleting the orphaned {Cat main}.
  2. Whenever an editor uses {Main} in Category space (or {Cat main} in Article space), a bot changes it to the right one, as a fix-up edit afterward, like many existing formatting bots. (Maybe someday correct such errors during the edit, but there are a thousand other errors that could or should be patched during Edit time - not a topic for today.) That makes adjusting {Main} and {Cat main} (in any way) completely optional.
  3. In Category space, make {Main} call {Cat main}, to assure identical function. In Article space, make {Cat main} call {Main}, to assure identical function. Each template only has code for what it does, except for the redirection wrapper. -A876 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Oppose. I know that deletion discussions are not a vote but I can only reiterate BHG's good points stated above. These are not identical templates, and this one is used on 147,693 category pages and the count would probably be at least double this if more new category creators knew to incorporate this useful template for the readers. It is quite commonly used and relied upon by those editors who work with categories and I'm not sure what problems it is causing by its use. Is the existence of two similar but different templates confusing to editors? I don't think so. If it serves a purpose and it widely used, I don't see a valid reason for deletion other than some editors' preference to simplify things by using a template they are personally more familiar with. The resolution of this discussion should be "Keep" or, at least, "No consensus". Nothing is broken so what is this deletion discussion trying to fix? I'd close it myself but I work primarily with categories and so I am biased towards any tool that makes categories work better and be more useful for readers which this template does. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I find it disturbing when nominations are basically one-liners. Moreover, I don't understand why people are suggesting to close the discussion with no consensus when there is not even a single bold-faced "support". Something is wrong here, it seems to me. Rfassbind – talk 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep {{cat main}} with its valued capacity to provide a lede. Support removing the category namespace code from {{main}}, restoring the two to their original function and purpose, as advanced by LibraryGeek. -- Paleorthid (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agree" has no meaning here because there literally is no proposal. (Minus the stricken text, it is: "[Implicit request to delete] Template:Cat main [because]: As discussed at Template talk:Main#Category namespace, there is no reason that categories should use different language than articles in their hatnote template for describing their main page." "no reason"? eh what? "different language"? shurr no?). "Keep" is ambiguous - "keep" what? form? function? status quo? "Oppose" is ambiguous - "oppose" what? (Though opposing acting on imparseable nonsense makes sense.)
No matter what, Keep separate functions in Article space and Category space. (Even diverge them more.)
First choice: Merge both functions into one template, {Main}, using a namespace conditional. (This was already half-accomplished.)
Second choice: Split into {Main} and {Cat main}. Undo the existing partial merger, and instead use the namespace conditional(s) to display warning(s) when used in the wrong namespace. Check for errors using "What links here" and/or set a robot watch.
Here's my conceptual chart. 2 target namespaces × 2 namespaces = 4 functions, but 2 are currently identical, so 3 templates cover them:
..............{Main}: The main article for this section of this article is: Mainarticle.
........{Cat main}: The main article for this category is Mainarticle.
{Main category}: The main category for this section of this article is: Maincategory.
{Main category}: The main category for this category is: Maincategory.
(Yes, {Main category} is used in multiple namespaces. Article: 689 times; Category: 105; Talk: 5; User: 19; User talk: 2; Wikipedia: 20; Wikipedia talk: 3; Template: 9; Template talk: 2; Portal: 2. (Total: 856.))
(Yes, {Cat main} bolds the link. {Main category} had the bolding removed on 2018-07-23 "not used in equivalent templates, e.g. {Main}". (Which ones? I guess they didn't notice {Cat main}.) {Main} had the bolding removed on 2005-10-01.) -A876 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Do not merge - As others have said the two templates serve different purposes. It is also unclear to some here what exactly the nominator wants to accomplish. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 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).

Template:Batswana English edit

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 January 6. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:06, 6 January 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).

Template:Bataan Radio edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions; only provides navigation to two articles and some templates but those templates were taken from Template:Philippine Radio Markets and not built in itself into the template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2018 (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:BasquePelota2011PAG edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2018 (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:Basketball team player/role/GF edit

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:Basketball team player/role/G/F. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; redundant to Template:Basketball team player/role/G/F. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2018 (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:Barbados Labour Party/meta/abbrev edit

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2018 (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:Barangay General Information edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2018 (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:Barabari Party Pakistan/meta/color edit

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2018 (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:Bangor City F.C. seasons edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox there are no bluelinks for this navbox. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (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:Balochistan National Party/meta/shortname edit

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 January 6. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 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).

Template:Bahujan Left Party/meta/shortname edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2018 (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:Bahnlinie-SN edit

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) 13:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I appear to have created this, so it must have had some use once, but it obviously doesn't now.--Grahame (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2018 (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:Bahamas legislative election, 2002 edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are at 2002 Bahamian general election#Results. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2018 (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:Baedeker Blitz edit

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 keep. It has been fixed and now it is in use. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template and navbox doesn't work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the navbox doesn't work, maybe that is why it's unused... I don't know why it doesn't work; the text looked right when I did it: Any ideas? Perhaps if it was fixed, we could see how much use it actually gets over a trial period? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC) (original editor)[reply]
  • Keep It works and it's in use. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (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:Bad map scale edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2018 (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:BRT style edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2018 (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:BPL Households in CD Blocks of Bankura district edit

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. per author request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the five templates noted here are no more used and may be deleted. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2018 (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:BKKLS edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2018 (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:BISE/comments edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2018 (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:BHBWQ2018YOG edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2018 (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:BHBQ2018YOG edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; already substed at Beach handball at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics previously. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR stations edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR color edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2018 (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:BE-IR lines edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2018 (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:Azerbaijani parliamentary election, 2010 edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 2010 Azerbaijani parliamentary election#Results. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (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:Autoreviewer preload edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; mostly redundant to Template:Request for permission. At WP:PERM/AP, Template:Request for permission is used when you add a request there so this template is unnecessary. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2018 (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:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional vice gubernatorial election, 1993 edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 1993 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao general election#For Regional Vice-Governor so this template is unnecessary. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2018 (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:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao regional gubernatorial election, 1993 edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; results are already at 1993 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao general election. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2018 (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:Authorship edit

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 G7, as author. czar 12:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2018 (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:Idioms edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old, incomplete, essentially unused template of questionable usefulness. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 29 December 2018 (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:Commonscatmore edit

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_29&oldid=1138372994"