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 2018 August 2. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lang-yi-dual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User ML Wikipedia administrator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after a month, just a bunch of red links, not a standard form of template Le Deluge (talk) 04:39, 25 July 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).

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 Module:Math. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Sum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Math (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Sum with Module:Math.
As I said earlier when nominating Module:Log10 for merging, we don't need separate lua modules for every mathematical operator. The same thing applies here, the module for summing make more sense as a part of a more general module than as a specific one. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:15, 17 July 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).

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 OrdinalSuffix after replacing with Ordinal. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Ordinal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:OrdinalSuffix (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:OrdinalSuffix and Module:Ordinal

Two modules with very similar functionality. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal does everything OrdinalSuffix does and more, therefore I don't object Ordinal replacing OrdinalSuffix. As far as I can see the call to OrdinalSuffix is compatible with Ordinal but not vice-versa. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$_chi (talk) 15:29, 18 July 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).

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 to delete. Feel free to continue the discussion concerning usage, namespace restriction, ... elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although this module has a lot of unnecessary frills such as supporting zero parameters (not used at all), and a different message for the category namespace (use ((cat main)) instead; main is used on 8,000 categories, which is much smaller than the 129,000 uses of ((cat main))), it is, at it's core, just "Main article/page(s): foo", which is exactly the usecase of the pre-existing Module:Labelled list hatnote, and can be implemented as ((#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main ((#ifeq:((NAMESPACE:(({1|))))}||article|page))|Main ((#ifeq:((NAMESPACE:(({1|))))}||articles|pages)))). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a tfd tag exclusive to category namespace to Template:Main, as this proposal will make it no longer be used in category namespace. Anyone who thinks this is excessive is free to revert or reword the notice. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The existing note ("The template below (Main) is being considered for deletion") confused me. (Especially on a page that had no {Main}, but {AP} (just a redirect to {Main}) instead.) I think a custom hatnote would be safer than what {Template for discussion [deletion]} displays. No one wants to delete Template:Main; you just want it to stop emulating {Category main} when invoked from the Category namespace [and act the same way everywhere - "Main article: ___"]. (Also the Tfd links to a null discussion that links to this active one.) Anyone can reword it, except that it's protected. Only Category pages that mis-use {Main} (how many?) bring people here. Perhaps something like "The template below (Main) is not intended for Category pages. Currently, Main acts as Category_main on category pages. There is a discussion of removing that function." (It's hard to be clear and terse.) -A876 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I broadly support this as the author of Module:Labelled list hatnote; I stopped short of implementing ((main)) with it because of the extensive category use, but those really ought to be disentangled entirely to ((cat main)). I think I'd prefer to avoid mixing Lua and wikicode for functionality as seen in the suggested code, but this proposal's going in the right direction. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What's wrong with mixing lua and wikicode in that way? I do agree, though, that the duplicate check is ugly, and it make more sense to have some syntax in Module:Labelled list hatnote for the plural to be concatenated to the singular, which would also help in Template:Transcluding articles. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not strictly wrong, it just sets off alarms in my head about mixing approaches. Lua output isn't preprocessed, so you can't e.g. return '((some template))'; it'll produce "((some template))" on the page rather than producing a template call. While your example does things the other way around, and thus should technically work, I'd be happier with e.g. a wrapper module or extra parameter to enable the namespace stuff. I'd prefer to avoid the concatenation approach because I try to make the modules I create easily localizable so that they're more easily reused by other language editions, and concatenation is often unfriendly to localization. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was never suggesting having concatenation be the only syntax, just an additional option which languages in which it makes sense can use. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's happening to ((Main)), as currently used on category pages? I can't see any nomination or discussion for deleting that.

I have no opinion on any internal implementation details, Lua or otherwise. But suddenly I've got a myriad category pages marked up that Main is going to be deleted, and no reason given. What gives? This isn't some more "move everything into wikidata" rubbish, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made that notice a bit scarier than I needed to. This isn't in any way suggesting that any data be moved from Wikipedia to Wikidata. ((main)) isn't going to be deleted, but it is going to be deleted from category pages, where you will have to use ((cat main)) instead (a task that can be possibly done by a bot). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No objections to convert all instances of "Main" in categories into "Cat main" by a bot, for as long as the functionality and appearance remains about the same. However, I would object if the functionality would be removed without a drop-in-replacement. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what is being proposed, and some technichal backend cleanup afterwards. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep the functionality, anyhow. I totally agree with everything that User:Matthiaspaul wrote. And have no opinion on the merits of the technical implementation, being happy to leave such things to those who enjoy doing them. yoyo (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I defer to more knowledgeable editors when it comes to changes to modules, but I definitely support the proposal of removing ((Main)) from category namespace and replacing it with ((Cat main)) instead. Separately, and to avoid this issue arising again, is there any way to have ((Main)) display an error message when it is used in category namespace or to make this an ongoing bot maintenance task? It's not essential, of course, but would be nice to have. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, doing so is technically possible. Any discussion of the merits of such a proposal is best left to Template talk:Main or Wikipedia:Bot requests. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Main#Category namespace. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What's the point of nominating a module for discussion? Is it doing a bad job of assisting the template that invokes it? Seems more reasonable to nominate the template for discussion, and if TFD results in major changes to the template, the module must comply. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 23 August 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).