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. But feel free to redirect or merge it with something else where appropriate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hiberno English editnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The linguistic term "Hiberno-English" refers to the vernacular spoken varieties of English in Ireland, not to standard English as written in Ireland. No Wikipedia article has ever been written in Hiberno-English, nor should it be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Future Perfect at Sunrise, Then we can just make it a redirect to the Irish English editnotice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there one? I didn't find it. I wouldn't mind renaming (and rewording) this to "Irish English" though. (That said, I'd still consider the entire template pretty much useless, since on the level of the formal written standard language there is virtually nothing that distinguishes Irish Standard English from British Standard English, but apparently that case was made at earlier XfC's and people still wanted these kinds of templates all the same.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to Irish English Couldn't find an Irish English notice either, but all the article tagged should have an edit notice so might as well convert to a Irish notice. This would also be consistent with ((Use Irish English)). ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, most of the pages using this edit notice aren't marked with ((Use Irish English)) (or any other "use" template) so it seems as though this isn't really providing accurate information. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 7 December 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).

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) 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fallen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ‘Angel Has Fallen’ Producer Alan Siegel: Expect More Sequels & Local Language Spin-Offs In Millennium Franchise. I made the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  PrimeHunter, then create the template when there's more movie articles. This template does nothing that Fallen (film series) does not already do, and the general consensus is for navboxes to include at least five` links. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - related articles can put the 3 links in their text or see-also sections. It would need a lot more to add up to a need for a navbox. Ikluft (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there will be more movies of it in the future based on the news source of it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  BattleshipMan, where are the current articles for these further movies at the moment? If there isn't any articles, then the template should exist when there are. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  BattleshipMan, any reply? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, the set is just too small at present for a navigation box to be worthwhile. --Bsherr (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete, but allow for recreation if more articles/films are written/created. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 7 December 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).

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) 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Into the Dark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox for a list of episodes, all of which are accessible through the one page of Into the Dark (TV series); outside of the episodes already listed, it does not connect multiple articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, the succession links in the infoboxes are sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with yesterday's TfD on Template:Humans (TV series), there doesn't appear to be a policy-based argument for deletion. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the navbox template. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Paul 012, there does need to be a policy for every deletion, and if an article or category can replace what a navbox does, then the navbox isn't needed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CLN specifically states that the existence of lists and navboxes shall not be mutually exclusive. Neither the main article nor the category aid navigation the same way as the navbox. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I can't find the words "mutual" or "exclusive" in CLN at all... Can you cite a long-standing example of a television series navbox identical to these past two cases where all of the links are accessible through the parent article? If all of the links are accessible through the parent article, then the navbox doesn't help in navigation whatsoever, not just "the same way". I point also to WP:NENAN. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I was paraphrasing. The actual wording is, of course, quote:

  It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic.

  I'm not sure I understand why you think being linked from a parent article should preclude having a navbox. Lots of topics have a list overview as well as a navbox. The links in Template:Futurama episodes are all in List of Futurama episodes, Template:The X-Files episodes in List of The X-Files episodes, Template:Buffy episodes in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, Template:Lost episodes in List of Lost episodes, and so on. Is there a distinction you're making that I'm missing? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the above have multiple seasons with multiple episode articles. This series has one season that has episode article links, the episode article links of which are linked to from the parent article. Yan you cite an example of a one-season series (or at least, only one season that has episode articles), where the episode listing resides on the parent article, having a navbox? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with TV topics to answer your query. I still don't quite understand, though, why the original rationale, "all of which are accessible through the one page", should apply only to subjects/navboxes with one season and not those with many. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the episode templates you linked all include episode articles that are listed through a multitude of season articles. This template's parent article does not fit into that category. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some people prefer navbox navigation to category navigation. We're not in an either/or situation here, both are appropriate and both service the reader. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious as to how a random IP editor managed to come across two similar TFDs and comment only on them... Bit suspicious. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the other above. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant with the LoE in Into the Dark (TV series), the only(!) main article for this series. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:21, 21 November 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).

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Freemasonry footer. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Freemasonry in the Americas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Freemasonry in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Freemasonry in the Americas with Template:Freemasonry in Europe.
In order to simply form a Template:Freemasonry footer. While admittedly it would produce a relatively large template, there are considerable overview and cross-covering benefits, still along with considerable solutions to minimilise its size. This would render a template that arguably more relevantly focuses on organisational belonging rather than on countries spread per se. Size could be reduced by 1) not writing out "Grand Lodge of" and "Grand Orient of" in all entries, 2) making the image significantly smaller, and 3) shortering the group headings wideness by BR tags. Some detail-level entries could perhaps if necessary be exported to templates such as Template:United Grand Lodge of England, Template:Premier Grand Lodge of England, Template:Constituent Grand Lodges of the United Grand Lodges of Germany and Template:York Rite. Please note that the articles Freemasonry in Europe and Freemasonry in the Americas are one and the same article: Freemasonry. As is Template:Freemasonry. PPEMES (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Doug Mehus T·C 19:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Freemasonry is not a unified thing, and there are significant differences in rituals, history and even structure between various areas of the globe. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Europe" and "Americas" an especially noteworthy division? Just because entries would be collected into one single template doesn't mean it is unified. If anything, a one template solution could reflect in a clearer overview of how it is diversified. PPEMES (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as the division Blueboar mentions is reflected in the merged templates. Wug·a·po·des​ 15:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• support, but remove the wall of red links. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 7 December 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).

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) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the English Wikipedia; it does not need internationalization modules, especially when their only uses constitute what is effectively a walled garden and they are redundant to Module:Arguments. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleArgs is very different of Arguments. I have created it precisely because there are many things that Arguments does not do. Although you have never created any module or you don't know how to program, you only have to look at the extension of the my module code (728 lines) in opposition to Arguments (342 lines) to recognize that they are very different. You can also look at the many examples I have added.

Also, SimpleArgs is necessary (required) for the other modules I have created. As you already know, just click on "What links here".

Finally, I also believe that SimpleArgs provides easier identification and verification of parameter values than Arguments. Another thing is that SimpleArgs can become popular.

Jmarchn (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never created any module". Untrue. What I meant by "redundant to Module:Arguments" is not that Module:Arguments does every little thing that this module can do, but that it fulfils the same role. Additionally, it's not generally customary on the English Wikipedia to do the kind of proactive argument checking that this module does. And, do you really expect your newly-created module to have any hope of competing with what is literally the most-used module on all of Wikipedia? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I had looked too fast at the list. You have created 3 modules: 1. Module:Noinclude, 2. Module:ForLoop and 3. Module:Dashboard entry. The 1 has the same complexity as a mine template that also you want to delete (((ForMultilingualTrans))). 2 is not used in any article, even if you indicate "subject to page protection" and a number of incorrect links (39469). 3 although it is not used, it makes more complex then it does me understand that you know to program. Excuse me, again.

Knowing that you know how to program, I understand that you have not done the effort to see what my module brings and you have only been guided by the titles. If they were equivalent I would not have made the effort to create it.

I never said nor did I intend to compete with Arguments. Nor do I pretend that you study or use SimpleArgs. I would simply like you not to delete these modules because they are necessary for modules and templates that are used in the articles: Cynthia Brewer, Wikipedia:Coloring cartographic maps and Template:Graph:Chart/doc, and soon if you do not boycott me with your actions with (the my most important work in lua) improving Module:Chart and creating derived templates with TemplateData. If you delete them, remove my work.

Jmarchn (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Noinclude, while it does appear deceptively simple, actually serves a purpose that can't be served by substituting the module, because <noinclude>((#invoke:Noinclude|text=foo))</noinclude> works properly, whereas <noinclude><noinclude>foo</noinclude></noinclude> does not work. This is used to allow TfD tags, which include their own internal noincluding to decide whether to show a big box or a little message, to work properly when noincluded.

Module:ForLoop is a actually a redirect, not a module, and the doc page is showing the documentation for the redirect target, hence the false claims.

Other modules I have created that you appear to have missed include Module:XfD old (the most-used of the group) and Module:Archive index (used on a few pages)

It would be fairly easy to rewrite any module that uses this method of argument parsing to not use it, possibly at the cost of error-checking of arguments -- however that is not a crucial feature given that almost all pure-wikitext template and some other modules don't error-check their arguments.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: You do not have to defend your modules, I have not asked to remove them, is you who has asked to eliminate the my ones!.

I agree with you that checking the parameters is not crucial, but it does help the user who uses it with error messages and the programmer to not have to make checks of the suitability of the parameters. Why omit an improvement? Jmarchn (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The multilingual solutions are increasing as WP projects growth and solutions can share across different projects. May be "you" don't want or accept multilingual, but WPs (even enwiki) need this kind of solutions. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Enwiki does not need this kind of code, as evidenced by the fact that it has not had it before a few days ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Beside the code itself, when you say "Enwiki does not need this kind of code", do you mean you're against evolution, againts any other language relationship or disagree the fact that english is a lingua franca to understand among WP projects ?. You should read carefully the above message from @Amire80: Amadalvarez (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the vast majority of code on the English Wikipedia is local, we still benefit from multi-project collaborations, which this seems to be a part of. While I usually would be all for a reasonable scheme to do this, I don't think the idea of creating a new system for modules from scratch with any meta discussions is the right way to do it. Right now it seems like there are two competing argument meta modules, one being literally the most transcluded page of any wiki and one that was recently created and without any major usage. I also want to note that Module:Arguments is already copied to a lot of other wikis. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not knowing how this module works, I defer to the nom's judgment. There's not too many transclusions. How does the orphaning process work, assuming delete is the result, with modules? Would you have to find a comparable module, or what you do in this case? Just the basic steps.Doug Mehus T·C 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no consensus to use this module at this point in time. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 7 December 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).

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) 00:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eurocup 2016–17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EuroCup 2017–18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single-use template, information is already included in the parent article and this is providing no linking between articles Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 28 November 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).

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) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Regular Season Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Regular Season Group B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Regular Season Group C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Regular Season Group D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Top 16 Group E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Top 16 Group F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Top 16 Group G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball Top 16 Group H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EuroCup Basketball bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Cyprus Basketball Division B League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Dutch Basketball League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Israeli Basketball Super League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 LBA table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National Basketball League (Bulgaria) season table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National Basketball League (Czech Republic) season table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's handball) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (women's handball) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 PLK season table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 November 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).

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) 23:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2015–16 Lega Pro Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 Lega Pro Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 Lega Pro Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 EFL Championship table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (sandbox)
• Template:2017–18 Luxembourg National Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 MDFA Elite Division Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Midland Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Midland Football League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Montenegrin Second League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National League North table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National League South table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 National League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 North West Counties Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 North West Counties Football League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Northern Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Northern Football League Division Two table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Northern Premier League Division One North table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Northern Premier League Division One South table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Northern Premier League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Southern Counties East Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Southern Counties East Football League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Spartan South Midlands Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Spartan South Midlands Football League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 United Counties Football League Division One table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 United Counties Football League Premier Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 North-East Third League (Bulgaria) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 North-West Third League (Bulgaria) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 South-East Third League (Bulgaria) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 South-West Third League (Bulgaria) table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY and here in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 November 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).