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 do not merge. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Helpbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Helpbox with Template:Sidebar.
Helpbox template seems to be type of sidebar. Why not let actual helpboxes be using sidebar without the indirect path? Significant templates which aim to help Wikipedia are already employing the standard sidebar, such as Template:Style. Shouldn't Template:Sidebar be able to offer more minimalist uses, such as we could imagine that Template:Helpbox was originally created for? PPEMES (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template:Helpbox is already a wrapper for Template:Sidebar. I'm open to reconsidering, but, to the extent we want sidebars in project/help space to have a consistent appearance, the wrapper is useful, no? --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, better to keep helpbox as a wrapper per above. I could see writing a simple lua frontend that translates the parameters, but there is really no need to merge these. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was do not merge. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sidebar timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sidebar timeline with Template:Sidebar.
While essentially seeming like an expression of a collapsible header as seen in Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists, which is below nominated for merge with Template:Sidebar. PPEMES (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, the format from ((sidebar timeline)) is more similar to ((infobox)) (label/data two column). it would easier to write a simple lua frontend that translates the parameters for module:infobox. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree Those two templates have very different usages. Template:Sidebar timeline is more related to Template: Graphical timeline, but in plain form. Timbaaa (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was oppose. As pointed out in the discussion, both templates call Module:Sidebar, so it appears they are effectively already merged. Feel free to continue the discussion at Module talk:Sidebar if you think there is more to do here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists with Template:Sidebar.
Has the time come to finally consider merging these two into on and the same, offering the different layouts that could be and should be used (in a standardised way) in one and the same template? There seems to be rather a mess around these two templates. Here is one example of a template which uses "with collapsible lists" without actually having collapsible lists: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Navigation. Finally Template:Sidebar could offer both non-collapsible (default) and collapsible (alternate) headers. The collapsible headers could of course be used for timeline contents (please see specific mere nomination for that above). PPEMES (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPEMES, have you looked at the code for both of these templates? Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not too much. But they seem to produce similar result. Shouldn't there be a way to merge them, with optional styles of headers with in it, being either collapsible or not according to preference? PPEMES (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPEMES, please look at the source for Sidebar with collapsible lists and Sidebar. I don't see how there is anything to do here. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not needed - I don't see a reason why these templates need merging, and there would likely be no harm in keeping them separate (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Though a switch to the collapsible version should be done if the amount of links in a list becomes fairly large, but that can easily be done by adding the "with collapsible lists" to the end of the template name and the respective variables. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I also went through and corrected that example. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 02:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Disagree Not required. Template works very well and the proposed merger lacks strong reasoning and logic. --Shawnqual (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Needed: In Wikipedia, we are bothered with too much ambiguities and multiple rules and ifs and buts. Apply "a". No, apply "b. You may apply both, either or neither. But then you may have the choice of not applying if you prefer not to. The requester of this thread made it clear. Just unify the format and let's all follow it. One less rule if you ask me. werldwayd (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not needed - They seem to work okay as they are. This idea that these are a "mess" would seem to be about subjective aesthetics. Teishin (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• tentative agree- what does the Sidebar offer that Sidebar_with_collapsible_lists does not. From a quick look sidebar seems 100% redundant.198.151.8.4 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not needed - These too templates work fine separately. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not needed: per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have enough technical expertise to !vote here, although I do strongly support the general idea that consolidation has value (WP:INFOCOL). However, I do want to note that having every single infobox with consolidated lists tagged while this discussion takes place is very disruptive, and I hope this conversation is resolved quickly one way or the other so it can be removed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per above discussion. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree 100% with Sdkb. Consolidation is valuable, yes. Infobox tags are disruptive, yes. Please solve these type of technical matters sooner rather than later. And when in doubt, remember what CanonLawJunkie just said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Thank you, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 12:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:LotR casts navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has 3 (relevant) links but even with this small set, it's still only used on one of them, with seemingly no intention from either the GA or the FA articles to use it, which renders it pointless. ((The Lord of the Rings)) which is used on those articles already links between these articles, and anything else can be done by a see also hatnote if needed/wanted. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm gonna have to agree with deletion on this one. It's not really used in the articles it could serve, and there's no interest in adding them for a good reason. There's just no strong connection between the productions of the three productions. The Bakshi film was an influence on Jackson's trilogy, but there's no direct connection between the productions other than subject matter, so I don't really see a navigational purpose in connecting them together. Hog Farm (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bye-oly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of ((Bye)); the only different is the text size. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. PPEMES (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merging would be useless -- they're already practically identical! --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:N/a-oly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of ((N/a)); the only different is the text size. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. PPEMES (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merging would be useless -- they're already practically identical! --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Proposal withdrawn. This template still serves a purpose according to discussion elsewhere. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rukum District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Housekeeping; Rukum District has been split into East Rukum and West Rukum, and those templates have replaced this one. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 02:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pegship, the Village Development Committee articles and the district article should/will be kept. This template should be useful to link them together. The VDCs were subdivisions of the Rukum district, not of east or west Rukum; so I don't think the usefulness of this template is over. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, you have more experience in Nepal's geography than I; however, I've re-sorted every Rukum District populated place article into East and West Rukum according to their given coordinates. If I'm wrong, perhaps we should discuss the VDCs on my/your talk pages. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 04:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Pegship, I have started a discussion at the TFD notice at WT:WikiProject Nepal. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have made some chenging on the Template:Rukum District and I think now it can be remained on Wikipedia. If you don't like the changing on the template, you can revert it. --- 👤Raju💌 14:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw proposal per discussion at WT:WikiProject Nepal. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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