The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 February 19. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The_Bold_Barnstar (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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. It looks like there are significant technical issues, please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:RoundN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Team bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:RoundN with Module:Team bracket.
These two modules are both single elimination module, so I think we should merge these options into one module in order to manage these modules easily. Hhkohh (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the creator of RoundN, I will remark that the main barrier to merging may be the fact that the two modules organize parameters in a fundamentally different way. TeamBracket uses named parameters, while RoundN uses unnamed parameters. In terms of features, though I may be somewhat biased, RoundN does have more features overall than TeamBracket, such as automatic score bolding (via the bold_winner parameter) and multi-match rounds (via the undocumented score-boxes parameter), but one thing TeamBracket has that RoundN doesn't is direct support for seeds (though Template:RDseed is a CSS hack that could create something that looks like a seed, although it's not as clean as TeamBracket). For example, 2016–17_Austrian_Basketball_Bundesliga#Play-offs, uses RoundN and uses Template:RDseed, but the seeds aren't as clean as done by TeamBracket, though I suppose whomever implemented RoundN in this case may have been forced to use RoundN because TeamBracket doesn't support multi-match rounds (multiple scores in a single round)? Maybe someone from TeamBracket should comment as I honestly don't know that much about TeamBracket; my module was developed independently (and I'm pretty sure I didn't even know TeamBracket existed until most of the core features of RoundN were already done) —CodeHydro 14:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I generally agree with the assessment by Codehydro above with the exception that "multi-match rounds" are supported by "team bracket" as well using the currently-undocumented/soon-to-be-documented "legs/sets" feature. recent changes were made to "team bracket" to merge it with TeamBracket-tennis, which is why this feature hasn't been documented yet. it would probably be possible to have one act as a frontend for the other, but it would take a lot of work. I do like the less verbose syntax of RoundN, but converting TeamBracket templates to use the "team bracket" module is much easier since the syntax is generally the same. so, in conclusion, while this is possible, I don't think it's worth the effort until they both support all the same features (or one has a subset of the features of the other) and even then, I don't think it's worth it. one possibility would be to have them use the same templatestyles, which would make the output more consistent between the two. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a syntax comparison, I have added a version of 2016–17 Austrian Basketball Bundesliga#Play-offs in the examples in the documentation for Module:Team bracket. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Named parameters should be more welcomed than unnamed parameters because named parameters can let editors know how to use these modules quickly and easily though merging these modules will take much time Hhkohh (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template, unlike its cousin Template:COVID-19 testing by country, has not been actively updated since June. The last update was made on 6 November 2020. (I'm the author of the template, but there were many other contributors. The template uses a TemplateStyles stylesheet Template:COVID-19 testing by country subdivision/styles.css.) — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty arbitrary list of countries and states within those countries. One of the many Covid-related templates/articles that are surplus to requirement. Nigej (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not updated and should be removed as part of the large COVID-19 cleanup that needs to occur here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree some cleanup is required now. Shankargb (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are tons of unused English variety editnotices but 80 person Herm has to be a step too far. --Trialpears (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not required. Category:Wikipedia articles that use Herm English doesn't exist. Nigej (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary over-refinement. How does Herm English differ from, say, the English used in Sark, Alderney or Guernsey? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly specific. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 14 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and redundant to ((British English)). --Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See also ((English English editnotice)). Certes (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah, forgot to add. --Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Surely not required. Category:Wikipedia articles that use English English hasn't even been created. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the kind of template that encourages the over-refinement that we see for Herm, so Delete and draw the line below British English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly name but ultimately redundant, we shouldn't have this. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 14 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. If you would like all the other templates in the category to be deleted, please start a new discussion with those templates tagged as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mahlaing Township (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Author agrees with removal here. Bot created. The Banner talk 14:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively this TfD applies to all templates in this category: Category:Myanmar township templates. The Banner talk 14:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All but one of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Similar comments apply to other templates in this category. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. Certes (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Only the Mahlaing link actually takes you to somewhere in Mahlaing Township. Nigej (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost entirely red-linked templates with no realistic prospect of being populated (and the blue links are usually false positives). Shouldn't the other templates be tagged for TfD as well? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense to delete them until they can be worked on and narrowed down to the most notable settlements, just don't delete Template:Hkamti Township which has been worked on.† Encyclopædius 21:26, 10 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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) 15:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Politicians of Kavajë (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bad navbox, not compliant with WP:NAVBOX policy. The grouping principle here is simply that all of the people named in the box (only about half of whom have Wikipedia articles at all, and even a portion of the ones who do are currently up for AFD as NPOL failures) happen to have been from the same town -- but other than that, there's no obvious link between them (such as having served in the same political body). Of the five NAVBOX principles -- all articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject; the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent; there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template; if not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles -- absolutely none of them are met here at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is use appropriate for a category, not a navbox. The category exists at Category:Politicians from Kavajë. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:British barrelled name unused (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The intended function of this template violates the Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline. It serves to provide legitimate information about the topic (an example of improper use of hatnotes), rather than help the reader navigate to the article they need or assure them that they are in the right place. While all the templates in Category:Hatnote templates for names can be said to violate the guideline to some degree, this one is particularly egregious, because it introduces many pieces of distracting information that is more likely to confuse than help the reader. For example, it previously appeared at the top of the Winston Churchill article, saying: This British person has the barrelled surname Spencer Churchill (unhyphenated), but is known by the surname Churchill.

The reader already knows from the article title that the person is called Winston Churchill. Mentioning Spencer Churchill in a hatnote is confusing, and WP:EGG piping the link to a different target only makes things worse. The link to Double-barrelled name is also distracting. I have recently converted all uses of this template to footnotes following the introduction of the subjects' full name in the lead, which should better match the text's function as an explanatory note. (I was being bold; the edits can be reverted if this TfD shows consensus to be otherwise.) If a template is desired, a new one should be created making use of the footnote format, like Template:efn Chinese name. Paul_012 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A hatnote like this is too distracting for the average reader who simply wants to know about the person. For someone like Churchill it's possibly the least interesting thing about the man. See also Richard Drax where the lede provides information through a note. Nigej (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:/Subdivisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Artifact of an attempt to make articles have subpages in violation of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses point 3 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be either pointless or intending to violate policy. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 14 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Discussion bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Discussion top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Discussion bottom with Template:Discussion top.
Why have two separate templates when we could use a new parameter (foot) to set it to top or bottom? JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, in theory any two templates can be merged into one with the code ((#if:(({PARAM))}|TEMPLATE_A|TEMPLATE_B)). Template:Discussion top and Template:Discussion bottom have no code in common and therefore merging them is counterproductive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pppery, but I would support merging ((Discussion top)) into ((Archive top)) and ((Discussion bottom)) into ((Archive bottom)), though that might be more trouble than it's worth. — The Only Zac (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a clearly unnecessary merge that would disrupt common use of the templates. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge as counterproductive, and not necessary for any purpose. Techie3 (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archive bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Archive top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Archive bottom with Template:Archive top.
Why have two separate templates when we could use a new parameter (foot) to set it to top or bottom? JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, in theory any two templates can be merged into one with the code ((#if:(({PARAM))}|TEMPLATE_A|TEMPLATE_B)). Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom have no code in common and therefore merging them is counterproductive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Their function, and as Pppery said, their implentation, is different enough that merging them would be counterproductive and potentially confusing. On the other hand, I would support merging ((Discussion top)) into ((Archive top)) and ((Discussion bottom)) into ((Archive bottom)), though that also might be more trouble than it's worth. — The Only Zac (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and also on the grounds that this edit totally mixes it up. How on earth can ((Discussion bottom)) perform the same function as ((Archive top))? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That was me screwing up adding the TfD tag, which I've now fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is a clearly unnecessary merge that would disrupt common use of the templates. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all the above. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:38, 14 February 2021 (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).