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 March 1. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:? (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 move to the relevant sandbox locations. I believe off the cuff those places are probably Module:Sandbox/Diriector Doc/Number format and User:Diriector_Doc/Sandbox/Number format, for the module and template respectively. Doc can take care of them from there. There's a general opinion that this is not needed at this time. Izno (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Number format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Number format (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every single page that uses this template either passes it a hard-coded value (in which case there's no point in using this template, just hardcode the result), or uses it in a way that is redundant to the formatnum parser function, or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although its usage makes it seem like it's a copy of the parser function, I assure you it does more than what the parser function does. To like off a few, it lets you control what the radix point is; it lets you control what the separators are. I understand that ((formatnum)) will automatically format a number based on locale, but it does not give you control of the format. ((number format)) gives you absolute freedom of how you format your numbers.

Additionally, when removing all the formatting, ((number format)) will remove all non-number characters while ((formatnum)) will leave all of them uncounched. So, if you want just the number part of a string, andy string, ((formatnum)) is not a viable option.

This template is not redundant. It may have a similar effect, but it allows for things that the parser function does not. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this template, in theory, can do more than what the parser function does. In practice, however, none of that functionality is being used by any pages, so the template still turns out to be redundant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its usage does not determine its functionality. The template is not redundant in the same way ((Sum)) is not a redundant copy of ((#expr)). Every instance of ((Sum)) can be replaced with ((#expr)), but there are advantages to using the template. Additionally, we already agreed that ((#expr)) has different functionality. Just because the extra functionality is not widely used, how does that make it redundant? --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 04:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example, because I think ((sum)) is a redundant copy of #expr. Anyway, if the additional functionality of ((number format)) were only not widely used, then I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion in the first place, however it's actually not used at all, and deleting unused templates is a well-established practice at TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleting unused templates is a well-established practice at TfD. I'm sure it is. The template itself is not unused, however. Let's looks at the two factors separately:

1. A template should be deleted if it is unused.
2. A template should be deleted if it is redundant.

Is it unused? No. There are pages that use it; we agree on this. Is it redundant? No. This template has a function that the proposed "copy" does not have; we are both aware of these functions. Unless there is a criterion I am missing, this template does not comply with the deletion policy. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 16:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be a clever template looking for an application. All the complexity is unused, making it redundant. Leaving such templates lying around waiting for some to use them is not a good idea, just creates extra maintenance. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining this before the relisting, but redundancy and lack of use are two separate criteria. Yes, part of this template does a similar thing to a parser function. Similar, but not identical (see above table). Not only that, the rest of the template has a different function, so it's not redundant. There are also a number of pages that use this template. From what I see, pages should lean more towards templates over parser functions anyway. And considering the pages that use this template, and the Help pages that legitimately recommends the use of this template, I fail to see how this template can be considered "unused." Simply saying "Well, part of this is unused, so that makes it redundant," is not how you should address it. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it used in mainspace? I can only find it in a few user articles. Anyway, it seems to me that we can easily do without it, hence it is reductant. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are parser functions used in mainspace? No, templates are. I could also argue that we can do without many specific templates, but that's not what redundant means. If something is redundant, it does the exact same thing as something else. This template and the parse function do different things (once again, see table) --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 21:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, redundant in this context means: surplus to requirement, something we can do without without noticing the difference. Nigej (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's one way of looking at it, but just because it has a similar use, does not mean it has the same use. They do similar things, yes, but they are distinct in function. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 03:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Merge. I'm torn on this, because Diriector Doc's central argument is correct. Restated: We do not delete templates simply because they are wrappers for less user-friendly code. Such templates are in fact desirable. (And that editor's secondary argument, that "unused" and "redundant" are severable criteria, is also correct). However, I think Pppery and Nigej are correct that despite the potential "fancy" uses of this template, it is not actually being used that way. So it does not appear to be currently needed, specifically to provide those functions. However, the fact that it can simply behave as a wrapper for a parser function makes that a reason for keeping it, at least that aspect of it. Then there's the fact that some of what it does is already done by another template. So, the more and more obvious solution to me is to merge it into that other template, which is more-used anyway. The extra features provided would see use over time, being in a "standard" template instead of something new that no one knows about. In any event, if not kept, it should be re-userspaced, since the author of it may have some use for it. One option might be to move the current fancy-pants code to a user sandbox and reduce the Template/Module-namespaces version to a wrapper for the function. Honestly, I don't think it's any kind of a big deal to keep a template around that can do potentially useful stuff; if it's pretty new and is reasonably documented, people are likely to use it over time. Every template/module is basically unused when it is new. PS: For cases where someone is just feeding it a hard-coded value and the template's not actually doing anything, just remove the template in those cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC); corrected: 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMcCandlish when you say merge it into that other template, which is more-used anyway what is that other template? as far as I can tell, ((formatnum)) isn't another template (issues an error message when used) and ((formatnum:)) is a parserfunction. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind; I mis-read the discussion. I thought there was another template making use of the formatnum parser function, but the discussion had shifted to one using the #expr parser function; obviously merging them wouldn't make sense. My bad. That's what I get for skimming instead of poring over a thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• move back to "userspace" until there is a clear need for this module. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 12 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. Izno (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Conflicts in the War on drugs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The war on drugs is not a real "war" or conflict per se, and there is no "campaign" that necessitates a campaignbox. In addition, several conflicts listed in here (ex., in Paraguay) have little to do with a "war on drugs." There is no coordinated, militarized war being fought on several fronts, but a series of drug policies of several countries. No campaignbox is necessary. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3D8C:B4:93BE:7248 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - Basically unconnected conflicts, some only loosely related to the "War on drugs". Nigej (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Same person as original IP poster)Is there a way to speedy delete this template? There doesn't seem to be much discussion. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:2152:CD3B:DF53:5FD8 (talk) 05:57, 22 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).