- 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 redirect to Template:Adjacent communities. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:NeighbouringCommunities with Template:Adjacent communities.
NeighbouringCommunities is pretty much the exact same as Adjacent communities, just with a different compass. We could put an option in Adjacent communities to change the text at the center to some other text or picture, to fully match and integrate NeighbouringCommunities. TL;DR, almost the same template. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment "Adjacent communities" appears to include the "current" community, while "NeighbouringCommunities" excludes the "current" community. A merger will need to ignore the "current" community when using the compass rose instead of the arrows. I suggest that "Adjacent communities" is the better name. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by what you mean here. Do you mean that NeighbouringCommunities doesn't necessarily refer to the present-day communities, whereas Adjacent communities does? Sorry, I'm just slightly confused here! ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 14:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "current" meaning the community in question, not a temporal judgement. One of the includes the community in question, while the other template omits the community in question and replaces it with a compass rose. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the TfD tag to ((Adjacent communities)). Elli (talk | contribs) 09:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree to merge. "No-brainer", same thing. Redirect NeighbouringCommunities to Adjacent communities, as this one is better and far more used. I would suggest to have the compass rose or picture in NeighbouringCommunities just changed to pagename by default. The use of decorative images in such templates is discouraged after all. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, one is a simple frontend for the other, so merging should be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 19 May 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).
Template:Float right
- 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) 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard to align tables to the right with the floatright class. This template is broadly similar but picks a different value for the margin. It has very little use (359 translusions) considering how many articles use a right-aligned table. For the sake of consistency in styling and markup, this should be deleted and replaced with the class="floatright" class on tables that are using it (and substed anywhere that isn't appropriate). User:GKFXtalk 21:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is a set of three templates, including Template:Float center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if these are deleted, then a
floatleft class (and floatcenter) should be generated. These can be used for other things other than literal tabular data tables. And used in places other than mainspace, so the restriction on articles does not apply, if you're using it in a discussion, or to format your userpage. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a
floatleft class. "Float center" is a terrible name because you can't float something into the center - that template works by setting left and right margins to auto. User:GKFXtalk 16:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The floatleft/floatright classes may be removed from MediaWiki at some point in the future. Do not rely on their continued existence for choices like choosing to float something left or right. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If these classes are going to be removed, shouldn't the templates remain as subst-only templates? -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, subst and delete. We do not need templates of this sort. TemplateStyles should be employed for non-substed cases and inline styles are reasonable for substed cases. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally rather go through with AWB and make the articles use floatright.Done in mainspace, subst the rest. Unless there's a specific proposal you're referring to, it doesn't seem remotely likely that those two classes will ever be removed from this wiki as they are the standard, documented method of doing it. User:GKFXtalk 17:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- phab:T78176. I don't say things idly. :) Izno (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added float center: although it's not strictly redundant to anything, it has a tiny amount of use and is better off substed. User:GKFXtalk 17:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- delete after substitution. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 19 May 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).
Template:2006–07 Women's National Cricket League table
Template:Early vehicles pwr
- 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 after substituting. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been already added to Power-to-weight ratio Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: am preparing for use in [[Power-to-weight-ratio}]] along with several other, similar templates. Lfstevens (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, suggesting move to subpage or subst-delete. Casspedia (talk) 18:40, 15 May 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 relisted on 2021 May 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 29 May 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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Random article with Template:Random page in category.
((Random article)) is nearly identical to ((Random page in category)). ((Random article)), however, uses a tool that displays an error when opened and only has 6 total transclusions. I propose we merge ((Random article)) into the far popular ((Random page in category)) to avoid using a non-functional toolforge link. TGHL ↗ 22:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I created the article when I was translating and importing portals from German Wikipedia. It's a transalation of de:Vorlage:Zufälliger Artikel. The idea was to generate random articles from a category for the portal to keep it 'fresh', so it's a portal tool if you like. I have no problem merging this provided the new template can generate the same effect. Bermicourt (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose merge as it stands, as ((Random article)) explicitly gets a random article from
a specified category and its subcategories
. ((Random page in category)) only works on the category (and not subcategories). This would cause issues on categories such as Category:Anime which the link should give any random anime related article, instead of one of the currently four articles which are present in the category. As ((Random page in category)) uses an external tool which does not allow subcategory inclusion this means the behaviour cannot be merged. Although ((Random article)) isn't working, simply merging won't keep current intended behavior. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for same reasons as Dreamy Jazz. Casspedia (talk) 17:52, 20 May 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).