Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 22

 &lt; July 21 July 23 &gt;

Template:Element cell/index/element-navigation/doc

 * 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) 15:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Unused documentation page. The parent page uses a different template page's doc page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Element cell/index/element-navigation/doc
 * Element cell/index/pt-cell/format/doc
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Those templates' parent templates use a combined doc page so these are unused. Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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:Element cell/index

 * 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) 14:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) No transclusions, categories, or documentation. Created by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Element cell/index
 * Element cell/elconfig
 * Element cell-compact/try2
 * Element cell-1/Z-to-symbol
 * Element cell-1/PT extended
 * Element cell-1/PT 32-col
 * Element cell-1/PT 18-col
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete all as unused. Some have been unused for at least 4 years. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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:Old moves

 * 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 merge to Template:Old moves. If it is easier to first merge into Template:Old move, feel free to do that as the final result can always be moved to the "old moves" name. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Old moves with Template:Old move.
 * Old moves
 * Old move

Old move was originally set to be merged with this template following a TfD discussion. The rationale for such merge was that Old move is redundant and only supports listing one move discussion. It was also proposed that Old moves be rebuilt to use Lua.

However, since then, Old move was instead the one which received the upgrade to Lua, which brought it close to functionality with Old moves. So, I propose that this template be merged into Old move instead.

Old move allows move discussions to be listed in a more standard way, instead of making editors fill the list manually. It has 14x the transclusions that Old moves has. The features that Old moves has but Old move doesn't have, like listing move reviews, allowing discussions to be collapsed, and listing move logs, shouldn't be too hard to implement in Lua, and make the merge simpler to perform. – Material  Works  14:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging the non-banned and non-anon participants of the first TfD and the subsequent discussion in Template_talk:Old_move: –  Material  Works  14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Given that this merger proposal already passed TfD (and fundamentally isn't controversial), I don't think we really need to have another one — feel free to just move forward with implementation. The main thing to discuss is just how this ended up falling off the agenda and never getting implemented, and whether there are others in a similar situation. It may be worth checking to see if any other templates have also been tagged with "being merged" for longer than a year. Would that be possible? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this is changing the merge target (plural name to singular, instead of this reverse,) I think it counts as a controversial change, so I think having another TfD is better than boldly doing it. As for the other templates in holding cell limbo, while I support giving them a look, someone else should do that, since I'm only familiar with this set of templates. – Material  Works  14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If any merge happens, then it should be Template:Old move that is merged into Template:Old moves. And I am concerned about losing some of the flexibility that the Template:Old moves allows for, like also listing WP:Move Reviews, WP:RFCs about article titles, and older move discussions that weren't an official WP: Requested Move. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * However it'll be implemented, I'm certain the merged template will be just as flexible. SWinxy (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is genuinely the case, then I don't object to the merger. But I still think the plural version is the one that should survive the merger. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merging, but prefer merging into Old moves. The plural term seems to me as the more obvious and unambiguous choice than Old move. Tim (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a merge, given no lack of functionality (we don't need two templates here). No opinion as to which title would be better. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  06:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge, don't think the target title is particularly crucial here. CMD (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I can't see much point in having 2 templates when the singular is just less detailed, things like Old XfD multi already deal with singular and plural usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge to Old moves as more appropriate title, provided that no functionality is lost. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if it is easier to merge the stuffs into old move, the editor may do just that, and a subsequent move discussion can determine what the final stable title should be. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support assuming all functionality that is currently in use is preserved. No preference for the target. MarioGom (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Since function parity is part of the proposal, I agree with others that the target title doesn't matter too much, and have no preference either way. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 04:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest SNOW CLOSE? - there's clear cut consensus here and agree with all the points made. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 19:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of discussion isn't the sort of thing that should be SNOW closed in support, especially as there isn't a super clear consensus as to which template should be merged to. There's no huge urgency here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I would prefer a plural in the template title fwiw. SWinxy (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merging as proposed (though I would prefer moving Template:Old move to Template:Old moves following the merger). Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 04:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge in either direction. My preference would be to have Old moves be the merge target, but I think the merge is undoubtedly helpful either way. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * this merge was previously approved, and has been stuck in Templates for discussion/Holding cell since November 2020. You don't really need to ask for permission to implement this merge again, just do it, while being careful not to break anything in the process (i.e., use sandboxes). Note from my 19:12, 12 May 2022 comments in the implementation discussion that I consider this a low-priority project, so would personally be unlikely to make time to do this anytime soon, even if I were more fluent with coding Lua modules. The problem is that the original proposer abandoned the project. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for permission to implement the merge, I'm looking to get a consensus on what the merge target should be. – Material  Works  10:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That question is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter. We have a consensus that the behavior of both should be identical, and that no current features of either will be lost in the merged template. We can just do page swaps if necessary. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I was the one who created the module version back in 2020 with the intention of performing the merger myself. What I realized in the process was how difficult it can be to convert a free form text with no standard format into the required format. My advise would be to not try a pure regex solution which was what I did, it's just too complex. My first thoght now is an AWB module, but there may be better solutions. The module will require some significant upgrades to support collapsing and MRV which I may be able to help with if you want. --Trialpears (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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).