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 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 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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Old moves with
Template: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. –
MaterialWorks14:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
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? {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
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. –
MaterialWorks14:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X})17:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 |
contribs)
02:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MaterialWorks: this merge was previously approved, and has been stuck in
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Meta 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)reply
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)reply
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)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).