Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 4

4 March 2019

Module:String2

Module:String2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There clearly is consensus to merge here. Even treating RexxS as opposing the nomination and discounting Gonnym's support !vote as based on a conditional that cannot come to be (Module:String is used on the main page, so it has to be fully-protected), it's still a 3:1 majority in favor of merging with neither side presenting substantially better arguments (No clear policy I am aware of exists either way on template consolidation vs. having separate templates for the sake of lower protection levels). Overturn to merge all {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the other !voters: @BrandonXLF and Kraose: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Closer comment per WP:NOTVOTE: So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians are unaware of this convention and use "!vote" to refer to their actual votes, which can cause confusion, though votes are 3:1, Kraose raised no concern. But why Kraose and Pppery did not answer RexxS the last question: I assume that whoever performs the merger will clean up all of the #invokes that will break?? Hhkohh (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See also my talk page where RexxS left a message before DRV Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's usually assumed that whoever executes a TfD deals with any transclusions of a template (or in this case module) before deleting it. I didn't answer that because it wasn't a clear question. As I said, the merits of keeping templates seperate for protection level reasons aren't codified in any broad consensus, but the fact that BrandonXLF and Kraose supported the merge even though that point had already been brought up earlier demonstrates to me that the participants in that discussion did not agree with it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with drawing conclusions like that. It's perfectly possible that the other contributors didn't think that the issue would pose a problem and that the protection level could be lowered; no doubt if they are bothered, they will tell us. As it turns out, the protection level can't be lowered because Module:String is transcluded onto the Main page and is therefore cascade-protected against editing by a template editor. It looks like the side effect of this merge will be to prevent template editors from maintaining the code as they used to. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse this is a difficult DRV from my point of view, but I don't see anything wrong with the close. The advancement for merging was "not necessary," and while this was supported by everyone except one of the template creators, Gonnym and RexxS brought up a significant concern with the merge that wasn't rebutted by the other support !voters. This needed to be accounted for by the closer, and I feel as if overturning this on consensus grounds would create problems, especially since the consensus seems light generally due to relatively low participation. I have no problems if someone proposes an alternative solution to this merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)