Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23 edit

Template:Wizarding World edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. Numerically close, but many of the keep !voters did not substantially address the delete arguments. A key argument of the "keep" !voters is that "Wizarding World" is a distinct subject from "Harry Potter", and so there should be a seperate navbox for it; this did not really counter the arguments by the "delete" !voters that in reality, the navbox for "Wizarding World" only has 2 or 3 links that were not present in the navbox for "Harry Potter". (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as substantial duplication under WP:CSD#T3. There are only two additional links here that could easily be incorporated into {{Harry Potter}}. With two navboxes transcluded on to nearly all of the articles this just causes clutter, as one navbox will suffice. --woodensuperman 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This isn't the place for speedy deletions, and it was already turned down for G3. -- AlexTW 13:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for it being "turned down" was that it was "in use", which is not a reason to decline a speedy. Removal of the template from all the articles first would have been reverted. So we are left with a bit of a chicken and egg situation really - I'm not sure if the editor removing the notice read the talk page - no evidence of this from the diff above. Anyway, the rationale for the speedy delete is still valid, and there's nothing to stop me from nominating here with this rationale as a reason for deletion. --woodensuperman 13:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, based on the articles, Wizarding World is the franchise and fictional shared universe of which Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts are components. These navboxes therefore are distinct, as it might not be appropriate to put a Harry Potter navbox on a subject that is Wizarding World but not Harry Potter. On the other hand, it might be, and if so, (secondly) a merge discussion should be initiated instead. But typically one merges a broader subject into a narrower one, as Wizarding World is the broader subject and Harry Potter the narrower component subject, it is probably Template:Wizarding World that should be kept and Template:Harry Potter that should be merged into it. Thirdly, speedy deletion is not appropriate here. WP:CSD#T3 applies to "substantial duplications" or "hardcoded instances of another template." That refers to the actual design, not templates with overlapping purposes. In particular, because this discussion is ongoing, and there is dissent, speedy deletion should not be initiated. --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong I'm afraid, there absolutely is substantial duplication, and they are not distinct, there is enormous overlap and this navbox performs exactly the same navigational function as the other save for two links. The only merge necessary would be these two links, which absolutely should happen to avoid having two navboxes when one would suffice. --woodensuperman 08:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're wrong. Deleting this helps no one and just because they share some links that doesn't mean that both of them have to be merged.★Trekker (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try to illustrate substantial duplication. Two baskets of fruit: one has 10 oranges and one has 9 oranges. These might be substantial duplicates. Two other baskets of fruit: one has 5 oranges and one has 5 oranges, 4 apples, and a pineapple. Even though both contain the same number of oranges, they are not substantial duplicates.
    A Wikipedia example. You may be familiar with Template:Archive box. You may also know that Template:Talk header contains a feature to show an archive pages list a search box too, just like Template:Archive box. But they are not substantial duplicates, and Template:Archive box would not be subject to speedy deletion under criterion T3. Of course, that doesn't mean that a TFD would not be appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CSD#T3 states that it applies when "the same functionality could be provided by that other template". The same functionality is already provided by {{Harry Potter}}, rendering this template redundant. --woodensuperman 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be arbitrarily truncating the guideline to suggest it says something it does not. The full phrase is "hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template." That's not what this is, right? --Bsherr (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a substantial duplicate because if you take away the three Fantastic Beasts links then Template:Wizarding World becomes essentially just a smaller version of Template:Harry Potter. Those are the only additions to this template that aren't already in Template:Harry Potter. It's not really about how "distinct" these templates are, but about how little one template adds to another hence the deletion arguments. Considering how much is shared between these two templates (Harry Potter video games, films, attractions, music, stage plays), any reader who takes a close look at both templates (where both templates are being used) will notice that which can actually confuse some readers too (especially those mostly unknowledgeable about the subject area) when they want to find out more about Wizarding World only to see it's mostly Harry Potter pages they've already read. Nobody whose familiar with the subject and understands they're a shared universe is going to ask "Why doesn't Wizarding World have its own template?" —Mythdon 02:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But Mythdon, you're not arguing that makes it eligible under the speedy deletion criterion, right? --Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that matters so much considering this template is already being discussed, so arguing whether it's CSD is arguing semantics, and I doubt it would've been CSD'd considering the amount of keep arguments, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. —Mythdon 01:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging any such links as are natural to Template:Harry Potter. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Harry Potter template is huge already, there is not legitimate reason to delete this that remotly helps anyone.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should keep what is basically the same template but with two different links, which is also similarly large, on every Harry Potter page, as well as the Harry Potter template? :) --Izno (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. For example, Fantastic Beasts, which is in Wizarding World but not Harry Potter, should probably not have the Harry Potter navbox, and indeed it doesn't. It may be the case that the Harry Potter template should be scaled down. It may also be the case that the Wizarding World navbox should not be used on articles that have the Harry Potter navbox. None of these are reasons to delete Wizarding World, though. --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After changing my mind a few times, I've come to the conclusion: Delete. The central issue is really that {{Harry Potter}} should be split into several templates—I would say {{Harry Potter}} (books and films, and the links in the group headings currently there), {{Harry Potter universe}} (characters and places), {{Harry Potter derivative works}} (Fantastic Beasts, video games), {{Harry Potter attractions}} (attractions and exhibitions) and {{Harry Potter in the real world}} (fandom and what's currently under "Related"). Just a rough sketch, but the pertinent points are (a) this needs a discussion about {{Harry Potter}} somewhere else and (b) {{Wizarding World}} does nothing to help the splitting up of {{Harry Potter}}. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: these templates bear much the same relationship to each other as {{Middle-earth}} and {{J. R. R. Tolkien}} and other sets of related templates. It's far simpler to have two similar and relatively simple templates to perform two similar jobs than to laboriously construct one complicated template to cover both. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the same situation though. The Tolkien/Middle-earth navboxes are distinct, where as this is just a subset of the other one. The parallel you're drawing is more akin to {{J. K. Rowling}} and {{Harry Potter}}. --woodensuperman 15:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Bilorv and others. if there is a problem with the main template being too large, then we should consider splitting that one, but this one is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bsherr. Wizarding World is a franchise, or a name, for all fantasy books of J.K Rowling. So, why should a Harry Potter navbox be put on Wizarding World, when they are different subjects... Knightrises10 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they aren't different subjects, more or less. They are deeply interconnected, and having two templates on exactly the same content is subsequently bad for our articles. --Izno (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name on the {{Middle-earth}} template is listed as "Tolkien's legendarium" (which goes beyond the Middle-earth franchise proper). If this template is going to be merged to {{Harry Potter}}, should the name be changed to the "Wizarding World", too? Chihciboy (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The page name of the template is mostly immaterial. You can change the title of the navbox trivially. --Izno (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus but the last relist is better in this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as this template is mostly a copy of Template:Harry Potter. The Fantastic Beasts links can incorporated into the Harry Potter template, and after that, the Harry Potter template could easily be reworked to represent both franchises (maybe downsize the Harry Potter template a bit to make room for more things Fantastic Beasts since it's already so big). I also think Template:Harry Potter should be moved to Template:Wizarding World if the latter gets deleted. —Mythdon 01:44, 24 September 2018 (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).

Module:Other uses2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext (Wikitext version: {{other uses|{{{1}}}|{{{1}}} (disambiguation)}}) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2018‎

  • Strong keep. This is an intentional design: none of the hatnote templates directly rely on one another by using separate modules this way; all code reuse happens in Lua. That makes it easier to generalize about the secondary effects of making a change to one of these templates or modules; it's a maintenance benefit. Moreover, using mHatnote.disambiguate() is cleaner than hard-coding "{{{1}}} (disambiguation)". I'm the sole author to date of this module and a major author among hatnote modules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be objectionable to expose a function in Module:Hatnotes for Other uses2 instead of making really small modules? --Izno (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely not use Module:Hatnote specifically, but the approach of merging a bunch of small "extension" modules into a single group module otherwise seems okay. It might be needless, but it's certainly not bad. If the "grouped" module had lots of total transclusions (invocations), then I could see it being a problem that updates to one function would trigger re-renders for many pages not using that function. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I wonder if that's how that really works. I'd be a bit surprised if unrelated functions caused re-renders. Is that documented somewhere? --Izno (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming that modules work the same way templates do for this: any change invalidates the cached render of all pages transcluding/invoking it. If someone can show that Scribunto does analysis to selectively invalidate stuff, then I'd be glad to be corrected. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (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:2018 European Athletics Championships Schedule edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2018 October 1. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2018 (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:Documentation other edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. The <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags on the /doc subpages already prevent the categories from displaying on the /doc itself. All this template does is force the user to type out extra nonsense. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - template is barely used as is and as the nominator mentioned, includeonly serves this same purpose. —Mythdon 01:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Primefac and Mythdon: It can be used in templates that categorize pages, so they don't categorize documentation pages. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 03:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, clearly not needed, or it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete why we need this? Hhkohh (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (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:Groupe parlementaire québécois MPs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template is no longer used following the dissolution of Québec debout (formerly Groupe parlementaire québécois). Since all remaining QD members listed in the template rejoined the Bloc Québécois there is no likelihood of it being used again in the future. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Mythdon 01:32, 24 September 2018 (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:The Biggest Loser/rankingrow edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used mainly on the talk pages while the show was still airing (such as here). At present, this template's sole purpose is to rank information that's already included in some form on each of the respective season articles. Since the show has (apparently) been cancelled, it'll no longer be used on the talk pages of any future seasons, and its current use adds nothing to the main page that isn't already included in the season's pages. Templating this information is entirely unnecessary to the upkeep of the subject area. Delete. —Mythdon (Talk) 09:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add the color subpage as well. --Izno (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Delete that too as that template's usefulness is determinant on the existence of the other template. —Mythdon 02:34, 24 September 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_23&oldid=862175579"