Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5 edit

Template:Agritourism in Europe 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agritourism in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Countries in topic template where only one link (Agritourism in Serbia) exists. OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It already has some value, and will encourage editors to take on the task of creating the other articles. I see a good deal of potential here. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and because this is all it takes to create this navbox: {{Europe topic|prefix=Agritourism in}}; it doesn't need to be put in a separate template. — Lfdder (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's useless for its intended purpose (navigation). If more articles in the same series are written, it can always be recreated.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb match3 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb match3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Brayan Jaimes (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - I think this template is less space-consuming than the other football match templates. ChryZ MUC (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.188.136 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete. If necessary, modify the template in use. --Enok (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LDSfirstpresidency 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merged Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDSfirstpresidency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LDSfirstpresidency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LDSfirstpresidencyCURRENT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LDSfpsec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These four templates all concern the First Presidency of the LDS Church and as such they end up cross sharing the same pages. I have done similar merges in the past, but not so many at once, so I just had to make some adjustments to incorporate the proper wording. Therefore I have done the coding and you can see how they would be merged together in my userspace

User:ARTEST4ECHO/sandbox2 - Examples and future documentation
User:ARTEST4ECHO/template - Actual coding

If you note, if any of the current versions can of the templates will still be available, if desired, however, I would suspect that they wont be used much. Additionally if there are any concerns or suggestion I would be willing to implement them. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge - well done and documented merge proposal. Thanks ARTEST4ECHO! --Trödel 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One template would be far superior to what currently exists. I'm not sure why Template:LDSfirstpresidencyCURRENT was created since it's only a presidency of 3. The draft is great—we could also divide First and Second Counselors, if desired, though that might make things more messy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea on dividing First and Second Counselors, and it is done. It took some work and some "choices" by me on how to list them, as a number of them had the position numerous times, but during different years and there were the "Assistant Counselors, Counselors and Third Counselors". I choose to list each time separately, like most of the other LDS Templates. However, if you (or anyone else) has a different method, I would be more then happy to address doing it that way.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good consolidation —Eustress talk 22:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it seams clear that we have a consensus and it's been over 7 days, so I completed the merge and am in the process of removing duplicated listing on pages. However, this discussion can now be closed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:16, 12 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Portal bar 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was update the portal bar template to either use the same lua module as {{portal}}, or to use the portal bar module, which ever is deemed most appropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal bar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Portal bar with Template:Portal.
Its function is similar to {{Portal}}. We can safely merge this into {{Portal}} by adding bar parameter. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • And maybe if portal wasn't fully protected someone would have already done it. — Lfdder (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Portal}} is transcluded on about 4.8 million pages - unprotecting it would not be a very good idea. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can we see a demonstration of the merged template in the sandbox? Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The code for portal bar isn't that complex so it won't be that hard to incorporate if that's what we need/want to do. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merger per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be easier to add a bar function to Module:Portal than to merge the actual templates. If we merged the templates we would need to go through and change all the {{portal bar}} invocations, but if we do the work in Module:Portal we would only have to alter Template:Portal bar itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What is the benefit? The two templates do different things. Sure, you could add a new function to portal at the cost of making it more complex and potentially messing up 4.8 million pages if you get it wrong. But assuming it is done right, everything will look the same as it is now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with you. They (should) do the same thing, but since {{Portal}} has been ported to Lua, {{Portal bar}} is obsolete. It only looks different. But let's take a look at Mr. Stradivarius' comment below. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I totally agree with Hawkeye7. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Now I understand the benefit of the merge, per Stradivarius' comment below. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've just added the relevant code to Module:Portal/sandbox. See Template:Portal bar/testcases for some example output. In reply to Hawkeye7 and Niwi3, there are a few benefits to doing this, even though the output will look mostly the same. The Lua code will be faster, and adding a bar function to the module won't have any effect on the speed of the existing portal function, as it won't be accessed when {{portal}} is called. Also, {{portal}} and {{portal bar}} share the same image-getting code, so it makes sense to have them in the same module. (Although I suppose you could just as easily use Module:Portal's image-getting code from another module.) In addition, porting the template to Lua will remove the 18-portal limit, and will prevent the template from showing an empty white box if no portals are specified. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As long as the same functionality exists in the other template, as the creator of {{Portal bar}}, I'm fine with a merger. – Maky « talk » 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per Hawkeye. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger/adding functionality (as per Mr. Stradivarius; whichever is better), with the same caveat as Maky.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per Hawkeye. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble understanding the opposes that have been added since my support comment. The code is written, working, and tested; porting {{portal bar}} to Lua increases its speed and removes the 18-portal limitation; and all we need to do to make the switch is to update Module:Portal and Template:Portal bar from their sandboxes. What is there not to like? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, Mr. Stradivarius has already made the change and it works fine, why keep opposing? The templates don't do different things; they do the same thing, only look different. Really, the only thing that Hawkeye said that's valid is that "everything will look the same as it is now".....so what's keeping us from importing the change and closing this Tfd? — Lfdder (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Mr. Stradivarius. I hope Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) will return and reconsider his position. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Module:Portal doesnt use module:navbar, but template:Portal bar does. Thats mean that a merge would let module:portal use module:navbar. The consequence is that talk pages has to be updated too when changes is made to module:navbar (because talk page banners usually use module:portal). I think the job queue is broken enough - at the moment "what links here" and category populations is delayed a few weeks... Christian75 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to hear from more experienced editors on this comment... Is it true that if a dependency of one function in Module:Portal is edited, all invocations of the module, even just to _image, must be updated? If so, what would be the advantage, if any, of splitting those functions into separate modules? -PC-XT+ 04:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge of templates and use of Mr. Stradivarius' code, though I'm watching this page in case future evidence is provided -PC-XT+ 04:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea but I cannot comment on the feasibility of correct technical implementation. I do like fewer templates with more parameters, and making the bar option a parameter in the main template seems like simplification to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the comments by User:Mr. Stradivarius. Especially since the hard part is already done. — -dainomite   01:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was thinking about Christian75's oppose, and he has a point. I don't know if the way I had written Module:Portal/sandbox would require an update of all pages using portals every time Module:Navbox is updated. But either way, it's probably best to assume that it would, as even if it doesn't, assuming that it would will make the code more robust. So I have gone ahead and created Module:Portal bar and linked Template:Portal bar/sandbox to it. I've also removed the bar function from Module:Portal/sandbox. This leaves us with the same functionality as before, but without the risk to the job queue. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Blue Rasberry.--Enok (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What will be the effect upon the articles that currently use the portal bar template within them? Will a bot be used to update the articles if the template is merged to Template:Portal? Northamerica1000(talk) 11:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I have made any stupid errors in my coding, there won't be any effect on the articles that currently use {{portal bar}}, and no bot edits will be necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reassurance I wanted. My initial opposition was based on my belief that every single page currently utilizing portal bar would have to be changed (either manually or by bot); it'd be extremely inconvenient given the number of articles I've added portal bar to. Thank you for clearing things up; I've struck out my oppose vote accordingly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translit 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Translit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Competition 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Competition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Air India FC 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Air India FC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links, all of which are already linked in the club article, diffcult to see how this is of any real use. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there was actually four links at the time of the nomination, three articles plus the club article. I've now added a link to the 2012 Durand Cup Final, which gets it up to five links and that should be enough to provide useful navigation between articles on a related subject. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but one of them is the club article which is really the title of the navbox and the list of managers is so short as to seem an unnecessary fork. Happy to withdraw if others feel differently, was not aware of the Durand Cup. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Delete: Meh, with the club out of the I-League forever and the fact that lower division football in India is non-existent (at least where Air India play it is) then ya, delete the template. It will probably get smaller anyway. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Al-Ahly Benghazi 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Al-Ahly Benghazi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links, one of which is to a section in an article already linked. Not everything needs a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and GiantSnowman. Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Phoenix FC 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phoenix FC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox being used more like infobox. Contains only five links of which two are links to sections within the main club article and one is a duplicate of the 2013 season link. Difficult to see how this is a useful navbox. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The team has been in existence for only a year and it may not be back next season. Besides, a one-season team can only gather so much data for a navbox to be useful. Even though I created it, I'll consent to it being deleted. GrouchoPython (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur with comments above. Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:F.C. New York 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F.C. New York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox being used more like infobox. Contains only six links of which two are links to sections within the main club article, one is a duplicate of the 2011 season link and one a link to the general FC New York Category page which is atthe bottom of all relevant articles anyway. Difficult to see how this is a useful navbox and as the club has now been dissolved it is difficult to see how it can be expanded in any useful way in the future. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Team no longer exists anyway.GrouchoPython (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FK AS Trenčín 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK AS Trenčín (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

contains only four links, two of which are to sections within the original club article, difficult to see how this is a useful navbox. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and GiantSnowman. Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FC Unirea Urziceni 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Unirea Urziceni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Removed one link to a non-related article. Navbox only contains four links, one of which is the club itself, one to the players category, one to an old ground and a final one to the current ground (which is alredy linked in the club article). Hard to see how this is a helpful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to be useful. GiantSnowman 09:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since the club's been dissolved and since it had only a few years in the top-flight league, I doubt someone will add more info. AquascapeAquascape 13:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Giant Snowman....William 12:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and GiantSnowman. Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb federation Hungary 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb federation Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Brayan Jaimes (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 5 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_5&oldid=1138534698"