Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24 edit

Template:Birth date and age 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 mostly due to a lack of example merged code demonstrating the functionality of a merged template, but please feel free renominate for merging once there is demonstration code. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Birth date and age with Template:Birth-date and age.
These templates serve the same purpose. The only difference is the format in which they take the date parameters. Since {{Birth date and age}} is use significantly more (ratio of 61:1) I feel that {{Birth-date and age}} should be merged into this. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: since {{Birth date and age}} is fully protected I was unable to tag it. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As the original programmer of the "hyphenless" template, which is used on over 450,000 pages, I worry that a premature merge could cause confusion - even consternation. What advantage would the merge do, other than eliminating an apparently extra wiki page? Are we sure that there is nothing that would go wrong if we merge the two templates? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't merge. "Birth-date and age" allows copy-pasting a dmy or mdy string into it (like 1 January 1980), which greatly speeds up (my) editing. "Birth date and age" requires typing in numbers and pipelines, which is tedious on some keyboards. Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. This template is of great value to me, as means that I can add an age to a date, without having to tediously convert a date to YYYY-MM-DD. If you do merge, please keep this function.--Auric talk 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if and only if it's possible to preserve the functionality of {{Birth-date and age}}. All arguments against merging relate to the different parameters, but it should be very possible to change {{Birth date and age}} so that it uses the one-parameter approach if one parameter is supplied and the multiple-parameter approach if more than one parameter is supplied. The additional parameters in {{Birth-date and age}} could be converted to named parameters of {{Birth date and age}}. ~ Rob13Talk 13:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I thought of a better solution. {{Birth date and age}} could be converted to a wrapper of {{Birth-date and age}} very easily and then placed in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted to keep all transclusions at {{Birth-date and age}}, which has extra functionality. We could preserve {{Birth date and age}} as a wrapper to allow editor usage to go uninterrupted while minimizing the costs of maintaining two templates at the same time. @Zackmann08, Ed Poor, Auric, and Materialscientist: Thoughts on this? It seems to address all your concerns about lost functionality and editor confusion while still helping us efficiently maintain one template instead of two. ~ Rob13Talk 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't get me wrong: I'm not implacably opposed to a merge. BUT: what sort of extensive testing regimen do you propose to make sure nothing disappoints our readers? Would we make a new template and then carefully test it on a small subset of bio pages, like a dozen or so? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would oppose that action. The hyphenated template is inferior, and does not properly emit microformat markup. Its attempt to emit Gregorian dates is utterly broken: the emitted HTML of {{Birth-date and age| 12 April 1041 |gregorian=y}} , just now, showed a Julian date of "2016-07-26UTC04:27:39" - the hours and minutes being the current UTC time but out by twelve hours. There was also a separate title attribute of "1041-04-12" - a bogus attempt to present a Julian date in ISO format. If anything, the wrapper should be applied the other way around, or indeed the hyphenated template should be replaced and deleted.
  • Oppose per my comment above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Materialscientist, Ed Poor, BU Rob13, and Pigsonthewing: I want to be clear that my suggestion to merge the templates meant to also merge the functionality! I agree that being able to include a date without converting to YYYY-MM-DD is handy. Seems like there should be a way to check the first parameter. if it is a straight integer, then treat it as a YYYY, if is not, then treat it as a date like the {{Birth-date and age}} template does. In other words, both {{birth date and age|1990|1|2}} and {{birth date and age|January 2, 1990}} should work. I am NOT proposing eliminating the ability to supply a date in the format of "January 2, 1990". --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (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:List of people who have appeared on the cover of all "Big Four" editions of Vogue 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unsourced original research. Copies the contents of the equally badly-sourced OR article List of people who have appeared on the cover of all "Big Four" editions of Vogue. Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, better to just use the list article (if that isn't OR as well). Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2016 (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:Loudr artist 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External-link template with only two transclusions after two years; red link to parent site. (note that Category:Loudr templates will be empty of this is deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 24 July 2016 (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:X-Wing series 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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:X-Wing_series (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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:Catholic mysticism 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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Catholic_mysticism (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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:KP QWP & others 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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:KP_QWP (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (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/2016_July_24&oldid=1138532882"