Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 7 October 9 >

October 8 edit

Template:Bank Asya 1.League clubs 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 ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused.Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 8 October 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:Aviation accidents and incidents/Colour 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) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 8 October 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).

Unused meta/color and meta/shortname templates 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Canarian Independent Groups/meta/shortname template is in use. I boldy reverted the deletion template from it but it was reverted and I was sent here to "argue" it. Since the reasoning for its removal is that it is not in use despite it being indeed in use (check it here or here) it's obvious it doesn't meet such a requirement and should, thus, be preserved. Impru20 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
now removed from the list. but you could have been more honest as to why it's now in use [1][2] rather than trying to gaslight. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 10 October 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:Game log talk 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. Valid rationale, no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this was partially useful before all the individual "year team season game log" templates were merged with articles. now, that the templates have been merged, this notice is pointless. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 8 October 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:Egyptian Second Division seasons 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 soft delete, though the content is duplicated in {{Egyptian Second Division}} so I don't see why a REFUND would be necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and unused. Ben5218 (talk) 12:55, 8 October 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:Fb team Haras El-Hodood 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 redirect as a valid alternate spelling of the team name. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. There's already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Haras El Hodoud). A delete or a redirect to the other template could work. Ben5218 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, these templates are already generally deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 9 October 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:Fb team Police Union 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 redirect as a valid alternate name for the team. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. There's already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Ittihad El Shorta). A delete or a redirect to the other template could work. Ben5218 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, these templates are already generally deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 9 October 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:Fb team Abu Qirqas 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. I created a workaround, so the existence of a team name template is unnecessary now. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. As the club doesn't have an article on Wikipedia there's no use of it. Ben5218 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, these templates are already generally deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment I'm leaving this discussion open for the moment because if the template is deleted it will break the results table that it's currently found in: specifically {{Fb r header}} and {{Fb r header/team}}. I'm looking into a workaround but (go figure) the fb suite of templates are unnecessarily convoluted. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 16 October 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:Fb team Masry 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) Primefac (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. There's already a template for this club (Template:Fb team Al-Masry). A delete or a redirect to the other template could work. Ben5218 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, these templates are already generally deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 9 October 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:R to article without mention 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could in any way be useful apart from the exception already mentioned, which recommend use of the other template anyway ({{R typo}} and {{R from unsuitable title}}) . Over at RfD, it is common for redirects that are eligible for this criteria to be unanimously deleted because they lead to the reader with no information on what they are looking for if they have no mention of the search term. See WP:R#DELETE 10. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. The template's purpose is to segregate these redirects into Category:Redirects to an article without mention where they can either be corrected by editing the target article to include mention of the redirected subject or by changing the redirect's target to another article where the subject is mentioned. When either of these corrections are accomplished, the redirect gets re-tagged with other {{rcats}} and removed from this category, when it can not be corrected, it gets tagged for deletion as an implausible redirect. Don't confuse the usefulness of this template with the uselessness of the redirects it is purposed to correct.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained above by John Cline. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category is useful to keep track of these redirects, if nothing else than to find redirects to nominate at RFD. As long as it is populated, I see no pressing need to delete this. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 9 October 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:Official URL 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 to merge. There's substantial disagreement over the technical aspects of the merge. Those would need to be resolved before I could find consensus, but there's been no headway. ~ Rob13Talk 22:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Official URL with Template:URL.
{{Official URL}} fetches a value from Wikidata and passes it to {{URL}}. Their functions should be combined. As with other templates fetching values from Wikidata, the local value, if present, should have precedence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Template talk:URL § Edit request for importing URL from Wikidata. Separation of concerns in programming is a proven paradigm. Merging them was tried before and was contested by me because if someone inserted {{url|http://www.example.com/?query=value}} on Microsoft article, the result would have been microsoft.com, which confuses everyone except the elite. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that was the case, then the code was at fault and needs to be fixed. A separate template is not the answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It cannot be fixed. That's how things are in Wikipedia. We can alleviate things at the article level by inserting "1=", but that's after the user was caught by the inexplicable surprise behavior. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would make more sense to have the {{URL|1={{{website}}}}} incorporated into the infobox templates and have this template avoid using {{URL}}. Instead of using |website={{Official URL}} or having the infoboxes always pull in official website (P856) via {{#property:P856}}, we could have a sentinel value, perhaps something like |website=Official-URL and conditionally pull Wikidata based on that (via something like {{URL|1={{#ifeq:Official-URL|{{{website}}}|{{#property:P856}}|{{{website}}}}}}} of course defaulting to using the Wikidata when the parameter is empty/undefined also works well). This would allow this template to die (but it would be need to be implemented in all the infoboxes currently using this template). I am not sure it is worth it (this seems like a very simplified subinfobox module template al la Category:Biographical templates usable as a module), however it should be possible. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support. Some of this has been discussed before (at Template talk:URL) and there's an outstanding problem about selecting the most-appropriate language from multiple "Official website" property (P856) values.

    On Template talk:URL#Import URL from Wikidata (2), Codename Lisa was concerned about "the rule of thumb of separation of concern" and, more specifically, the problem of users not understanding that a URL containing an = would need special treatment — If you insert {{URL|http://www.example.com?request=response}} in Microsoft article, you get www.microsoft.com. I'm not sure how best to resolve that (unless Lua can handle the presence of equals signs in unnamed parameter values or, rather, the presence of unrecognised named parameters) but I agree with the fundamental principle that {{URL}} and {{Official URL}} are an unnecessary duplication.

    Regarding the problem with multiple P856 values on Wikidata, while Codename Lisa's solution of setting a preferred value is clearly inappropriate (given Wikidata is an multilingual resource), a solution akin to Module:Official website would seem likely to resolve that issue. Provided a solution to handle that is put in place, then I would support the merge. I would prefer to see a solution to the URLs-with-equals-signs problem as well (even if it is no less subtle than the equivalent messaging for unrecognised parameters in CS1 templates) but I don't think that should block a merger, given URLs with = won't display correctly in {{URL}} already.

    [This comment was written before Codename Lisa's comment above and pasted unedited after edit conflict] — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @OwenBlacker, Codename Lisa, and Pigsonthewing: It is possible in lua to enumerate through all of the arguments given to a template (but not in which order they were given), which makes it theoretically possible to handle the missing escaping of equals signs (but not vertical bars) in the cases where the second unnamed parameter (which has been deprecated for three years) isn't specified, although doing so would complicate the argument parsing code a lot and break pages that directly call the module without using the wrapper template in some cases. I might code this in Module:URL/sandbox later Pppery 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Yes. It is possible and it complicates thing A LOT. Consider this: If the template accepted one and only parameter, things would have been easy: Use Lua to get a table (some sort of associative array in Lua), merge the indexes and the values, treat as parameter. But when there is a valid second parameter, everything goes pear-shaped. Imagine someone supplied {{URL|http://www.example.com/?query=result|Official website}}. Now, we don't have a first parameter and have a second parameter. Our problem is not a coding problem but a logic problem: You optimally want this to go to result in a link whose title reads "Official website" and goes to "http://www.example.com/?query=result", right? But you also want to allow yourself a safe failing margin in which the user get to correct bad result if he typed "htp" instead of "http", right? (This means you can't use protocol detection in your algorithm.)
    Make no mistake, you can do all this in Lua. But the performance goes down so much that the benefit of the merger is eliminated. Now my big question here is: What problem are you trying to solve with all this? Right now, people comfortably use {{Official URL}}, get the desired result with good performance, and he who reads the code immediately gets the meaning of {{Official URL}} without studying its documentation, even though he might not know where the URL comes from. What's the problem with all this? I fully understand how this merger has Wiki-appeal. But does it have actual yield or benefit? (No.)
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Lisa: My proposed changes reqarding the equals signs are a good idea regardless of whether {{Official URL}} is merged in or not. Although displaying the example usage is less confusing than apparently inventing a URL out of nowhere, it is still better to let people just enter the URL without having to surround it with |1= in some cases. Pppery 12:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the parameter for displaying custom text that is causing these issues you mention above has been deprecated for three years. Pppery 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Still the performance impact is a problem. And still, what problem is this merger going to solve? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and possibly add the stray-equals-sign-recovery code I mentioned in my previous post, which should reslove Codename Lisa's concern. Pppery 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the present Scribunto implementation, I don't believe that it's possible to pass a template parameter with an unknown name into a Lua module from a Wikipedia template. Scanning parameters in Lua is easy (see Module:Sandbox/RexxS/ScanParms), but how do you propose template coding the #invoke that will be used to call the module? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @RexxS: Lua code can access the arguments passed to the template calling the #invoke using frame:getParrent().args[<argumentname>]. Pppery 23:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that tip - I can work around the "=" sign, but trying it out in my sandbox Module:Sandbox/RexxS/ScanParms, there remains the decision on identifying a 'rogue' parameter name. If you assume that there are just two unnamed parameters (or explicitly named 1 and 2), then a solution is possible, but I'm not convinced a robust solution is simple. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Official URL}}: At present we have consent only for the use of Wikidata inside infoboxes. The template {{Official URL}} is unsuitable for use in infoboxes because it cannot deal with multiple values of official website (P856) - there are many articles with more than one official website - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P856#Single_value for the current list. As this may change at any time by edits to Wikidata, we have no mechanism of ensuring that using this template in an infobox will not produce errors. Even if that were fixed, there are strong feelings that infoboxes should not fetch Wikidata by default in most templates, so this template should not be used in construction of wikidata-aware infoboxes as there is no inherent mechanism of suppressing its fetching of values from Wikidata (no 'opt-in' available). There is consequently no situation where there is a use for this template. Incidentally, {{URL}} should not be Wikidata enabled for exactly the same reasons. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This merger does not solve any problem. But as it appears, it creates problem that demand advanced coding in Lua to fix. Moreover, I don't even see how this merger has appeal.
This:
|website={{Official URL}} is meaningful
This:
|website={{URL}} is lame
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetCommand: The equals-sign problem that you are saying demands advanced coding in lua would be a good idea to fix regardless of the merger. Pppery 18:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another solution that in search of a problem! Good thing it doesn't cry wee wee wee all the way home, or else Hollywood would have never left Wikipedia alone. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 22:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er... excuse me? Are alluding to the This Little Piggy for some reason? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Codename Lisa. And I strongly support taking values from Wikidata by default, which this template is doing. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems like merging is a good idea, however, it appears there are numerous technical issues that need to be resolved before this can be seriously reconsidered. Many infoboxes now already directly pull the official website (P856) URL from Wikidata (using {{#property:P856}}). My personal preference would be for the infoboxes that are not doing this to get this added and then all the instantiations can potentially be removed (and eventually this template after that). That said, I agree with Codename Lisa (talk · contribs). What problem are we really trying to solve and what damage does this cause my letting it exist as it? Maybe someday things will be different but as it stands it seems like it is needed and useful. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 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:Guatemala City TV 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) Primefac (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion and an absolute boatload of red links. Raymie (t • c) 07:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't need a navbox just to link one article to nowhere else. And, in fact, this was basically a misguided creation in the first place: the model of television broadcasting in which a network operates by means of affiliating with some greater or lesser number of distinct entities called stations, which in turn have their own distinct histories and their own distinct local programming and can thus qualify for separate articles from the parent network, is really only the norm in a select few countries worldwide. In most countries, including Guatemala, nearly all television service is provided by national stations whose local retransmitters just relay the network itself, and produce no separate local programming at all. Which means, accordingly, that we don't need separate television-market templates for each individual city in Guatemala — one country-wide national television template is all that's really necessary, because there's only going to be one national-level article about any given television "network", not five or ten or hundreds of separate articles about individual "stations" that are affiliated with it. No prejudice against the creation of a more general {{Television in Guatemala}} template if and when enough articles actually exist to justify it, but this isn't really necessary since there are virtually no cases where an individual "station" in Guatemala City would be a separate article topic from the "network" that airs on it. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 11 October 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:Canada at the Commonwealth Games 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 relist to 17 October. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 17 October 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:Checkboxes and Switch templates 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 ~ Rob13Talk 22:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary sidebar; it only contains five items. Linking between the related templates is easy enough to do with a "See also" section. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Navboxes should be preferred to sidebars for such topics, but even so, there are insufficient links here to justify one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a second, I'm wondering if the templates listed in this sidebar could possibly serve any purpose on wikipedia as it is now. I'm not sure I see that purpose, so if there isn't one in the end, I think it's best to userfy and let the creator continue experimenting with them in their own sandbox. Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a discussion about the templates listed in the sidebar, which will be unaffected by its outcome, but of the navigational sidebar only. And its creator has just been blocked indefinitely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if all the templates that this sidebar is used to navigate between don't belong in mainspace, then neither does the sidebar, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, would be pointless to userfy since the user is not coming back. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, the fact that they've been blocked makes it much less likely that these templates are going to get worked on, but we can't be entirely sure as after all block do sometimes get appealed, don't they? – Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This side bar adds unnecessary clutterto the page and would be better handled as a see also section. --Whpq (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - using a "See also" is a much better solution. --NSH002 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 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:Delta State Statesmen football navbox 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 2016 October 18 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 October 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:Cite DVD notes 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 merge into {{Cite AV media notes}}. No opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Cite DVD notes with Template:Cite AV media notes.

"AV" stands for "Audio Visual", which includes DVDs. Visual media these days may also be on BluRay or other formats, not just DVD. The AV template's documentation explicitly says it intended "for print liner notes from ...DVDs... and similar audio-visual media". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was one of the things left undone by Editor Gadget850 when he retired.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A no-brainer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am puzzled. The underlying wikicode is{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=DVD-notes}}. It's basically just the difference between a pass-through and a redirect, no? --Izno (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    |CitationClass= is used by Module:Citation/CS1 to do template-specific things (if necessary). All of the cs1|2 templates set |CitationClass= to a value appropriate to themselves regardless of any need. The value assigned is also used as a class attribute in the rendered citation's enclosing <cite>...</cite> tags:
    {{cite book |title=Title}}
    '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000000B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AWikipedia%3ATemplates+for+discussion%2FLog%2F2016+October+8" class="Z3988"></span>
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood my question (perhaps it was phrased badly): Andy nominated this template for merging, but the DVD notes template already uses the module directly. What is the actual impact to merging these two templates, or is it simply a question of having another redirect to Cite AV media? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To merge these two templates, {{cite DVD notes}} becomes a redirect to {{cite AV media notes}}; a handful of tweaks are made to Module:Citation/CS1; documentation is updated to remove all references to {{cite DVD notes}}; and, in the best of all possible worlds, existing instances of {{cite DVD notes}} are converted to {{cite AV media notes}} after which {{cite DVD notes}} is deleted. If this proposal is adopted, I will take care of the necessary changes to Module:Citation/CS1 and leave it to the nominator to perform the other tasks that need doing.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know nothing of the technical details being discussed, but can we please have this discussion without the "See Tfm" note creating an ugly line break wherever the template is used? (see here for an example) Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would someone please explain to me how to fix the 'see tfm' flags on all of my bibliographic entries for AV media notes. The average person reading the article will be clueless as to its meaning and it took me 20 minutes of searching to understand what this cryptic message means. Wikipedia needs to do a better job of informing article editors of changes to wiki syntax without disruption of the actual article. This makes me mad, after spending a whole year researching and creating the article. Cnkaufmann (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:08, 8 October 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:(pf)-meta 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. As this is used by other templates, it should not be formally deleted until after they have been declared deletable as well (to avoid breaking potential functionality). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused template. Templates dependent on it (viz. {{(pfs)time:}}, {{(pfs)REVISIONUSER}}, {{(pfs)REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}) aren't apparently used at all either. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, can't see how we need this, and unlikely that the indef blocked editor will use it in the future. Frietjes 18:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not even really grasping what the purpose of this is, and it's not actually being used anywhere that would help clarify that at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 11 October 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:Barbadian diaspora 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 merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Barbadian diaspora with Template:People of Barbados.
Two small navboxes - could be easily grouped together as one. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, seems reasonable. Frietjes 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Since navbox templates can contain more than one group, we don't really need two separate navboxes to contain such a small number of interrelated articles. They're not exactly identical topics, so separate boxes would be justifiable if there were a lot more articles to link, but for such a small number of articles we don't need to sequester the natives from the diaspora via two distinct templates. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 10 October 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_October_8&oldid=1048266873"