Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

April 16Edit

Module:JoinEdit

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 to Module:String. No opposition, reasonable arguments presented. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:Join with Module:String.
Consolidate string-related Lua functions under Module:String. * Pppery * has returned 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge: Module:Join has a single author who is an admin, so merging into the cascade-protected Module:String shouldn't cause any problems for maintenance. Note that the module has 497 transclusions, possibly all through Template:College color list, but all of them will need to be checked and the relevant template(s) updated to use the new Module:String functions before Module:Join can be retired. --RexxS (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
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:Kill markersEdit

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 to Module:Unstrip. There is no prejudice against renomination to merge Module:Plain text into the result and/or move to a different location, but with only a single comment after the proposal to add it to the nomination I cannot in good faith extend IAR to include it in the merge result. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:Kill markers with Module:Unstrip.
Given that all three of these functions are located in the same mw.text library in the backend, they should be in the same module instead of split out into two. * Pppery * has returned 20:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • merge, seems reasonable. if I recall, the unstrip module was created to solve a problem with references no being parsed correctly in templates like {{wide image}}, {{panorama}}, etc. but, I seem to remember that the problem was "fixed" in the mediawiki software. so, it's possible we could just remove/delete the unstrip module. some testing would be helpful to determine if that module is still needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Also merge Module:Plain text? New more generic name Module:Strip? -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: overview of related modules etc.:
Module:Kill markers: does mw.text.killMarkers; ({{KillMarkers}})
Module:Unstrip: does mw.text.unstrip, mw.text.unstripNoWiki; Template:Unstrip(edit talk links history), Template:UnstripNoWiki(edit talk links history)
Module:Plain text: does mw.text.killMarkers and Lua patterns on wikitext; Template:Plain text(edit talk links history)
I propose we merge all these into one module, similar to Module:String. That is: all strip-related functions together. For the editor (=module & template user) the difference between straight "mw.text" function and "wikitext patttern handling" is not that relevant. To consider: move all into new module name Module:Strip (name nicely covers functions not techniques), use same parameter names throughout (not |text=, |s=, |1= apart); of course old parameter names should be kept. That is: one parameter set is available in all.
Maybe more strip-functions could be added, like mw.text.trim, mw.text.truncate, {{Delink}}, (more).
P.S. How to get this in the proposal formally? -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
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:Cycling raceEdit

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) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated templates without mainspace transclusions. * Pppery * has returned 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This en:Module:Cycling race is a pass-through of d:Module:Cycling race, a Wikidata (Lua-)module. Deletion proposal is for enwiki only, I understand. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that I am only planning to delete the module on enwiki. If this passes I will make an edit request to remove the customizations for enwiki from the central module, but will not attempt to delete the central module. * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
planning to delete the module please: proposing to delete is language.
Then, pleasde explain which what you want to "remove". Already your proposal was incomplete (since I had to clarify), and now you again confuse us editors. (At least you could clarify which "customisations" are involved; or better reveal your whole hidden plan. That would help the discusison. I am not the only one mistified, clearly. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
By remove the customization ... I mean carrying out this edit to Module:Cycling race on Wikidata (which will then get copied to various wikis as they update their local copies). There is no plan beyond that. I said "make an edit request to ..." because I has erroneously assumed that the module on Wikidata was protected. * Pppery * has returned 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that it is marked as deprecated, the way that the module is coded is atrocious to me: lots of dead code, global variables, a wiki variable that always returns the same thing, duplicate code everywhere, and i18n for other languages. I'm glad that the Cycling community decided to deprecate its use. * Pppery * has returned 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    ... and templates with names that technically meet G8. * Pppery * has returned 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    "technically meet G8" is bordering wikilawyering. Once the subtemplates are/were useful, G8 does not apply and so G8 does not add an argument here. -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    And it's not the core of my argument anyway. My argument is "deprecated stuff shouldn't be kept around", and then I take an opportunity to complain about the way the module is structured, and one of those complaints is "relies on templates that are subpages of a non-existent page". * Pppery * has returned 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Code and modules created by Molarius has been successfully used in ES-Wiki, FR-Wikis and others. Last year "Cycling race" has been improved a lot for some Danish (User:Dipsacus_fullonum) and French (User:Psemdel) programmers and today in my opinion their performance is good. For example, I data filled "list of winners" for all UWT, WWT, x.HC, and x.1 races due before the improvement if you wanted show those, they caused errors and now they are implemented in ES-Wiki, FR-Wiki, DA-Wiki and some at RU-wiki, AST-wiki and PT-wiki. Also you can see all races and its classifications are build using module "Cycling race" in wikies like ES or FR. About EN-wiki, it uses a different format for Winners (just winner and their team) but this format can be implemented in the main module (even with same color used at EN-Wiki). Some time ago I tried to update some lines for improve experience in EN-Wiki (creating a conversion from Km to Miles), may be it could be "atrocious" but if you program LUA-code you can join to the project ([:d:Module:Cycling race]) and collaborate to improve code (after that you have to copy the latest code and replace it at Module:Cycling race) and make it more attractive for EN-wiki because they have lot of benefits like gives uniformity to wikipedia and once one person update one database all wikis are updated.Repf72 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I see again some users prefer to work in their own side instead working with everybody... keep and work to share datas. At least Repf72 and others take initiatives. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • We use it on WP:fr, if WP:en is happy with that (compared to that), it is fine. Psemdel (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @EP111: You added a note that this is deprecated, could you please explain to me what it is replaced with as I'm not quite sure I understand. --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: The templates are mostly deprecated in favour of the original format of wikitables, as mentioned in the links from the deprecation edit summary. As wikitables aren't templated, I saw no need to provide any replacement details in the deprecation notices. A wikidata template, which has a preferred existing template, is the one for the infobox; {{Infobox cycling race report}} provides the necessary functionality for WikiProject Cycling. Please note that the three links, in the deprecation edit summaries, should highlight sufficient reasons to delete the wikidata templates from en.wiki, as the wikidata templates are now not used in the mainspace. EP111 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    There are a few other standard templates, which are used: I've pointed the deprecation notice at Template:Cycling race/teamroster to {{Cycling squad start}}, the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofwinners to {{Cycling past winner start}}, and the notice at Template:Cycling race/listofteams to {{Cyclingteamlist}}, as those templates are commonly used, also. EP111 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Overview. So this is the situation:
d:Module:Cycling race is a module on Wikidata, with language switch. It had several functions, each for a different table (Cycling race/infobox, Cycling race/listofwinners). Once given a QID for a race etc., it pulls all its data from Wikidata. Local wikis have a local template linking to that Wikidata module: fr:Modèle:Cycling race/infobox; the language is set automatically (using site lang). Examples: fr:Tour de France 2015, es:Tour_de_Francia_2015.
This enwiki uses local templates like Template:Infobox cycling race report(edit talk links history) (list).
This enwiki does not use this module nor its functions (umbrella en:Module:Cycling race & subtables), so it is TfD'ed here. A discussion was here.
Apparently, WP:CYCLING has chosen not to use these Wikidata module tables. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous WikiProject Cycling discussions. The MOS output isn't acceptable. BaldBoris 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
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:Rulers of the Persian EmpireEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR; not every ruler of Persia/Iran was a "ruler of the Persian Empire", nor was every ruler a Shahanshah ("King of Kings"). The template is too ambiguous and problematic amongst others, and should therefore be deleted. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon except some of them (like early Arsacids), the others were officially "King of Kings". Not only Iranian rulers, but also the Ottomans, the Seljuks, the Mughals and etc called themselves "Shahanshah". And what's your definition of the "Persian Empire"? anything but ruling dynasty of Persia? Aryzad (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The Zand and Pahlavi dynasties have never been termed as a "Persian empire". The Zand and Afsharid (with the exception of Nader Shah) didn't use the title of king of kings as well. The Arsacid dynasty has never been called a "Persian Empire." I could go on, but I think you get the idea. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran The problem is not that the Zand or Pahlavi dynasties were called the Persian Empire or the Zand rulers called themselves Shahanshah or not, or the Parthians were not ethnically Persian! it's more simple than that. There are two different definition for "the Persian Empire". First: the Achaemenid Empire, the second: just referring to era that Iran (It's called the Persian Empire instead of the Iranian Empire because in the western view it was the Empire of Persia, not Empire of a southern province) was ruled by a monarch. The Zand or Pahlavi dynasties were not big like Empires? so what? the Byzantine Empire was just a city in it's last decades. Anyway. Your comment has two good points: 1) post-Nader rulers of Afsharid dynasty can be removed. 2) The Zand didn't called themselves "Shah", but I can't understand why this is important for you. Your problem can be solved with changing "Shahanshah" to "Rulers?" (And just for your knowledge: The official name of the Pahlavi dynasty was the Imperial state of Persia (and then changed to the Imperial state of Iran in English language)) Aryzad (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a good example of the template being too problematic. Sorry but ultimately this looks like your own opinion rather than actual factual information. I'm not gonna go too deep into this, I've said enough. There is a lot of other stuff you can help with. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per LouisAragon. This is a problematic and heavily inaccurate template. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
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:ModernismEdit

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. A discussion on finding what to keep in this template and what to discard definitely seems in order, but there is an overwhelming consensus that this template (in one form or another) should be kept. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This navbox is a travesty. Inclusion here is completely selective and subjective in nature, and the whole thing is simply too large to function as a useful navigation aid. Who has decided what counts as a milestone? Who has decided which filmmakers are worthy of inclusion here? Where is the definitive list of who is or isn't a "modernist"? If this is kept, all the individual people and works of art need to be removed and only the section headings remain. Categories are clearly more appropriate for the individual entries here, where inclusion would not be so selective. A navbox is better suited to "a small, well-defined group of articles", or a "complete set", which is clearly not achievable here. --woodensuperman 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Although, the categories also need some work as well. There are a load of Category:Modernist architects categorised as Category:Modernist architecture! --woodensuperman 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I'm sure there are enough academic books which can be the basis for such a template, this template will be huge (it already is). If needed, a better approach here would be smaller scopes of film, Literature, etc., then this template. But as Woodensuperman pointed out, this can turn very quickly to be a subjective template as sources aren't used. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, baby out with bathwater. And an important baby at that. "Too large" is subjective and underestimating the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers, as people interested in visual arts will look at the visual arts section, music the music section, and overall 'Modernism' the entire package. Subjective additions or subtractions are also subjective, so the easy solution, as always: entries should mention 'Modernism' on their pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Here are around 500 articles on architects, most of which have will the word "modernism" or "modernist" mentioned on their pages (and if they don't, why are they in the category?). Here are a couple of hundred writers, etc, etc. It would be ridiculous to include all of these, along with all the other topics, and, as always, any selection of some of these is subjective. This is why it should be left to category navigation rather than this abomination. --woodensuperman 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Also note that there are already entries which do not mention "modernist" or "modernism" on their articles. John Osborne and Georges Méliès were two that I picked completely at random. --woodensuperman 15:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That baby still in bathwater. Inclusionists look for a solution without the nuclear option, and 'Modernism' is an important topic which should of course have a template. The form of that template should be under discussion, but 'delete' is not it, so I'll add a 'Strong' to my 'Keep' and ask that you list this deletion request on each of the relevant Wikiproject talk pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject may merit a navbox, but this is not it. A navbox that links to general "modernist" topics, such as Literary modernism, might be acceptable, but listing some modernists and some modernist works is not, and listing all of them is a simply ridiculous task for a navbox, which would not prove useful, given the size it would have to be. Navboxes are not for enormous lists of everyone related to a subject which will never be complete. WP:TNT is the only option. --woodensuperman 15:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment and request to notify, The overwhelmingly 'Keep' near-snow result of the nominators last attempt to delete this one, linked here in this July 2017 discussion, shows that favorability for Keeping this template is high. I requested above that the nominator notify the Wikiprojects involved with this template (which has not yet been done), and I add a request to ping all of the participants in that clear 2017 deletion discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I have some sympathies with the nominator (e.g. subjectivity, who to include and who to exclude). But considering the template was overhwelmingly 'keep' last time, consensus is that its merits outweigh its faults. As someone who only claims expertise in a couple of those fields, I think it's informative in some ways to compare, say, significant operators in different subject areas who are following a similar path. Sionk (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Although the template would benefit by a complete discussion regarding all of its inclusions; it is a highly important and valuable asset to this encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
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:Francis PicabiaEdit

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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need a navbox for this few links? WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, this template will shortly be expanded, as I am currently working on a number of articles pertaining to the numerous and important artworks produced by Picabia, arguably one of the most important artists of the 20th century, along with Marcel Duchamp and a hand full of others. Coldcreation (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Picabia is one of the important precursors to contemporary art as it is known today. His template needs expansion not destruction!...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, Coldcreation's report of expansion is good enough for me. And per Coldcreation and Modernist. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The so-called expansion was clearly completely inappropriate, including material that he was just one of many contributors for, and movements that he was merely one of many members of. These are obviously intended as an attempt to flesh out the navbox in order to make a claim that there are enough entries, but are tangential and do not belong here. --woodensuperman 13:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The expansion Coldcreation is "currently working on a number of articles pertaining to the numerous and important artworks produced by Picabia" are likely not the pages you're referring to. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, then WP:WTAF applies. A navbox is for navigating between WP:EXISTING articles. Once these works have articles, a navbox could be re-created. Until then, it is unnecessary. --woodensuperman 14:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The importance of this artist, the art movements he helped to form, and even WP:WTF, indicate that the template is a good one. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn is correct on all counts. By the way, I have just posted the first article in a series of articles on works by Picabia; The Spring. Coldcreation (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
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:Infobox Latvian municipalitiesEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Propose subst: and delete Template:Infobox Latvian municipalities with Template:Infobox settlement.

Unnecessary wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Other types of entities in Latvia, villages, former districts, planning regions etc. already directly transclude Infobox settlement. The two neigbouring countries, each of similar size, Estonia, Lithuania completely do without a country-specific infobox and only use Infobox settlement. Only few transclusions, pretty stable set of articles. Display will be the same, as the template already is a wrapper for the subst:-target.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". 78.54.12.181 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Suppport Good idea! I originally turned it into a wrapper, but it will be even easier to use Infobox settlement directly. So few editors on Latvia, using exactly same templates for all types of subdivisions and same as in Estonia and Lithuania [and elsewhere in Europe and the world] will make work for new contributors easier. JelgavaLV (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
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).