Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 25: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 32: Line 32:


==== [[Module:Other MeSH codes]] ====
==== [[Module:Other MeSH codes]] ====
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
* {{Tfd links|Other MeSH codes|module=Module:}}
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''
I don't see why this module is necessary; why can't {{tl|other MeSH codes}} be implemented as {{tlx|for|other categories|List of MeSH codes}} directly? [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 17:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


The result of the discussion was '''relisted'''<!-- Tfd top --> on [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 4#Module:Other MeSH codes|2018 July 4]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''; the module form causes this module to inherit its functionality from [[Module:Other uses]], which is a semantically purer way of implementing this than transcluding {{tl|for}}. Moreover, avoiding implementing hatnote templates in terms of others is generally better for ease of maintenance. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]&#8202;&#124;[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]&#8202;&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]}&#125;</span> 20:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
* {{tfd links|Other_MeSH_codes|module=Module}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>


==== [[Module:For outline]] ====
==== [[Module:For outline]] ====

Revision as of 16:33, 4 July 2018

June 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 4. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 4. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 4. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Propose merging Module:For outline, Module:For timeline and Module:For glossary.
Almost duplicate modules; only difference is list of pages to search and the text of the hatnote, which could be passed as parameters. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already exists at Template:2017 USL season, and this template is unused in mainspace. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, deprecated module; template this was used on is now a redirect. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Other uses with Template:For.
As far as I can tell, {{other uses}} is just a version of {{for}} that hardcodes the first parameter to be "other uses". Therefore, there is no need for two almost duplicate templates. (Additionally, {{for}} with no parameters functions the same way as {{other uses}}). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Distinguish with Module:Labelled list hatnote.
Almost duplicate modules: Module:Distinguish has two features that need to be merged:

  1. Support for custom text
  2. Use of "or" instead of "and"

Both of which could be added to Module:Labelled list hatnote to add additional flexibility. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Whoever does the merge, please also add a parameter to use ";" instead of "," as a delimiter. We've needed this for a long time to deal with cases where we need to link to multiple things but some of them contain commas in their own titles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; while the code is similar, it would require needlessly bloating Module:Labelled list hatnote (in particular, the way that multiple templates are created by simply supplying label arguments at invocation) to support the extra options needed for the sentence-style message of {{distinguish}}. It is more valuable for maintenance purposes to keep that module narrowly focused on the label-style hatnotes it currently implements. I could support merging some functionality to a higher-level meta-module if more modules than Module:Distinguish ought to be generalized into this form; an option to use an "or"-list instead of an "and"-list, and a way to supply different defaults to what is the defaults.labelForm item (currently containing "%s: %s") would be reasonably easy to implement. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really needed? No explanation on what the "Wyoming Sessions" actually are, and better suited as a list/Category rather than a template to be put within the article. TOMASTOMASTOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 00:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The albums are already listed in both the prose and infoboxes of each page which includes the template. I agree that this template is unnecessary. Jimmio78 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing the "Wyoming Sessions" chronology from the infoboxes. The template makes it far easier to see the order of which the albums were released and be able to access their articles. Nice4What (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the Wyoming Sessions are a series of recording sessions that have so far produced critically notable albums from high-profile artists; it is likely that the sessions themselves will soon be its own topic a la the Berlin Trilogy. I think it's important to have some sort of list template gathering the albums produced and presenting them to readers to be able to easily navigate. Tagging Jimmio78 as creator and Nice4What as contributor to the template. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Berlin Trilogy template isn't used in spaces other than the article itself (nor there is a infobox addition), and in that case I would approve of the Wyoming Sessions' use. However, at the moment, the template is only used within articles, creating unneeded clutter within the articles.TOMASTOMASTOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I could absolutely see this as a reasonable compromise between those who want to keep the template and those who want to delete it. The problem people seem to have expressed this far is the apparent clutter the template adds to articles as a sidebar. Repurposing it as a navbox would solve those issues. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Navbox 100% TOMASTOMASTOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 14:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]