Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

Template:Mava Marafane

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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mava Marafane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This page is not a template but a CV article which might qualify for speedy deletion as WP:A7: no indication of importance. Certes (talk) 23:29, 5 October 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).

Template:Divbox/style/x

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 October 14. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:27, 14 October 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).

Module:Linguistic

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) 02:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Linguistic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The English Wikipedia does not need to have a module of this sort: it is written in English and there is no reason to write code that dynamically conjugates text in other languages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is module was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:Linguistic, but I nominated here instead of using G4 because that nomination was a "cleanup unused modules" one, and this one is fundamentally attacking the idea of this module as unnecessary for mono-lingual wikipedias. Pinging participants from previous discussion: @Godsy, Robert McClenon, and Snaevar:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the contrary, if we want our code modules to be inter-operable with those on other language Wikipedias, then we will need modules that handle linguistic translations. We are not working in a walled garden: our sister projects want to make use of the modules we create, just as we want to make use of the modules created elsewhere. Nevertheless, in this particular case, Module:Linguistic is not directly used by other modules on English Wikipedia, so I can't see harm in deleting it, on the understanding that it can be recreated any time that it is needed by other modules. --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't understand in June 2017, and I don't understand in September 2018. I infer that this module has something to do with support for multiple languages, and that the English Wikipedia is monolingual. If this module is used by other Wikipedias, why is it in the English Wikipedia? If they are calling it, it sounds like spaghetti inheritance. On the one hand, I don't know why it is here. On the other hand, I don't know why we should break it if it isn't broken. Therefore:
Weak Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is here is because some users (not including me) want modules to be character-for-character identical (with the possible exception of require sections at the beginning) to the corresponding modules on other wikis like Commons, where this module is obviously needed, and therefore this module has to exist here in their eyes. I disagree with this goal, as I think it leads to pointless code bloat on non-multilingual wikis, and that combined with my general tendency to try to clean module namespace leads me to this deletion nomination.

The only code that uses this module right now is Module:i18n/complex date, which is itself more multi-lingual stuff that could easily be simplified to use just English. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are calling "spaghetti code" is rife throughout all modules in the English Wikipedia: there is a tendency to import a module, and then import all its dependencies even when local modules already exist to do the same thing (and sometimes even !vote keep when the dependencies are TfDed, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_29#Module:TemplateData_dependencies). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is currently used by over 60,000 pages through Module:I18n/complex date -> Module:Complex date -> Module:WikidataIB, where it is necessary to keep the code consistent across multiple Wikimedia projects. Consider deprecating it first, if you can do so without removing the functionality that's currently used across the 13 projects (according to sitelinks at Module:Linguistic (Q20739902)). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False. None of those pages actually used any code from Module:Linguistic, only required it, as can be seen the fact that Module:Linguistic is now unused after I modified Module:I18n/complex date to require the module only when needed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As of now, no consensus at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:07, 5 October 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).

Template:Bku

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. This did not need bringing up at WP:TFD. The matter could be discussed at Template talk:Bku and specialist input sought at WP:VPT and/or WP:BOTREQ. I will close this and make a post at the template talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bku (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose refactoring Template:Bku.
This isn't really a merge as much as it is a refactor. Every other flag template I have seen takes the nation param first and the descriptor param second. Should this template be redone so that it works as {{bku|ESP|18}} instead of the current format of {{bku|18|ESP}}? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment there really is no difference, I see no purpose on that. PS next time adding this "merge/delete template" remember not to include whitespace between this and template start. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Zackmann08: - {{N/a}} is tagged with TfD. I cant see how and why that template should be merged with Bku - a mistake? Christian75 (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian75, fixed here and here. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explination allow me to explain... I was attempting to start a discussion about {{Bku}}. I used WP:TWINKLE to nominate the template and when I got to the 'template to merge' field in the popup I simple put N/A because it wasn't a merge I was considering, but a discussion that I wanted to start. What I failed to realized is that this went and tagged the template {{N/a}} as well. This was obviously an error on my part and I do apologize for the mistake.

Now with regards to this nomination, @Pelmeen10: the reason that this is an issue has to do with the way other templates interact with these. Specifically I came across the issue when using {{Medals table}}. What this template does is take two params {{{flag_template}}} & {{{event}}}. These parmas are used in conjunction with the various 3 letter nation codes to produce things like {{flagIOC2team|GRE|2004 Summer}} where flag_template = flagIOC2team and event = 2004 Summer. So far, every single flag template I have come across is setup in the format {{<template_name>|<country_code>|<optional_descriptor>}}. The only exceptions that I have found so far are {{bku}} and {{Fbwu}}. I don't doubt there are others. So what I am proposing is that we try to keep things consistent. Instead of being formatted as {{bku|<descriptor>|<country_code>}}, I propose flipping this around to be {{bku|<country_code>|<descriptor>}}. The template only has 277 transclusions at the moment and most of those are within medal tables that I will be cleaning up as part of converting them to use {{Medals table}} anyway so I would gladly take responsibility for updating every single transclusion of the template but I want to make sure that I do so after a discussion has been had.

Hopefully this explanation answers the questions you all had. If not, please let me know! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:59, 5 October 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).

Template:United Football League (2009) team

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 split result.

Merge Template:United Football League (2009) team to Template:Infobox_American_football_team
No consensus on Template:Infobox NFL team

There is a relatively strong consensus to fold in the UFL template into the American football infobox, but with two templates being discussed the opinions are mixed (if even present) for the NFL infobox. There is NPASR for the latter template. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Football League (2009) team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox NFL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:United Football League (2009) team with Template:Infobox NFL team.
Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The UFL is not the NFL. The XFL teams such as the Las Vegas Outlaws uses Template:Infobox sports team. ~~I would support that instead.~~UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UCO2009bluejay: that is a VERY valid point... I was thinking "their both football teams..." but I agree with you. Should I close this and re-nominate or should we just change this discussion to be merging the template to {{infobox sports team}}? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it open until consensus arrives. If it's not a clear support, then open another one under infobox sports team (which I would oppose, BTW). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Template:Infobox American football team. League-specific infoboxes are not needed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually discuss things on Tfds and I don't know how it works so I would suggest that if UFL should be merged it would be to the American football template. The NFL has a few different parameters. I've posted a link to this discussion on the NFL project talk page. I am unaware of their feelings on this topic, but they should be discussed.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Template:Infobox American football team and redo the template to remove any unneeded parameters (like helmet size, really?). I don't see how NFL and UFL teams would use so many different parameters that they need to be separate. All the basic ones, like name, colors, foundation date, owner, are ubiquitous. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've missed the point of the "helmetsize" parameter. It's not because players wear helmets of different sizes, it's so that they can set the size of the image of the team's helmet. – Pee Jay 11:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Actually Dissident meant that helmet size is a defunct parameter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be automatically handled anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I can't remember the last time I changed my own mind so many times! I support the comments above and am glad to see others pointing out issues! I think we need to identify the ultimate "parent" template and see if there are any other templates that fit with this merge. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge only "United Football League (2009) team" but not "Infobox NFL team" which has more opportunities and looks somewhat better than "infobox American football team". I'd like to see how would any of the current NFL team (example Miami Dolphins) look if the current infobox would be merged. I would reconsider if someone can prove me this is sensible idea. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both as these infoboxes are virtually the same as Template:United Football League (2009) team which is more widely used anyway. —Mythdon 09:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest replacing uses of Template:United Football League (2009) team with Template:Infobox American football team, as its functionality is covered by the latter. Don't merge Template:Infobox NFL team - it has NFL-specific functionality. — RockMFR 00:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merging Template:United Football League (2009) team with Template:Infobox American football team but set up with the parameters of Template:Infobox indoor American football team. Template:Infobox indoor American football team is supported with Module:Gridiron color/data. DMC511 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 5 October 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).