Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 24

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

April 24

edit

Template:Jennifer Nettles

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge. No opposes to do so after the first relisting. Lack of participation seems to mean no objections, in this case. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jennifer Nettles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sugarland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Jennifer Nettles with Template:Sugarland.
Nettles has too few solo works at the moment to warrant her own template. The only three solo works with their own pages are "That Girl", its title track, and "Who Says You Can't Go Home". The rest of the links are all duplicates of the Sugarland template, thus creating massive overlap. The Sugarland template should be sufficient at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge per TenPoundHammer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rellink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hatnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rellink with Template:Hatnote.
These two templates are essentially the same with the exception of another syntax qualifier that can be added to {{Hatnote}} from {{Rellink}} without having to manually update any values in the 800,000 combined transclusions of these templates. Also, for further notes about this, please see a related discussion at Template talk:Hatnote#Conversion to Lua. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – These two templates have virtually the same functionality. If one of the templates is merged into the other, the hatnotes will still be functional. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I would get rid of {{Rellink}} and corresponding "rellink" class in MediaWiki:Common.css. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop the "dablink" class for being worse named, see below in my !vote. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
...And I would replace both classes with a "hatnote" class ... see below. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm learning. Now we can continue checking the usefulness of those two extraclasses. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The extraclass= is also present in {{detail}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: yes, class="hatnote" is even better. Don't know if class renaming is doable, and whether a TfD can cover that. A "phase one out" choice is within reach. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: I would I believe that the class renaming option is completely doable, given that it looks like the only two templates that directly use the "dablink" or "rellink" classes in their syntax are {{Hatnote}} and {{Rellink}}. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) But, just in case, it may be safer to just phase out one, and leave the other, as you stated, since yeah, we shouldn't unknowingly be breaking Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added bolds to my !vote. Intention unchanged. -DePiep (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Beatles

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was history merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Beatles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this navbox wrapper is no longer used in article space after a massive cleanup effort by NSH002. per the discussion there, this is really only needed in one article, The Beatles, and more targeted navboxes should and are used in the-Beatles-related articles. I, personally, would like to see the pre-August 2011 history of this template merged into Template:The Beatles main, and either (a) redirect it to {{The Beatles main}} or (b) move {{The Beatles main}} to this title. I have nominated it here for further discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are three options here (see the discussion on the talk page):
    1. simply delete this template (advantage: prevents people adding it to any article only remotely connected with the Beatles)
    2. redirect to {{The Beatles main}} - the easiest option (a history merge would not be necessary)
    3. merge the pre-August 2011 edit history of this template with that of {{The Beatles main}}, which would then become {{The Beatles}}
For the reasons stated on the talk page, I prefer #3 - overall, the neatest result in the end.
--NSH002 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO №3 makes most sense. Another benefit: {{The Beatles}} is more intuitive then {{The Beatles main}}. Some documentation for the template family could probably be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Multiple stable software releases

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiple stable software releases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be intended as a module for {{Infobox web browser}}, transcluded in two articles (including once inside a table), and called somewhat awkwardly by the main template. From the code, it does nothing more than mapping label1 to parameter 1, data1 to parameter 2, etc. If a software's version numbers are genuinely so unusual to require such a byzantine solution, it might be better to omit them from the infobox, and explain them in the main body of the article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (!vote by author): I made this template to replace templates like this with a single unified display, as {{LSR}} subtemplates tend to break. The simplistic approach, noted by nominator, is currently employed simply because the template is in its infancy – it was created on April 18, and still requires edit to protected template in order to be usable. (The latter is the reason it is not really used anywhere.) Both {{LSR}} and this template mainly exist to maintain version information across multiple articles, and this purpose will be defeated with proposed solution to explain versioning in plain text in the body of the article. I would also note, that the problem this template is supposed to address isn't uncommon, so it has some potential. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes this template is still at infancy and that's why I didn't replicate the change from {{Infobox web browser}} to {{Infobox software}}. But let's not commit infanticide. The first thing we need to do is to add a section header to {{Infobox web browser}} and fix the overflow problem in doc page. The rest, we will figure out. Meanwhile, detaching version numbering from the infobox does not have consensus; in fact, there is a backlash against it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox European Nations Cup

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with Template:Infobox rugby tournament. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox international football competition Template:Infobox rugby tournament. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24&oldid=1086982272"