Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 27 November 29 >

November 28

edit

Template:Hiberno English editnotice

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. But feel free to redirect or merge it with something else where appropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic term "Hiberno-English" refers to the vernacular spoken varieties of English in Ireland, not to standard English as written in Ireland. No Wikipedia article has ever been written in Hiberno-English, nor should it be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Future Perfect at Sunrise, Then we can just make it a redirect to the Irish English editnotice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there one? I didn't find it. I wouldn't mind renaming (and rewording) this to "Irish English" though. (That said, I'd still consider the entire template pretty much useless, since on the level of the formal written standard language there is virtually nothing that distinguishes Irish Standard English from British Standard English, but apparently that case was made at earlier XfC's and people still wanted these kinds of templates all the same.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Irish English Couldn't find an Irish English notice either, but all the article tagged should have an edit notice so might as well convert to a Irish notice. This would also be consistent with {{Use Irish English}}. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:18, 28 November 2019 (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:Fallen

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN. -- /Alex/21 08:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:18, 28 November 2019 (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:Into the Dark

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox for a list of episodes, all of which are accessible through the one page of Into the Dark (TV series); outside of the episodes already listed, it does not connect multiple articles. -- /Alex/21 13:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the other above. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 28 November 2019 (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:Freemasonry in the Americas

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 to Template:Freemasonry footer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Freemasonry in the Americas with Template:Freemasonry in Europe.
In order to simply form a Template:Freemasonry footer. While admittedly it would produce a relatively large template, there are considerable overview and cross-covering benefits, still along with considerable solutions to minimilise its size. This would render a template that arguably more relevantly focuses on organisational belonging rather than on countries spread per se. Size could be reduced by 1) not writing out "Grand Lodge of" and "Grand Orient of" in all entries, 2) making the image significantly smaller, and 3) shortering the group headings wideness by BR tags. Some detail-level entries could perhaps if necessary be exported to templates such as Template:United Grand Lodge of England, Template:Premier Grand Lodge of England, Template:Constituent Grand Lodges of the United Grand Lodges of Germany and Template:York Rite. Please note that the articles Freemasonry in Europe and Freemasonry in the Americas are one and the same article: Freemasonry. As is Template:Freemasonry. PPEMES (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Freemasonry is not a unified thing, and there are significant differences in rituals, history and even structure between various areas of the globe. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Europe" and "Americas" an especially noteworthy division? Just because entries would be collected into one single template doesn't mean it is unified. If anything, a one template solution could reflect in a clearer overview of how it is diversified. PPEMES (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 28 November 2019 (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:SimpleArgs

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia; it does not need internationalization modules, especially when their only uses constitute what is effectively a walled garden and they are redundant to Module:Arguments. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleArgs is very different of Arguments. I have created it precisely because there are many things that Arguments does not do. Although you have never created any module or you don't know how to program, you only have to look at the extension of the my module code (728 lines) in opposition to Arguments (342 lines) to recognize that they are very different. You can also look at the many examples I have added.
Also, SimpleArgs is necessary (required) for the other modules I have created. As you already know, just click on "What links here".
Finally, I also believe that SimpleArgs provides easier identification and verification of parameter values than Arguments. Another thing is that SimpleArgs can become popular.
Jmarchn (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I have never created any module". Untrue. What I meant by "redundant to Module:Arguments" is not that Module:Arguments does every little thing that this module can do, but that it fulfils the same role. Additionally, it's not generally customary on the English Wikipedia to do the kind of proactive argument checking that this module does. And, do you really expect your newly-created module to have any hope of competing with what is literally the most-used module on all of Wikipedia? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I had looked too fast at the list. You have created 3 modules: 1. Module:Noinclude, 2. Module:ForLoop and 3. Module:Dashboard entry. The 1 has the same complexity as a mine template that also you want to delete ({{ForMultilingualTrans}}). 2 is not used in any article, even if you indicate "subject to page protection" and a number of incorrect links (39469). 3 although it is not used, it makes more complex then it does me understand that you know to program. Excuse me, again.
Knowing that you know how to program, I understand that you have not done the effort to see what my module brings and you have only been guided by the titles. If they were equivalent I would not have made the effort to create it.
I never said nor did I intend to compete with Arguments. Nor do I pretend that you study or use SimpleArgs. I would simply like you not to delete these modules because they are necessary for modules and templates that are used in the articles: Cynthia Brewer, Wikipedia:Coloring cartographic maps and Template:Graph:Chart/doc, and soon if you do not boycott me with your actions with (the my most important work in lua) improving Module:Chart and creating derived templates with TemplateData. If you delete them, remove my work.
Jmarchn (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Noinclude, while it does appear deceptively simple, actually serves a purpose that can't be served by substituting the module, because <noinclude>{{#invoke:Noinclude|text=foo}}</noinclude> works properly, whereas <noinclude><noinclude>foo</noinclude></noinclude> does not work. This is used to allow TfD tags, which include their own internal noincluding to decide whether to show a big box or a little message, to work properly when noincluded.
Module:ForLoop is a actually a redirect, not a module, and the doc page is showing the documentation for the redirect target, hence the false claims.
Other modules I have created that you appear to have missed include Module:XfD old (the most-used of the group) and Module:Archive index (used on a few pages)
It would be fairly easy to rewrite any module that uses this method of argument parsing to not use it, possibly at the cost of error-checking of arguments -- however that is not a crucial feature given that almost all pure-wikitext template and some other modules don't error-check their arguments.
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: You do not have to defend your modules, I have not asked to remove them, is you who has asked to eliminate the my ones!.
I agree with you that checking the parameters is not crucial, but it does help the user who uses it with error messages and the programmer to not have to make checks of the suitability of the parameters. Why omit an improvement? Jmarchn (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The multilingual solutions are increasing as WP projects growth and solutions can share across different projects. May be "you" don't want or accept multilingual, but WPs (even enwiki) need this kind of solutions. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Enwiki does not need this kind of code, as evidenced by the fact that it has not had it before a few days ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beside the code itself, when you say "Enwiki does not need this kind of code", do you mean you're against evolution, againts any other language relationship or disagree the fact that english is a lingua franca to understand among WP projects ?. You should read carefully the above message from @Amire80: Amadalvarez (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the vast majority of code on the English Wikipedia is local, we still benefit from multi-project collaborations, which this seems to be a part of. While I usually would be all for a reasonable scheme to do this, I don't think the idea of creating a new system for modules from scratch with any meta discussions is the right way to do it. Right now it seems like there are two competing argument meta modules, one being literally the most transcluded page of any wiki and one that was recently created and without any major usage. I also want to note that Module:Arguments is already copied to a lot of other wikis. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not knowing how this module works, I defer to the nom's judgment. There's not too many transclusions. How does the orphaning process work, assuming delete is the result, with modules? Would you have to find a comparable module, or what you do in this case? Just the basic steps.Doug Mehus T·C 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 28 November 2019 (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:Eurocup 2016–17

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template, information is already included in the parent article and this is providing no linking between articles Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2019 (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).

2017–18 EuroCup Basketball 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2019 (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).

2015–16 Lega Pro Group A table

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY and here in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:24, 29 November 2019 (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/2019_November_28&oldid=930762665"