Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19 edit

Template:Ifparadef 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) 19:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need for this overly specific wrapper on #ifeq, which is only used correctly on two templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the standard {{#ifeq:{{{param|a}}}|{{{param|b}}}|defined|undefined}} works well when this is needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 30 May 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:Ifparadef full 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifparadef full (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and seems unnecessary. When would a template needs the ternary undef/empty/content situation (for cases without |5=, literally the same syntax as #ifeq {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:48, 19 May 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:Engeos 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. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

One transclusion in userspace, no apparent encyclopedic value Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - links here. No encylopedic value at all - Wikipedia isn't for things made up in school one day. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 10:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that I've nominated a similar template by the same creator for deletion. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 12:34, 21 May 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:Exists 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. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No page that is using this template would run into the expensive parser function limit if it used the regular #ifexist instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's what I wrote four years ago (almost to the day) at Template talk:Exists#Efficiency:
This template seems to work by comparing a link to the page under test with a transclusion of that page; if the page doesn't exist, the attempted transclusion instead returns a redlink, which tests as equal to the true link. If the page exists, and is large, that means that a lot of content is being transcluded unnecessarily. This is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive L#.7B.7Bexists.7D.7D where the whole of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) is being transcluded - invisibly, but it's still there - see What Links Here.
--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the if-exist limit is 500, if one is really pushing that there are probably other problems there. This seems very inefficient to boot, far more than ifexist Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as horrendously inefficient, superseded by #ifexist. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 10:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't technichally superseded. It was created after the #ifexist parser function. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:42, 21 May 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:San Diego Padres retired numbers 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 after substituting in San Diego Padres retired numbers and transcluding on San Diego Padres (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Diego Padres retired numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on two articles, and could very easily be placed on the "retired numbers" page and transcluded onto the main article. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we talking about this[1] because there are five Padres with retired numbers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: No, the nominated page is different from the navbox. This page is to reuse the table text in both San Diego Padres and San Diego Padres retired numbers, instead of syncing multiple copies.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In theory transcluding from the San Diego Padres retired numbers could work, except the occasional unknowing editor not familiar with tranclusion syntax like <section begin=retired_numbers/> would just delete the "unnecessary" code and never know that they broke transclusion on the including page. Having a standalone page is self-contained, and avoids these inadvertent, uninformed mistakes. It also ensures that all citations are defined in the included text, and doesnt reuse a reference from outside the section, which would result in undefined references on the transcluding page(s).—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the template is transcluded, then all of the references will be inside the LST'd section, which means that there won't be any issues with named templates.

In general, though, templates get borked all the time - we can't say "let's not do this because it might get broken" because things get broken every day, and we fix them. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: There'd be less opportunities to break things if it remained a separate template. I don't think the "cost" is high to keep it. A real-life example of people unfamiliar with syntax for transcluding from an article section is at NBA All-Star Celebrity Game, where I've had to fix people incorrectly adding text after the end of the section, fix people removing the sections markers altogether, and fixed the markers again.—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete after merging with San Diego Padres retired numbers per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with San Diego Padres retired numbers and transclude in San Diego Padres using {{#section-h:San Diego Padres retired numbers|Retired numbers}} which does not require <section /> tags and is less fragile. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:37, 1 June 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:Broader 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 relisted on 2018 May 28. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Latter Day Saint biography 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 relisted on 2018 June 2. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Latter_Day_Saint_biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).