Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5 edit

Module:Plain text 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a separate lua module for this functionality, just use Module:MultiReplace {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pppery yes you could probably do it, but since this is presumably going to be used in various templates as they gain auto-descriptions, not just at Template:Infobox settlement, it is useful to have one module for it. Also, inline replacement with patterns is horrible - quite possible it wouldn't actually work, because mediawiki parser will do its own interpretation on the patterns. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then create a {{plain text}}. Counterexample for "quite possible it wouldn't actually work, because mediawiki parser will do its own interpretation on the patterns": Template:Delink question hyphen-minus/sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of creating a wrapping template. Yes, some patterns work, others may not. I have no desire to fight against the mediawiki parser to do it; or to write very unreadable code - even doing comments is harder in a template - when it costs basically nothing to have a separate module, which is also much much more maintainable. This module will likely have in the order of a million transclusions (just infobox settlement is 480000), and it'd be faster to do it this way too than to use multireplace too. For Template:Delink question hyphen-minus it may be ok as it has onetwo replace, for this with 9 replaces I don't see how nice code comes out. It'd either be an unreadable one liner or have a lot of <!-- for newlines everywhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, since it is anyhow useful, either as a module or a template, seems better to have it as a module where the code is nicer. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) {{MultiReplace|{{{1|}}}|%{{!(}}%{{!)}}File:.-%{{)!}}%{{)!}}||%{{!(}}%{{!(}}.-{{!}}||%{{!(}}||%{{)!}}|| ''' ''' ||'''?|}} {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a lua error of unmatched braces probably because the produced [[ aren't escaped. And what did I tell you of unreadable oneliners/and fighting the mediawiki parser that will take way too long to understand and change if anyone wants to change it later? Again, there is either going to be a module or a template, so let's make it a readable module. (edit conflict) Even with your edited version, both brackets have to be escaped Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Or atleast I'm getting an unpaired argument error seems issue was extra pipe Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:27, 27 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) 21:21, 5 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:L-abbr 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 move to User:Nixinova/L-abbr, as there is no opposition and the creator is okay with it. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only transcluded on documentation page and author's user page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this gets to a consensus of 'delete' can you please instead move it into my userspace (User:Nixinova/L-abbr)? Thanks  Nixinova   T   C   19:11, 27 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) 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with userfying. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 7 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:German administrative territories 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:States of Nazi Germany. No opposition. I will note that while there was no discussion in the other two nominations on this page regarding the appropriateness of the name or targets, there is no prejudice against a rename of Template:States of Nazi Germany if it's determined to not be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:German administrative territories with Template:States of Nazi Germany.
In order to consolidate territorial possessions of Nazi Germany in one template, which most of not all screen resolutions do permit. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:34, 16 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) 02:28, 25 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) 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe merge them somewhere, but definitely delete {{States of Nazi Germany}} as not linking to nazi specific articles, just regular german state articles where {{States of Germany}} is what should be used. Also these three discussions really should've been one discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 17 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:Nazi Germany occupations 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:States of Nazi Germany. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Nazi Germany occupations with Template:States of Nazi Germany.
In order to consolidate territorial possessions of Nazi Germany in one template, which most of not all screen resolutions do permit. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. {{States of Nazi Germany}} should be deleted as unused (and it does not link to Nazi specific articles). However, I think some sort of merge is in order. --woodensuperman 12:10, 16 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) 02:28, 25 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) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template parallels Template:Japanese occupations and Template:Italian Empire occupations. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:28, 6 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:Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany 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:States of Nazi Germany. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany with Template:States of Nazi Germany.
In order to consolidate territorial possessions of Nazi Germany in one template, which most of not all screen resolutions do permit. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. {{States of Nazi Germany}} should be deleted as unused (and it does not link to Nazi specific articles). However, I think some sort of merge is in order. --woodensuperman 12:11, 16 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) 02:28, 25 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) 21:19, 5 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:Yahwistic titles of Jesus in Greek 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. No strong opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template violates WP:NPOV. This list of titles is not widely accepted, and the interpretation of these titles varies substantially grouping them together in this fashion favors a particular interpretation of these terms. Daask (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sketchy debate about this in 2008, see here. I agree that the listing of titles is not widely accepted, if at all. Are there any uses of the category in reliable sources? If not, then there are arguments in favour of deletion. As for WP:NPOV, I question whether this listing can be classed as NPOV. As pointed out in 2008, the Greek (Septuagintal) terms are applied to YHWH and the template rests on a fact. However, I would insist that it is not a worthwhile one from the perspective of academic theology. — Jpacobb (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpacobb: I have made no attempt to ascertain whether any RS makes this grouping. If not, this would be WP:OR. However, even if some source did make such a grouping, I still think this template is a problem, as it would give undue weight to this perspective. The claim that the terms Soter or Poimen in the New Testament are primarily to be understood as "Yahwistic titles" is a marginal view. In order to be presented like this in a navbox, I think NPOV would require such a grouping to be a clearly dominant interpretation. Daask (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:46, 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) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "God" and "Lord" aren't specifically related to Jesus (they appear elsewhere extensively), and the Alpha and Omega mentions situations unrelated to Jesus, so they ought to be trimmed from the template. That would leave this template with an extremely small list of remaining links (especially given the amount of space it occupies), so we'd be better off deleting it. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any vehement objection to the existence of this template, but the fact that I've never understood what "Yahwistic" is supposed to mean in this context, despite knowing a fair amount about Hebrew, Greek, and the Bible, does not cause me to feel enthusiastic about the template... AnonMoos (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume it means that these are titles of divinity also appearing in the Old Testament. But I agree, it doesn't really make sense; it's as if we're associated Jesus with one part of JEPD. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 12 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:Zara Nachke Dikha 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 mainly due to a lack of valid links and no major opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to navigate --woodensuperman 10:03, 16 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) 02:33, 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) 21:19, 5 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).

British Isles livestock navboxes 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 redirect to Template:British Isles livestock. Cavalryman V31, please make sure proper attribution is given on the template talk page with {{copied}}. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All were formerly navboxes within the larger Template:British Isles livestock, I have since added collapsible species sections to that template so these are now redundant. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:57, 5 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).

Module:Asbox/testedit 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 14. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 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).

Module:Airport destinations 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 14. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 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).

Module:Available 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 14. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 14 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:High-risk 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:High-use (since the high-risk talk currently redirects to the high-use talk). Keep in mind how extant uses of both with zero parameters will be affected. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:High-risk with Template:High-use.
There is no reason for these to be separate templates rather than just having one template that switches which message box is displayed when the number reaches 100,000. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. And is it feasible to make usage counts and template updates automatic rather than manual?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, unless you put every page transcluding a template into a category and used PAGESINCATEGORY. All of our transclusion count tools are external, so manual updating is the only reasonable way to do it. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge seems reasonable per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many or most uses of this template do not include raw numbers but also one of a variety of symbols (+, <, >, etc.). Ensure this case is covered if these are merged. --Izno (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If assistance is required ensuring edge-cases (as above) are handled, ping me when this hits the holding area. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Makes sense to automate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but ensure this works with current uses (maybe have the parser strip out non-digit characters when deciding whether to use the high risk or high use templates). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. They both look familiar, but I didn't realise that we had two of them; I see them rarely enough that it never occurred to me that there were different templates. I like the idea of having a single template with a parameter to present a different message if we specify a really big number. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems fine, however plain uses of just {{high-risk}} should show the stronger message so you'd need to replace them with something like {{high-use|risk}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:24, 11 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).

Module:Books and Writers 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 16. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 16 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).

Module:Block quote 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, broken when used from wikitext (mainFrame doesn't return anything), and doesn't do anything sufficiently complicated to merit a special module. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support sandboxing to Module:Sandbox/TheDJ, given the name of the user in question. The first version makes it fairly clear the module is likely intended to do block quoting better than we've got in other templates. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there are several TFDs for unused modules on this day's log, I've proposed a speedy-deletion criterion for unused modules. Please visit WT:CSD#Unused modules to offer an opinion on the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 11 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).

Module:Break 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 soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used ({{break}} uses Module:String now) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a reasonable delete. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there are several TFDs for unused modules on this day's log, I've proposed a speedy-deletion criterion for unused modules. Please visit WT:CSD#Unused modules to offer an opinion on the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 11 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_5&oldid=1216963139"