Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16 edit

Template:MediaWiki redundant 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MediaWiki redundant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused MediaWiki message qualify for speedy deletion under G6, and thus should be deleted (and their talk pages deleted as G8) instead of being tagged with this template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:57, 16 May 2020 (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:A Star Is Born tracks 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Star Is Born tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per per Template:Infobox song § Track listing examples: An album track listing may be added to infobox song as long as the following criteria are met: 1) the article does not have a navbox in which the song appears; and.... Since there is an A Star is Born navbox this template is redundant and discouraged from use in the infobox → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the notable songs with articles are covered in the better Template:A Star Is Born. Aspects (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (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:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews 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:COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews with Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns.
Both template list curfew and lockdown measures. Either merge the two or strictly separate lockdowns and curfews. MB-one (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose MB-one, Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews was actually a table on Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and with various issues, which I had raised on it's talk page. See here. I had proposed deletion of this table as the Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns preadtes it, is more accurate, updated regularly in comparison and states exactly the same information apart from "type of regulation" column, which isn't really necessary. Emailsson should have checked the talk page and thought better before creating the template.

A merger would achieve nothing as all of the information in curfews template is already stated in the lockdowns template, apart from the aforementioned column. Deletion would be a better approach. --Shawnqual (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnqual once we have certainty, that all relevant information from both templates are included in one, deletion of the other, would be the next step. So there's not really a disagreement here. But after a rough inspection, the "curfew" list actually includes more detailed information regarding certain countries. This information should be transferred to the "lockdown" list first. --MB-one (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support these should clearly be the same. !voters here may also be interested in Talk:Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Requested move 3 May 2020. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really have to add the type of lockdown in the table and create a giant, messy table where most countries will have a blank space in the column or simply state 'nationwide lockdown'? Such information can easily be accessed on the main articles of the countries which are hyperlinked to their names.Shawnqual (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge under the name "Template:COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns", as the main article title is renamed to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge per Soumyabrata → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. PPEMES (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2020 (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:Shortcut/policy 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 Module:Shortcut. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Shortcut/policy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Shortcut/further (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Shortcut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Module:Shortcut/policy and Module:Shortcut/further with Module:Shortcut.
There's absolutely no need to force the user to write a hacky wrapper module for every custom shortcut prefix, as opposed to supporting it as a parameter in the main module. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Module:Shortcut/further; this was quick haha. No objection to merging it if that can be done while retaining the functionality; basically all I'm trying to do is use a custom title instead of "shortcuts" and have the redirects go through. You can see what I'm trying to get to work at Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/5. (I just noticed the redirect thing, though, and I'm not sure how to deal with that; is that fixable?) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the current design of the module, although if this gets implemented I may implement that feature too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coding that is a little beyond my current abilities, so if you'd be able to do that, that would be wonderful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,

Done, albeit very hackily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, although I hope we won't be doing many of these. The rationale is quite weak, in my opinion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2020 (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).