From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25

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 August 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 August 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).
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) WBG converse 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Unused after a month, just a bunch of red links, not a standard form of template Le Deluge ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 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).
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:Math. (non-admin closure) WBG converse 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Module:Sum with Module:Math.
As I said earlier when nominating Module:Log10 for merging, we don't need separate lua modules for every mathematical operator. The same thing applies here, the module for summing make more sense as a part of a more general module than as a specific one. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:10, 25 July 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).
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 OrdinalSuffix after replacing with Ordinal.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Module:OrdinalSuffix and Module:Ordinal

Two modules with very similar functionality. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ordinal does everything OrdinalSuffix does and more, therefore I don't object Ordinal replacing OrdinalSuffix. As far as I can see the call to OrdinalSuffix is compatible with Ordinal but not vice-versa. chi ( talk) 15:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:09, 25 July 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).
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 to delete. Feel free to continue the discussion concerning usage, namespace restriction, ... elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Although this module has a lot of unnecessary frills such as supporting zero parameters (not used at all), and a different message for the category namespace (use {{ cat main}} instead; main is used on 8,000 categories, which is much smaller than the 129,000 uses of {{ cat main}}), it is, at it's core, just "Main article/page(s): foo", which is exactly the usecase of the pre-existing Module:Labelled list hatnote, and can be implemented as {{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||article|page}}|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||articles|pages}}}}. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I've added a tfd tag exclusive to category namespace to Template:Main, as this proposal will make it no longer be used in category namespace. Anyone who thinks this is excessive is free to revert or reword the notice. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    The existing note ("The template below (Main) is being considered for deletion") confused me. (Especially on a page that had no {Main}, but {AP} (just a redirect to {Main}) instead.) I think a custom hatnote would be safer than what {Template for discussion [deletion]} displays. No one wants to delete Template:Main; you just want it to stop emulating {Category main} when invoked from the Category namespace [and act the same way everywhere - "Main article: ___"]. (Also the Tfd links to a null discussion that links to this active one.) Anyone can reword it, except that it's protected. Only Category pages that mis-use {Main} (how many?) bring people here. Perhaps something like "The template below (Main) is not intended for Category pages. Currently, Main acts as Category_main on category pages. There is a discussion of removing that function." (It's hard to be clear and terse.) - A876 ( talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I broadly support this as the author of Module:Labelled list hatnote; I stopped short of implementing {{ main}} with it because of the extensive category use, but those really ought to be disentangled entirely to {{ cat main}}. I think I'd prefer to avoid mixing Lua and wikicode for functionality as seen in the suggested code, but this proposal's going in the right direction. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    What's wrong with mixing lua and wikicode in that way? I do agree, though, that the duplicate check is ugly, and it make more sense to have some syntax in Module:Labelled list hatnote for the plural to be concatenated to the singular, which would also help in Template:Transcluding articles. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 20:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    It's not strictly wrong, it just sets off alarms in my head about mixing approaches. Lua output isn't preprocessed, so you can't e.g. return '{{some template}}'; it'll produce "{{some template}}" on the page rather than producing a template call. While your example does things the other way around, and thus should technically work, I'd be happier with e.g. a wrapper module or extra parameter to enable the namespace stuff. I'd prefer to avoid the concatenation approach because I try to make the modules I create easily localizable so that they're more easily reused by other language editions, and concatenation is often unfriendly to localization. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    I was never suggesting having concatenation be the only syntax, just an additional option which languages in which it makes sense can use. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What's happening to {{ Main}}, as currently used on category pages? I can't see any nomination or discussion for deleting that.
I have no opinion on any internal implementation details, Lua or otherwise. But suddenly I've got a myriad category pages marked up that Main is going to be deleted, and no reason given. What gives? This isn't some more "move everything into wikidata" rubbish, is it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I made that notice a bit scarier than I needed to. This isn't in any way suggesting that any data be moved from Wikipedia to Wikidata. {{ main}} isn't going to be deleted, but it is going to be deleted from category pages, where you will have to use {{ cat main}} instead (a task that can be possibly done by a bot). {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 21:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 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).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25

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 August 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 2 August 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).
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) WBG converse 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Unused after a month, just a bunch of red links, not a standard form of template Le Deluge ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 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).
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:Math. (non-admin closure) WBG converse 10:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Module:Sum with Module:Math.
As I said earlier when nominating Module:Log10 for merging, we don't need separate lua modules for every mathematical operator. The same thing applies here, the module for summing make more sense as a part of a more general module than as a specific one. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:10, 25 July 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).
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 OrdinalSuffix after replacing with Ordinal.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Module:OrdinalSuffix and Module:Ordinal

Two modules with very similar functionality. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ordinal does everything OrdinalSuffix does and more, therefore I don't object Ordinal replacing OrdinalSuffix. As far as I can see the call to OrdinalSuffix is compatible with Ordinal but not vice-versa. chi ( talk) 15:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:09, 25 July 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).
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 to delete. Feel free to continue the discussion concerning usage, namespace restriction, ... elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Although this module has a lot of unnecessary frills such as supporting zero parameters (not used at all), and a different message for the category namespace (use {{ cat main}} instead; main is used on 8,000 categories, which is much smaller than the 129,000 uses of {{ cat main}}), it is, at it's core, just "Main article/page(s): foo", which is exactly the usecase of the pre-existing Module:Labelled list hatnote, and can be implemented as {{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||article|page}}|Main {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE:{{{1|}}}}}||articles|pages}}}}. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I've added a tfd tag exclusive to category namespace to Template:Main, as this proposal will make it no longer be used in category namespace. Anyone who thinks this is excessive is free to revert or reword the notice. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    The existing note ("The template below (Main) is being considered for deletion") confused me. (Especially on a page that had no {Main}, but {AP} (just a redirect to {Main}) instead.) I think a custom hatnote would be safer than what {Template for discussion [deletion]} displays. No one wants to delete Template:Main; you just want it to stop emulating {Category main} when invoked from the Category namespace [and act the same way everywhere - "Main article: ___"]. (Also the Tfd links to a null discussion that links to this active one.) Anyone can reword it, except that it's protected. Only Category pages that mis-use {Main} (how many?) bring people here. Perhaps something like "The template below (Main) is not intended for Category pages. Currently, Main acts as Category_main on category pages. There is a discussion of removing that function." (It's hard to be clear and terse.) - A876 ( talk) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I broadly support this as the author of Module:Labelled list hatnote; I stopped short of implementing {{ main}} with it because of the extensive category use, but those really ought to be disentangled entirely to {{ cat main}}. I think I'd prefer to avoid mixing Lua and wikicode for functionality as seen in the suggested code, but this proposal's going in the right direction. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    What's wrong with mixing lua and wikicode in that way? I do agree, though, that the duplicate check is ugly, and it make more sense to have some syntax in Module:Labelled list hatnote for the plural to be concatenated to the singular, which would also help in Template:Transcluding articles. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 20:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    It's not strictly wrong, it just sets off alarms in my head about mixing approaches. Lua output isn't preprocessed, so you can't e.g. return '{{some template}}'; it'll produce "{{some template}}" on the page rather than producing a template call. While your example does things the other way around, and thus should technically work, I'd be happier with e.g. a wrapper module or extra parameter to enable the namespace stuff. I'd prefer to avoid the concatenation approach because I try to make the modules I create easily localizable so that they're more easily reused by other language editions, and concatenation is often unfriendly to localization. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    I was never suggesting having concatenation be the only syntax, just an additional option which languages in which it makes sense can use. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep What's happening to {{ Main}}, as currently used on category pages? I can't see any nomination or discussion for deleting that.
I have no opinion on any internal implementation details, Lua or otherwise. But suddenly I've got a myriad category pages marked up that Main is going to be deleted, and no reason given. What gives? This isn't some more "move everything into wikidata" rubbish, is it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I made that notice a bit scarier than I needed to. This isn't in any way suggesting that any data be moved from Wikipedia to Wikidata. {{ main}} isn't going to be deleted, but it is going to be deleted from category pages, where you will have to use {{ cat main}} instead (a task that can be possibly done by a bot). {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 21:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 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).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook