Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 5

October 5

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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a template but a CV article which might qualify for speedy deletion as WP:A7: no indication of importance. Certes (talk) 23:29, 5 October 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 relisted on 2018 October 14. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:27, 14 October 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia does not need to have a module of this sort: it is written in English and there is no reason to write code that dynamically conjugates text in other languages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As of now, no consensus at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:07, 5 October 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 keep. This did not need bringing up at WP:TFD. The matter could be discussed at Template talk:Bku and specialist input sought at WP:VPT and/or WP:BOTREQ. I will close this and make a post at the template talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose refactoring Template:Bku.
This isn't really a merge as much as it is a refactor. Every other flag template I have seen takes the nation param first and the descriptor param second. Should this template be redone so that it works as {{bku|ESP|18}} instead of the current format of {{bku|18|ESP}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now with regards to this nomination, @Pelmeen10: the reason that this is an issue has to do with the way other templates interact with these. Specifically I came across the issue when using {{Medals table}}. What this template does is take two params {{{flag_template}}} & {{{event}}}. These parmas are used in conjunction with the various 3 letter nation codes to produce things like {{flagIOC2team|GRE|2004 Summer}} where flag_template = flagIOC2team and event = 2004 Summer. So far, every single flag template I have come across is setup in the format {{<template_name>|<country_code>|<optional_descriptor>}}. The only exceptions that I have found so far are {{bku}} and {{Fbwu}}. I don't doubt there are others. So what I am proposing is that we try to keep things consistent. Instead of being formatted as {{bku|<descriptor>|<country_code>}}, I propose flipping this around to be {{bku|<country_code>|<descriptor>}}. The template only has 277 transclusions at the moment and most of those are within medal tables that I will be cleaning up as part of converting them to use {{Medals table}} anyway so I would gladly take responsibility for updating every single transclusion of the template but I want to make sure that I do so after a discussion has been had.
Hopefully this explanation answers the questions you all had. If not, please let me know! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:59, 5 October 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 split result.

There is a relatively strong consensus to fold in the UFL template into the American football infobox, but with two templates being discussed the opinions are mixed (if even present) for the NFL infobox. There is NPASR for the latter template. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:United Football League (2009) team with Template:Infobox NFL team.
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UCO2009bluejay: that is a VERY valid point... I was thinking "their both football teams..." but I agree with you. Should I close this and re-nominate or should we just change this discussion to be merging the template to {{infobox sports team}}? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it open until consensus arrives. If it's not a clear support, then open another one under infobox sports team (which I would oppose, BTW). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually discuss things on Tfds and I don't know how it works so I would suggest that if UFL should be merged it would be to the American football template. The NFL has a few different parameters. I've posted a link to this discussion on the NFL project talk page. I am unaware of their feelings on this topic, but they should be discussed.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: Actually Dissident meant that helmet size is a defunct parameter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be automatically handled anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow I can't remember the last time I changed my own mind so many times! I support the comments above and am glad to see others pointing out issues! I think we need to identify the ultimate "parent" template and see if there are any other templates that fit with this merge. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 5 October 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).