Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 9

• Template:Uw-1rrAbortion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer true. Topics with discretionary sanctions no longer inherently have 1RR restrictions unless otherwise indicated. Plus, templates like this could cause alerters to be confused because the policy says that alerts must use the official template {{subst:Ds/alert}} and that you cannot warn someone again about DS until a full year. Misleading on many levels.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Anarion_family_tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Elendil_family_tree contains all of the information that Template:Anarion_family_tree contains, plus more. Additionally, Template:Anarion_family_tree is not used on any pages. 2601:2C4:C480:946:FC71:F76:5CFA:4ECB (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Belgium national football team matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary, there is currently only one link. Not a useful aid to navigation. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:AWBVersions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused module, pulls data from out-of-date data page, which was nominated for deletion by me. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BucketheadBrain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

un-needed template (all links included in the main Template:Buckethead, duo only released one album under the Pieces alias. RF23 (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Husbands of British princesses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Being married to a British princess confers no status at all. It is ridiculous to have this template in articles such as Frederick V of Denmark, Ferdinand I of Romania, Haakon VII of Norway, Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, Paul of Greece, etc, or to even group these men on this basis. We really need to set some boundaries for these royalty templates. They are multiplying like rabbits and every minor distinction is being navboxed. It always starts with British royalty and then spreads everywhere. What's next, Template:Children of British princesses? Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks for nominating this template for deletion, Surtsicna, as I was about to do the same thing. Most of the people listed in this template already belong to other royal houses, thus the info presented by this template is repetitive. The other issue is that no such position as "Husband of a British princess" exists. Unlike women, whose husbands' feminine form of titles gets bestowed on them upon marriage, men do not necessarily become a British prince upon marrying a female member of the royal house. Prince Philip is an exception. Keeping this template will also probably lead to the creation of other unnecessary templates such as Template:Husbands of Danish princesses, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 15:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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]

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]

• Template:WikiProject History of photography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Photography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject History of photography with Template:WikiProject Photography.
WikiProject History of Photography is now a task force under WikiProject Photography, the template for which currently can (and should, if merged) include a link to that task force. Qono (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep separate. Merging of WikiProject History of photography with WikiProject Photography will unnecessarily submerge the specific interest in historical records of the medium within the vast array of technical interests that occupy most photography articles. History of Photography is a distinct discipline, whereas 'Photography' is a generic. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and serves its reference purposes best by preserving distinct categorisations. There are numbers of editor/contributors to History of Photography who I find are unaware of this proposal for merger and more time should be given to alert them to it. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 23:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:States of Nazi Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and doesn't link to Nazi-specific articles. --woodensuperman 13:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: it is being used in Nazi Germany. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but merge: It is supposed to be merged with Template:Nazi Germany occupations in accordance with earlier decision. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the closer about that, as it seems strange to merge to this template when all participants in the previous discussion agreed that this one should be deleted! --woodensuperman 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SockmasterProven (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-sockblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:SockmasterProven with Template:Uw-sockblock.
Largely duplicate in terms of content and parameters. The peroid parameter can be replaced by time parameter in uw-sockblock template B dash (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]