Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 24



Template:Friendly search suggestions

 * 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:Friendly search suggestions. Clear consensus in favour of merge, the main points of work are the exact functionality that the merged template should have (per Andrew Davidson's caveat) and the title - but most people appear to prefer "Friendly search suggestions". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Friendly search suggestions with Template:Find sources notice 2.
 * Friendly search suggestions
 * Find sources notice 2

These templates perform the same function, and I don't think there's a distinction to be made, beyond personal preference, for using one over the other. I think the best elements of each ought to be combined: friendly language, a curated set of links, and good parser functions. Bsherr (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is the Template:Find sources notice that was not cited here, but it surely falls into this discussion. Why? Well, if the idea is to merge, then merge them all. I do not object to the idea if the "best elements of each ought to be combined." Agente Rolf (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but there are some differences. Template:Find sources notice has fewer links but, in exchange, supports multiple search terms, putting each in its own row. The two proposed to be merged here accommodate only one search term, by default the subject page name, but have more links. One possible merged solution would be a parser function that shows more links when only one search term is given, and fewer links when several search terms are given. But I think it would be best to stay narrow and take care of this easy merge first, then next have the discussion about whether it is worthwhile to do this more intricate one. --Bsherr (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... that's not really feasible to implement with the current implementation of Module:Find sources. * Pppery * has returned 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge all three - I can't see why one would use one and not the others, other than Friendly search suggestions having the extra functionality with the parameters. The links from the others can just be added there. --Nessie (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's Template:Find sources notice that has the extra parameters functionality, but your point still stands. --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Show me This sounds sensible but I'd like to see the result of making one of these into a superset before agreeing that the others can be redirected to it.  Note that I routinely use an abbreviated form – FSS – placing it on the talk page of any article that I'm working on.  This short form is easy, quick and memorable, which are good features to retain. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the others into Friendly search suggestions. The layout of this is user-friendly, clearly stating how the template can be used, and it contains more search links compared to other find sources templates. North America1000 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Friendly search suggestions is a more user friendly invitation used on thousands of article talk pages., is very easy to remember. I am not sure why these search templates need to be changed at all. They serve their purposes and having some overlap just means editors prefer one over another. Best Regards,    Barbara    ✐  ✉  20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - Both templates's purpose is exactly the same. No reason why some articles should have x suggestions while other articles should have y suggestions. --Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Same as Gonnym. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this one. And merge the other ones.BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Premier Soccer League home venues in 2010-11

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Not sure why we need a navbox for the venues for one season. Seems trivial. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Premier Soccer League home venues in 2010-11
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 10:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Decade years navbox

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Superseded by   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Decade years navbox
 * Delete - not needed anymore. --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:Gangstar series

 * 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 2019 May 6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gangstar_series
 * 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).

Boston Elevated Railway s-line templates

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/BERy. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BERy color
 * BERy lines
 * BERy stations
 * S-line/BERy left/Atlantic
 * S-line/BERy left/Main Line El
 * S-line/BERy left/Tremont
 * S-line/BERy right/Atlantic
 * S-line/BERy right/Main Line El
 * S-line/BERy right/Tremont
 * Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a reason for these being on Wikipedia. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  04:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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).