Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 1



Template:Portuguese name

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 withdrew. Let's keep with the templates to avoid suffixes. (non-admin closure) ApprenticeWiki   work  03:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Portuguese name with Template:Family name hatnote.
 * Portuguese name
 * Philippine name
 * Indonesian name
 * Malay name
 * Singaporean name
 * Family name hatnote

Merge into an existing single one hatnote template for a future use. ApprenticeWiki  work  23:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What has changed since this September 2020 discussion to make this possible? (ETA: This comment was in reference to Philippine name specifically.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , while I think functionally speaking, it would be nice to have all the "family hatnote" templates merged, so at that level I don't disagree with your proposal, but at the same time, it may not be as easy to merge practically speaking as some of the others, or it would have been done already. I wonder if you've looked at the Portuguese name template code in detail (or at the doc page) as there may be some technical difficulties in merging it. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be done, only that it's easy for us to say, "let's merge this", but in the end, if that's the consensus, some template writer has to actually perform the merge, otherwise it won't happen. So to a certain extent, the technical feasibility of a move plays into the question of whether it ought to be considered for merging. There are some unique aspects of Portuguese name regarding the use of generational titles like filho or neto which would require some additional design work and coding; that's probably the sticking point that prevented it from being merged earlier. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be attempted, but it's something to take into consideration. If you wanted to take a shot at merging it, I doubt anyone would be opposed. This discussion may give you some of the backstory for why it hasn't been done prior to this, in case you decide to take it on. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That someone would be me (probably), and the last time I looked into these it was not a trivial thing owing to the patronymics and general not-sameness in the language. It can probably be done, just not easily. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Would be interested in hearing User:Primefac's opinion on these as they are the one who merged the previous batches and maintains the template. Looking at the code for these, Indonesian, Malay and Singaporean seem to be simple hatnotes and ideal for merge, but as I said, I'd like to hear Primefac's take on these first. As a side note, both Template:Spanish colonial name and Template:Spanish married name which are not nominated here, seem to be ideal for merge as Spanish is already supported by the template (and the EfN templates should really be merged into a single one like the hatnotes). Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm neither for or against at this point in time. While I do agree with some of the above sentiment that all of these hatnote templates should be a single entity, the discussion linked by Jonesey above (where the Philippine template was originally struck from the TFD) indicated that we would need proof of concept before being converted, and I haven't done that yet because this is a non-trivial update. It is very possible that adding in the patronymics will require a full rewrite of the existing fnh structure, and most people in the previous two discussions were quite concerned about the potential complexity of the code.
 * In other words: can it be done? Sure. Will it be easy? No. Should that stop us from trying anyway? I guess not? Primefac (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Opposed, while awaiting larger volunteer pool – that's an unusual !vote, so allow me to explain. (Tl;dr: it's unfair pressure on volunteer editors if there's really only one or two people who can do it.) I went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, if one evaluates this purely on the basis of the result after it's completed, allocating zero cost to actually doing it, then I would !vote "yes (merge)". But we already know it's a difficult merge, and it won't come at zero cost.
 * One part of the cost is related to the issue of *who* is going to do it. As already mentioned, they are a prime candidate for it, but this is a volunteer project, and we can't just expect to "assign" tasks to individuals because they're the only one, or even the most logical one, to do it. The flip side of Primefac working on this (difficult) merge, is that they won't be available to work on other templates which may actually introduce new functionality or simpler functionality, or otherwise improve the encyclopedia.  Given their utility on a wide range of tasks here, I judge that it would be a net negative to the encyclopedia for them to work on this for the moment (unless they wish to because it pleases them to do so; as this is a volunteer project, their choice is paramount and trumps anything else mentioned here).
 * Another possible choice for "who", is me. I could probably manage it, and my time is likely less valuable, but I'm a volunteer, too, and I already feel oversubscribed. Plus, I just don't see the utility of it right now; insufficient gain for significant pain. The main reason I might choose to do it at some point, is precisely because it is difficult; it might boost my template skills, and that's appealing to me. But that reason doesn't supersede my doubts about how useful it would be in the end.
 * The flip side of "cost" is "benefit"; namely, once the difficult work is done, how much functionality do we gain for that expenditure? Zero. There won't be anything editors can do after the merge, that they cannot do now. There is one minor benefit to users: they will save two or three seconds locating the correct template for Portuguese family names after the merge, because currently it might cost them one extra click from the Template:Family name hatnote section, if they happen to land there first. (Then again, maybe not; an advanced search for 'Portuguese names' in Template space nails the correct template in result #1.) One could perhaps add an additional benefit of merging, based on reduced cost for an editor familiar with the main template, to not have to learn the different parameter set for the unmerged one; but that seems pretty sketchy.
 * So, while ideally a merge would be a nice-to-have, there's not a lot of payoff to actually doing it right now, and I feel it's unfair pressure on volunteer editors if the available implementer pool is shallow. So I vote Opposed for now, until we have a strong consensus to merge, *and* five template writers all of whom are available to do it, so nobody feels too pressured that it falls on them. I'll throw my hat in the ring, as one of the five possibles, so we need consensus plus four more; once we have that, I'll change my vote to "Support", but not yet. There are more important things to do around here right now. Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Archiveline

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC) This template is completely redundant to Archive list, where that template can automatically detect archives. This template has to be manually added for each line of 10 archives. Almost all uses of this template have been replaced with Archive list. Since this template has no advantages over the other, this template should be deleted. Terasail [✉️] 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Archiveline


 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 3 August 2021 (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:Anderson Family

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 August 8. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anderson_Family
 * 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:Taxonomy/Euproopidae

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 15:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) The clade Euproopidae is a synonym of Belinuridae (refs: ). We already have Template:Taxonomy/Belinuridae, so this template is useless and will no longer be used. Super  Ψ   Dro  10:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy/Euproopidae
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2021 (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).