Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 16
=[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 16|May 16]]=
== [[Template:MediaWiki redundant]] ==
: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; deleted by {{admin|Fastily}} AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Tfd links|MediaWiki redundant}}
Unused MediaWiki message qualify for speedy deletion under G6, and thus should be deleted (and their talk pages deleted as G8) instead of being tagged with this template. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 May 2020 (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:A Star Is Born tracks]] ==
: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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Tfd links|A Star Is Born tracks}}
Per per {{slink|Template:Infobox_song#Track_listing_examples}}: {{tq|An album track listing may be added to infobox song as long as the following criteria are met: 1) the article does not have a navbox in which the song appears; and...}}. Since there is an A Star is Born navbox this template is redundant and discouraged from use in the infobox → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete since the notable songs with articles are covered in the better :Template:A Star Is Born. Aspects (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (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).
== [[Module:Shortcut/policy]] ==
: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:Shortcut. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Tfd links|Shortcut/policy|module=Module:|type=merge}}
- {{Tfd links|Shortcut/further|module=Module:|type=merge}}
- {{Tfd links|Shortcut|module=Module:|type=merge}}
Propose merging Module:Shortcut/policy and Module:Shortcut/further with Module:Shortcut.
There's absolutely no need to force the user to write a hacky wrapper module for every custom shortcut prefix, as opposed to supporting it as a parameter in the main module. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:I just created Module:Shortcut/further; this was quick haha. No objection to merging it if that can be done while retaining the functionality; basically all I'm trying to do is use a custom title instead of "shortcuts" and have the redirects go through. You can see what I'm trying to get to work at Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/5. (I just noticed the redirect thing, though, and I'm not sure how to deal with that; is that fixable?) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Not with the current design of the module, although if this gets implemented I may implement that feature too. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Coding that is a little beyond my current abilities, so if you'd be able to do that, that would be wonderful. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Actually, {{done}}, albeit very hackily. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Merge. Yes, although I hope we won't be doing many of these. The rationale is quite weak, in my opinion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2020 (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).