Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Wales subdivisions categories
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Redundant to {{Principal areas of Wales}}, which has 525 transclusions whereas this has only 43. Keep the dragon icon, though. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The two templates are not exactly compatible. The redlinks that {{Wales subdivisions categories}} produces are helpful for identifying missing categories. There's work which needs to be done before the transfer can take place. I would point out that {{Scotland subdivisions categories}} and {{London subdivisions categories}} so I suggest that Wales subdivisions categories remains and Principal areas of Wales is deleted. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
**Delete and replace a template with 525 transclusions? I think not. What would be easier is to merge the useful stuff from "subdivisions" (although that's such a vague term as to be unusable) into "principal areas"/"council areas"/"counties". I'm not so good a template syntax to do that quickly but missing categories can be detected by their absence, if it's considered really necessary to do that as we may simply not have any images within that category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Further thoughts. Well, I've been awake today and had time to think about this. It seems silly to have two templates that perform very similar functions. My inclination would be to keep {{Principal areas of Wales}} but using the code of {{Wales subdivisions categories}}. The name "subdivision" I don't find helpful whereas the alternative is precise. This would also have the advantage of not having the replace 525 transclusion, only 43. Redirection is not really an option because the syntax of parameters differs between them. A side effect would be that we would show redlinks for unpopulated categories, and I suppose that's a matter of personal preference. Personally I don't like redlinks because they imply that something is missing when in fact there may just be no images in that category- for some, there are never going to be, but others may achieve populations. One advantage would be that the template becomes easier to maintain because it no longer relies on the complex syntax it has at present. I'll ping @AnRo0002: for an opinion on this, because he created {{Principal areas of Wales}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think , the code of {{Principal areas of Wales}} is much more flexible than of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} because prefix and suffix ara variable and with if exist it creates no red links. with {{Wales subdivisions categories}} you have only the option X in Principal area of Wales but there are possible categories like Nature, Flora, Animals or Fungi of Principal area of Wales or an example for a suffix: Principal area of Wales by year. So it may be used the layout of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} but not the syntax. --anro (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AnRo0002 and Railwayfan2005: I take your point on flexibility, anro, but I think both could coexist, except that the title of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} isn't helpful and perhaps should be renamed to {{Principal areas of Wales2}}, or some such, and cross-link between them so users know they have a choice. This isn't a great hit on the servers since there are only 43 transclusions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the two should be merged together. As I said before I like having the red links it just needs the all parameter setting to get them on {{Principal areas of Wales}} though. This in only a navigational template so I don't think it needs to be too specific in its name. "Principal" give an impression that other possible areas are less important, where as "subdivisions" does not. I'm not a fan of the layout of {{Principal areas of Wales}} or its useage of span and div. BTW you resise that {{Principal areas of Wales}} links to Galleries and {{Wales subdivisions categories}} to Categories? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've created a merged template at {{Railwayfan2005/Sandbox/Wales}}, it's roughly the Principal areas template using navbox code.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll support that. Re "Principal areas", this is the term equivalent to English counties and Scottish council areas. It's not an insult in any way. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- @AnRo0002 and Railwayfan2005: I take your point on flexibility, anro, but I think both could coexist, except that the title of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} isn't helpful and perhaps should be renamed to {{Principal areas of Wales2}}, or some such, and cross-link between them so users know they have a choice. This isn't a great hit on the servers since there are only 43 transclusions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think , the code of {{Principal areas of Wales}} is much more flexible than of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} because prefix and suffix ara variable and with if exist it creates no red links. with {{Wales subdivisions categories}} you have only the option X in Principal area of Wales but there are possible categories like Nature, Flora, Animals or Fungi of Principal area of Wales or an example for a suffix: Principal area of Wales by year. So it may be used the layout of {{Wales subdivisions categories}} but not the syntax. --anro (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Further thoughts. Well, I've been awake today and had time to think about this. It seems silly to have two templates that perform very similar functions. My inclination would be to keep {{Principal areas of Wales}} but using the code of {{Wales subdivisions categories}}. The name "subdivision" I don't find helpful whereas the alternative is precise. This would also have the advantage of not having the replace 525 transclusion, only 43. Redirection is not really an option because the syntax of parameters differs between them. A side effect would be that we would show redlinks for unpopulated categories, and I suppose that's a matter of personal preference. Personally I don't like redlinks because they imply that something is missing when in fact there may just be no images in that category- for some, there are never going to be, but others may achieve populations. One advantage would be that the template becomes easier to maintain because it no longer relies on the complex syntax it has at present. I'll ping @AnRo0002: for an opinion on this, because he created {{Principal areas of Wales}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Still in use. A consensus seems to have been found but not enacted. Feel free to reopen when the template has been replaced. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)