Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 25 - Wikipedia
- 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:For outline. I suppose the final title should be reasonable and match the difference between "outline", "timeline", and "glossary", but that's something to be figured out after they're merged. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Module:For outline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Module:For timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Module:For glossary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Module:For outline, Module:For timeline and Module:For glossary.
Almost duplicate modules; only difference is list of pages to search and the text of the hatnote, which could be passed as parameters. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is pretty silly to be in separate modules. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This broadly makes sense, but it seems like it'd be awkward code to pull each list of title patterns in through parameters. It'd probably be cleaner and more efficient to hard-code the sets of inputs and use a single parameter to choose between sets; we don't need these to be terribly dynamic. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I always personally think that that kind of hard-coding is ugly; why not provide more flexibility with less code? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't actually need the extra flexibility for them. In fact, limiting flexibility can be valuable because it enforces consistency. While hard-coding values is inelegant, it is simple and effective. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 01:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I always personally think that that kind of hard-coding is ugly; why not provide more flexibility with less code? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).