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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EU2019switch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like an unnecessarily convoluted way to make sure the second that Brexit "officially" happens, that everything will automatically be updated and no one will have to touch anything. We have no need or obligation to be accurate down to the second with these updates, and they'll need to be removed after it happens anyway (i.e. there will need to be an edit to remove this template so why not just have the edit be to change the text itself?) Primefac (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And as a note, I used <noinclude> on the TFD tags because it's used inside of a File: call and didn't feel like breaking things. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Time function used in the template happens to measure in seconds - had it measured in days, that would be accurate enough but as 'internet time' runs in seconds, that is applied. On the day after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union there will be a lot of fussing around changing things and looking for the right replacement maps - it is much easier to insert the time switch function in advance, so that articles will remain accurate while the work of tidying up can be done at leisure.

Other states are candidates for membership of the EU: when we have a date for example for Serbia joining the EU, a similar switch can be added for that change, again so that the work can be done in advance. Hogweard (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is overkill for its need. Updates like this happen all the time for every other topic. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly! a single line of code and a template name of just 12 characters is very modest Articles do have updates all the time, but few are as complicated, scattered over many articles. It will be a mammoth task to update every necessary reference on 30 March 2019 across goodness knows how many articles, all the time bumping into edit conflicts as several editors are trying to do the same thing, and possibly causing local edit wars. When a mayor or a Prime Minister changes, there may be a change to one or two articles - the European Union though has countless articles with maps, figures etc to be changed. This short template is designed to allow editors deal with the transition at leisure. We can over the forthcoming months note where changes will be needed and sort them all out months in advance without disrupting the articles. When the change happens, the articles will transition smoothly, and then we can go through at leisure to replace the old with the new, and then delete the template when they are all done.

I am basically a pictures man - I live on Commons - and I designed the template to handle changing maps, but it works with text too. Hogweard (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm concerned about all this currently hidden content. No one will be reviewing any of these changes for the next year while they remain invisible, so on go live things could unexpectedly break. Plus, any updates over the next year will need to be duplicated in both logical branches of the code (ie pre and post brexit) so that they remain in sync. Finally, it's not an absolute certainty that the UK will exit the EU on 30 March. There could be delays (or even theoretically a reversal) so I don't think we should have an automatic conversion. TDL (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as T3 to Template:Show by ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would work with ((Show by)) (and if I had known about that template, I would have used it instead), but ((Show by)) is a template used generally and ((EU2019switch)) is specific. There is added value as it is both functional and a label. One could have a label to mark where changes must be made from 30 March 2019, but if you are doing that, you might as well have the change set up beforehand. Using ((EU2019switch)), you can then track where the changes are and go through after 29 March 2019 and tidy them up; and when the last one is done then the template will be redundant.

The issue about hidden content is a valid concern, but by using the specific template, anyone can see every occasion it is used and so vet the "hidden content", in case the extreme fringe had stuck in "Yahoo" or "Boo-hoo" or whatever. If we use ((Show by)), the functionality is the same, but you cannot so easily check what the 'hidden content' is.

As to uncertainty - the date is laid down in EU law, and if you wait a few days for the bill going through Parliament, you can have more assurance. In the extremely unlikely circumstance of a reversal or delay, the template can be altered, which would not be possible if the general ((Show by)) template were used. Hogweard (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, after replacing with ((show by)). Frietjes (talk) 12:32, 23 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portuguese Second Division Zona Norte (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Portuguese Second Division no longer exists, it was folded in 2013. Therefore, there's no need for a template for a league that doesn't exist (and isn't used on any mainspace pages). 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete No need. Hhkohh (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 11:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:40, 11 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).

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sporting CP Player of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think Stromp Award is notable enough to have a template. SLBedit (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be moved to List of Sporting CP players. SLBedit (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - these 'Player of the Year' navboxes are notable and well-established (see Category:Association football club Player of the Year navigational boxes) GiantSnowman 08:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed my mind. SLBedit (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - does this nom just need a consensus to be closed? Sorry to jump in late to this one, but keep as per Snowman. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:23, 19 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).

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Redirect and target (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one user page, can be implemented in Wikitext. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep cannot be implemented in Wikitext. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  

  ((#if:((#invoke:Redirect|isRedirect|(({1))}|[[(({1))}]])) -> ((#invoke:Redirect|main|(({1))}|bracket=yes))|((error|(({1))} is not a redirect)))) ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So instead of one lua call you now have to replace it with two, and you end up with something so hard to read that even you forgot the closing brackets on your first #invoke? If you delete this module, it would be better to merge it into Module:Redirect. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Module:Redirect already has all the functionality this needs; it does not, in my opinion, need formatting features. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep replacement would use lua anyway, so no there would be no performance improvements, and there is no harm in keeping the more human-readable module. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ahecht and Farmbrough. Wikitext is not an improvement. -- GreenC 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• move to Module:Sandbox/Rich Farmbrough/Redirect and target, not useful outside of one user's userspace. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 17 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).