Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 12 September 2024 (→‎Template:TUGS-RfC: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 4
September 6 >

September 5

Template:Env

Not seeing how this is a helpful template. It does two things. It lists all magic words, but we already have WP:MAGIC for that. It also shows what all magic words evaluate to on a given page, but that does not help anyone with anything. If you need to see what a given magic word evaluates to, you can just use that magic word directly (in preview, of course). Subst both uses and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have this template watchlisted because I sometimes use it. As noted in the documentation, it is more useful on the preview screen (though mostly for the "Page" section and a simple time zone check) than for actually transcluding, so we wouldn't expect to see many uses in live edits. Dekimasuよ! 23:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason previewing a specific magic word would be insufficient for those uses? Legitimate question; if this helps your workflow I am happy to withdraw this nomination. I just think that we should have some benefit before we create the need to maintain a separate list of WP:MAGIC words :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to make sure you've used the right pagename related variable is probably the one I'd have in mind for something like this in the general case, and making sure I'm using any correct spelling of one of the others.
    Ignoring that contrivance since I've never used this template, I think this is probably something that specific users should put in their user space if they find it useful. That way they can also customize it to the things they need (regularly). Another alternative might be to add the current values to Help:Magic words like MediaWiki wiki does (in some of the tables) and then transclude {{Help:Magic words}} in its entirety. Izno (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. If I knew about this earlier I certainly would have used it, and it would have saved me a lot of trouble. Rename it to something easily findable ({{Magic words}}?) per WP:TPN and transclude it on Help:Magic words.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or keep & rename, but transclude the appropriate contents of Help:Magic words. Either way, to avoid duplication.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I am changing my !vote to keep and rename to {{magic words}} (as nom). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TUGS-RfC

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

inactive project/taskforce, could be moved to a subpage of the taskforce or just deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete. There really is not added value to have project specific templates like this and only added burden to fix, clean, update them when needed (and there is always a need), instead of just one general notice template. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Van Wilder films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{National Lampoon}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts, are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors? The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates which are so simple distract from learning wikitext: bare links are preferable in general so that pages are easy to update. I did not make an argument about how much they are used, but it's true, they aren't used very often. Izno (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Pope said: if they were subst'd then you can't tell the actual usage. It's not an issue of learning wikitext, it's ease and speed of editing and makes things easier. That's already two editors who edit in the project telling you this. --SuperJew (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that three editors (just saw Aspirex replied below) --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at 2023 AFL Women's supplementary draft, Template:WAFLW Cla is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first comment, there are templates like this for most Australian football teams. Maybe we are just lazy, and you think it's a worthwhile endeavour to punish us lazy people and force us to write out [[Claremont Football Club|Claremont]] instead of {{WAFLW Cla}} or {{subst:WAFLW Cla}} everytime. I just don't think you should be able to tell me how I should be editing. Shortcuts are good, especially on mobile. But I wouldn't be surprised if people like you now go and hunt out and try to delete all of the other shortcut templates because of very serious editor reasons. I would very much doubt that many people are reading wikitext without understanding how templates work. The-Pope (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the two batches I did with the intent to nominate all of them. I stopped because you raised objections about these batches, so we would not have to have the same discussion multiple times over with N batches instead of 2. "There are other ones" is not a defense of this set. Izno (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are other ones" is in direct response to Gonnym's "why don't we do it for all" comment. We do do it for all in this topic space. But the "people like you will go and hunt them" was directed at you. Under WP:NPA I removed numerous adjectives from that sentence before posting. The-Pope (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, obfuscates the wikitext with no significant benefit. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for WAFL templates, there appears to be no policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used. The arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which either encourages or precludes this. Therefore I say keep; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion. Aspirex (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates (and similar ones) are very useful for ease of editing effeciency, and save valuable time. Regarding the issue of making the Wikitext more complex, who exactly is reading the wikitext apart from other editors? And they are either of the project and themselves use the templates in editing and are familiar with it or a one-off look in who it shouldn't really affect at such a level anyway. If it really is such a big issue, the use can be changed to automatic substing via a bot. --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to reasons that Aspirex, SuperJew, The-Pope have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are link templates only with no special function, which are not sufficiently complex to merit a template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These, like a lot of similar useful shortcuts are often used with the subst function, so you can't tell how often they are used. Why are you trying to make things harder for editors? The-Pope (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates which are so simple distract from learning wikitext: bare links are preferable in general so that pages are easy to update. I did not make an argument about how much they are used, but it's true, they aren't used very often. Izno (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, if it were true they were substed often, Template:WAFL EP wouldn't have 300 links. Izno (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    editors use it in different ways. Why do you feel you can demand that other editors edit like you edit? Why are editor assistance shortcuts bad? To make it clear, because I don't know if everyone actually knows what these templates, and many more like them for other leagues, generally do, is they remove the words "Football Club" from being displayed whilst still keeping it in the link, so that prose reads better or tables or lists aren't overwhelmed by repeated Football Club. It's much easier to write {{WAFL SF}} or {{subst:WAFL SF}} than [[South Fremantle Football Club|South Fremantle]].The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (copying my comment from the nomination above this, however, if replying to me, please only reply in one of them) I've said this before, if links for teams, groups, companies, games, etc., need a template, then why aren't we doing this for every other one that doesn't use a template? While this might seem silly, this is actually a core design philosophy here, either a template should be used for simple links, or plain links and redirects should be used. Looking at Perth Football Club, Template:WAFL CC is used there manually, which means that someone took the time and instead of writing a clear link, used the template. This to me is very unhelpful as it makes reading the Wikitext harder. If these templates would have been used in automated way where code takes part of an article titles and from there uses it to find a template, then that would have been a different scenario, which this isn't it. TL/DR: less helpful than plain links with no real added value. Gonnym (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, obfuscates the wikitext with no significant benefit. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't much care about the outcome of the discussion, but the all the template for deletion warnings make the article 2024 WAFL season almost unreadable, and probably all others before! Please have a look for yourself. How is that improving Wikipedia? Calistemon (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calistemon I had somewhat meant to use the tiny tag rather than the inline tag and then left it after nominating everything. I have no issue changing that since you've brought it up. Izno (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a policy against using shortcut templates in the manner in which these templates are being used? So far, the arguments in favour of delete all seem like individuals' editing preferences and 'an alternative exists', and I can't find any policy or guideline which either encourages or precludes this. Certainly I want to keep them if no such policy exists; as pointed out by the Pope, these shortcut templates are a ubiquitous and efficient feature of WP:AFL editing; and their functionality should be so quickly obvious to editors of any experience level that it renders "makes the wikitext harder to read" no more than a minor inconvenience, not a reason for wholesale deletion. Aspirex (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that means there isn't. So I advocate for Keep. Aspirex (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates (and similar ones) are very useful for ease of editing effeciency, and save valuable time. Regarding the issue of making the Wikitext more complex, who exactly is reading the wikitext apart from other editors? And they are either of the project and themselves use the templates in editing and are familiar with it or a one-off look in who it shouldn't really affect at such a level anyway. If it really is such a big issue, the use can be changed to automatic substing via a bot. --SuperJew (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to reasons that Aspirex, SuperJew, The-Pope have outlined - templates like these save time and adds efficiency and seem pretty useful Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EOTY/nominee

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 withdrawn. Izno (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template subpage with no parent page, documentation, or categories, transcluded just once in a user talk page. Created in 2013. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Userboxes go to WP:MFD, even if they are in templatespace :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. My mistake. Withdrawn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current events monthly archive/display

Test template subpage with no parent page, created in 2017. Used only in one editor's sandbox pages. Subst and delete, or userfy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pfafrich/Axiom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 - test page under my old user name --Salix alba (talk): 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template subpage with no parent page, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Creates simple decorative blockquote formatting. Used in one discussion page from 2006. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Move topicon/styles.css

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 as G8 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subpage with no parent page; styles were apparently not needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Metal–organic frameworks/doc

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Used as parent template uses {{navbox documentation}}. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Coburg Lions current squad

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in article since this edit. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Alt lists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar now that both link direct to the same page. Gonnym (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Also, for a template listing early-modern British women playwright lists, its name is comically too general. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1961 NCAA College Division independents football records

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates that are not needed anymore based on this discussion. Gonnym (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Var nowiki

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 September 12. ✗plicit 11:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Stabbing as a terrorist tactic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 procedural close. Nomination created in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Stabbing as a terrorist tactic with Template:Mass stabbing.
This page is not sufficiently different in substance to require its own page and should instead be a sub-section within the body of Mass stabbing. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean for this to be a template, but rather just to propose a merge of Stabbing as a terrorist tactic into Mass stabbing. I have proprosed AfDs plenty of times, sometimes resulting in a merge, but never proposed it as a merge from the beginning and I wanted to do that here. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the instructions at {{Merge to}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_5&oldid=1245402544"