Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29 edit

Template:Delete page edit

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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (in Ladino) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm having trouble seeing what Delete page even does differently. I would also recommend resolving this TFD as quickly as possible since the deletion template is breaking transclusions all over the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maintain Template La due to its inherent usefulness on notice boards and name the new version with the deletion rationale something different such as {{la-d}}. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as "original proposer") Yes, we can close this merge proposal. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea is not to get rid of {{la}} by renaming it or merging it anywhere: the idea is to merge in the feature of {{delete page}}, whereby providing text in a parameter causes that text to be prefilled in the deletion rationale box when you click "delete". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't we just add a |rationale= parameter to {{la}} and all related templates? That's all I'm attempting to request in this merger nomination. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has had a bit of confusion as to what's being proposed. To help reach consensus, let's restrict things to the actual proposal here. The question is whether to add the functionality to specify a deletion rationale into {{la}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can the adding a "[delete]" link and parameter "|deletelink=yes" also be added to the other page link templates? (ie. {{lt}} , {{lc}} , etc) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's technically possible, but let's work on consensus for this single template before we start a broader conversation about all of them. Looking at all the templates at once will just muddy the waters. ~ RobTalk 03:12, 31 March 2016 (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).

Template:Honda international timeline edit

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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (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).

Template:Current events/revisedlayout edit

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 relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (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).

Template:European championships in 2016 edit

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. There haven't been any strong policy-based arguments advanced here to support or oppose this fork, but there is a strong numerical consensus against the fork. Out of the rationales for keeping/deleting, I found Izno's comment about the lack of a main article most convincing, especially with no rebuttal offered. ~ RobTalk 00:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed and there is not even an article for this. No template exists for previous seasons. Qed237 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I question "not needed", though there is not a main article for this (which may suggest that this is bad WP:WEIGHT, and which is one of the criteria for a good WP:NAVBOX). --Izno (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2016 (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).

Template:Mid-Del PS edit

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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 links and a redirect does not a navbox make, per WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2016 (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).

Template:Norman PS edit

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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 links does not a navbox make per WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (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).

Template:Dixie Highway sidebar edit

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 userfy. Multiple expressed a "delete until articles are made" opinion. As the creator has expressed a desire to userfy it, it seems appropriate to move this to the userspace with a strong caution to NorwayHS4 not to bring this back to the Template space until several more articles are made. If this were moved to the Template space with less than 6-7 links, it would be appropriate to delete it based on consensus that this needs more links to be useful. ~ RobTalk 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON, only two blue links, one of which is only tangentially related to the subject. Delete until the corresponding articles are made. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—per nom, it's too soon to need the template, and it may never be needed as it's not a given that we'd need separate state-detail articles for the Dixie Highway. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unneeded sidebar, especially considering it's mostly redlinks. I should also note we do not have any of these sidebars for Interstates and U.S. Routes, as we have hatnotes to the state-detail pages in the prose and categories to handle the need. Dough4872 16:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It apears so far the consensus is deletion, but can I put it in a draft series? I agree it was too soon and I should have waited and dug up more information before sticking it in mainspace. --NorwayHS4 Message box Contributions 01:09, 2 April 2016 (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).

Template:On the Fringe edit

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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two live wiklinks. Not enough for navigation. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_29&oldid=1145944038"