Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 17 July 19 >

July 18 edit

Template:Move review 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 on 2018 July 26. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:49, 26 July 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).

Template:Infobox college newspaper 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one transclusion; should be replaced with {{Infobox newspaper}}. Jc86035 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 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).

Template:Infobox box office 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, but otherwise not problematic. I would move this into user space if it's still in development. Jc86035 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 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).

Template:Infobox APEC summit 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 on 2018 July 26. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:47, 26 July 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).

Template:Infobox Austrian organization 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. No oppose. Using {{Infobox organization}} or {{Infobox government agency}} instead (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't have any Austria-specific parameters, so {{Infobox organization}} should be sufficient for the two articles which use this. If there is anything that's obviously missing from the other template then it should be added via edit request. Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 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).

Template:Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania series 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 on 2018 July 26. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 26 July 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).

Film director navboxes with two entries 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a navbox for just two films. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not sure how these navigation boxes will assist Wikipedia's readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 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).

Template:Tampa Bay Storm roster 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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team folded in 2017 so a current roster is no longer needed. Also nominating the related template as well.MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 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).

Template:Template parameter value 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 No consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of subtle template dependency makes things very fragile and thus is not a good idea (See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Module:Template_parameter_value) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The template is in use, it's working, it modifies no pages and contains failsafes within the module, and no explanation has been given as to how it is "fragile" and "not a good idea". If you can make it better, then be WP:BOLD and do so, don't just nominate for deletion. -- AlexTW 03:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on deletion, but don't use it. The template isn't bad, but it's a hack trying to run pattern matching over wikitext that's likely to be rather fragile. If this is kept I'd strongly recommend against actually using it in any article, or anywhere else where things working in a straightforward and non-hacky manner is a good idea. Anomie⚔ 12:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of keeping a template that shouldn't be used? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's already being used, and without any issue. Can you explain how it will be "fragile"? You're the second person to say so without any technical explanation. There are failsafes in the template in case it's used on a page where it won't match on anything or return anything. -- AlexTW 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: It's fragile in the way that it makes assumptions about the behavior of the parser and renderer which are not guaranteed. When the developers make changes here (which happens, especially at the moment), the template might stop functioning and we have to deal with hundereds of users being pissed off at us and demanding the non-guaranteed behavior is restored, because now we broke their 'article creation'-process, 10000 articles or whatever. This functionality is like a snake eating its own tail. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to delete the other templates and modules that use the same functions as well? All this template does is take the content of a page and perform regex upon it, returning blank if it fails. No assumptions. It's far better than any other template that would break if the incorrect parameters were passed to it and it didn't have a check for such a case. -- AlexTW 10:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant I different kind of fragile -- that it is too prone to being unwittingly broken by seemingly innocuous recoding of articles or templates. What TheDJ said applies as well, plus it just doesn't seem right in my opinion to do this. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is being recoded? If you have an alternative way to do it, you should fix it, not deleted it. That could almost be viewed as disruptive, especially since you've admitted that you've listed it here because you personally don't like it. Why is it "not right"? It's an extremely efficient way to transclude without the need for tags. -- AlexTW 00:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it uses an expensive parser function means it is by definition not "extremely efficient". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that it uses an expensive parser function does not mean it is automatically "fragile". Nor is it used extensively or in a recursive manner (if it was, then sure, I'd see your point). When I say "extremely efficient", I mean in its usage. Can you provide anything supporting that this template is terribly draining Wikipedia and it shouldn't be used? If so, I expect to see you nominating other similar modules as well. It's already been in use for the past month; I see no complaints or issues. (And please do not modify my posts. Cheers.) -- AlexTW 00:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that {{For nowiki}} also presents errors. -- AlexTW 06:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but disable in mainspace. It has possible uses in other places to help editors collect information. There are many ways to make it miss the wanted parameter by changing the page which contains it, e.g.: Move the page, use or stop using a template redirect, change capitalization of the first character in the template name, use or stop using a parameter alias. There are also ways to make it return a wrong value, e.g.: Have a piped link in the value (it will stop reading at the pipe), place a template call in comment tags or nowiki (it will still be read when it should be ignored). Some of these could be fixed by making the module more complicated but it will always have issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an alternative way to do it, you should fix it, not delete it. I've listed all of these down and will work on implementing fixes for all of them, so a new reason for removal in the namespace will be required; it will always have issues is an excuse. Cheers. -- AlexTW 06:25, 20 July 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_18&oldid=852019805"