Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22 edit

Module:One string 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. Per CSD G7 and author's approval (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and pointless Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you say so, then G7. I been finding more and more bugs. Better to delete. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:20, 22 October 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:Decades 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 Keep / orphan. Consensus is that these templates are not suitable for use on disambiguation pages. Removing them from those pages will orphan the template. But there is no consensus, in this discussion, to delete these templates so they will be retained for now, just in case they have any use on articles. If they are still unused in a couple of months, they can be renominated for deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used in and linked to disambiguation page. Its not useful to have links to 2010s, 2020s, 2030s, etc, in 2000s for example. Hddty. (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait at least after this discussion over to add a new similar template. I have added {{Millennium sidebar}} here. Hddty. (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template is useful. If you don't like one specific instance of it, then be bold and remove it. That said, it's useful in 2000s as the term can refer to the century as a whole. This template helps in navigation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If 2000s could refer to the century, just click 21st century in 2000s. I don't see a reason why someone who type "2000s" into the search bar want to go to 1900s (another disambiguation page). The template should be put on the actual page, not disambiguation page. We already have {{centurybox}} for {{decades}} to list all similar decades and {{millenniumbox}} for {{Millennium sidebar}} to list all similar centuries. It almost as if we add a template that link to Venus (as nearest planet) in Mercury. In general, sidebar isn't needed on a disambiguation page. Hddty. (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per this request, this discussion, and MOS:DABICON, I am relisting this. Note that local consensus can override guidelines (especially when they only say "are discouraged") so if there is no further support of the nomination I would consider this to be closed. Also, consider this the speedy-renomination of {{Millennium sidebar}} as it will have a full week to be seen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is not a !vote as I have already !voted "keep", but a comment in light of the relisting. Per MOS:DABICON, transcluding templates [is] discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question (emphasis added). As I have already said, the template aids in navigation between the different terms meant by 2000s, as well as the decades contained within the 2000s. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page exist to navigate many pages that ambiguous because they have similar or same name, the link provided by these template is not ambiguous with 2000s. Someone arrived at 2000s because they want to see the the decade, century, millenium or a miniseries, not because they want to see all the links provided by these templates. The page 21st century and 3rd millennium already have template with the same link provided by these templates in discussion. Hddty. (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Cymru.lass. These are useful navigation templates and thus fit exactly the exception to the guideline's general discouragement. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on whether or not they're kept, but note that they are not disambiguation templates and would be removed from any dab pages per MOS:DABICON. These do not aid in navigating between things known as "2000s", for example, but between something known as 2000s and something known as 2100s or 3000s, which is not ambiguous. These thus fall exactly into the guideline's prohibition. The correct emphasis: transcluding templates [is] discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question. Only one of the terms in {{Decades}} has any given search term, and ditto for {{Millennium sidebar}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept, the decades template should be placed on decade articles and the millennium template on millennium articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have {{centurybox}} and {{millenniumbox}} placed at century and millennium articles respectively, for decade articles we already have {{decadebox}}. These templates in discussion could be deleted as redundant with the already existing template, given that we cannot keep them in the disambiguation page per guidelines. Hddty. (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override guidelines unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. So there would have to be new consensus at WP:MOSDAB to use the templates on disambiguation pages, not here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: agree with JHunterJ that these templates should not be used on disambiguation pages. Otherwise I don't have an opinion on these templates. +mt 11:53, 27 October 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:Fourfold 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has only been used once by its creator on a talk page (a bit oddly); seems unfinished and not useful anywhere (although if you have plans for it, please chime in). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, here's my pitch for keeping it. The fourfold is a simple name for the thing which lays out idea pairs in two dimensions. The template was created just yesterday and naturally it has "only" been used once. I want it to be better developed, and I have the idea that it can develop into a logic flowchart, accomodating the simple this/that/~this/~that up to including arrows and caveats. etc. Some help would be nice, if just to see if it will be useful. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful template, concerns with accessibility with the colors. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 29 October 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:Facebook growth 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

single-use template; can be merged with the article; no need for a separate template Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst then delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:37, 27 October 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:Intel/styles.css 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 Nothing to do here (already deleted). (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not needed per WP:DEVIATIONS Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 22 October 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:Divbox/style/x 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. Consensus to substitute and delete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed by the template ({{Divbox}}). – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks correct. Template:Divbox now uses a CSS instead of these. --Bsherr (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot of them are in use, and would need substituting before they can be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, good point. Most seem to be on user talk pages from substituted templates that use them, so not much consequence to substituting. The others I think can be orphaned by replacement with the divbox template. --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I just note that only one template is tagged as TfD, I will tag them separately. And the redirect is unnecessary to list here because if the consensus is delete,the redirect will be deleted as G8
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question BrandonXLF, can you confirm that (given the current coding) there is no way to invoke Template:Divbox/style/gamessage? Someone tagged it for G7, since it was blanked by the creator, but I declined it because I feared that this blank page might still have some function. I'll happily delete it if it's completely unused and if it's unusable without modifying the coding. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, Template:Divbox/style/gamessage is currently not used and has no function. So It can be deleted. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From a procedural standpoint, I am relisting this both to garner more discussion as well as get further information regarding the large number of transclusions. For example, {{Divbox/style/yellow}} is used on almost 1800 pages; just because the templates are not used by {{divbox}} does not mean they are not used, and I think before deleting them this needs to be made clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Template:Divbox/style/n is unused and it is useless. It can be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pkbwcgs: I do not think this template can be speedy deleted because your reason is not listed in WP:CSD Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hhkohh: Look above the relist. There have been two templates which have been speedy deleted because they are not used and have no function. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose delete, support deprecate These cannot just be flat deleted because of the thousands of transclusions they still have. They should first be deprecated and then cleaned up with substitution. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They aren't used directly (because the transclusions are from people using substitution on Template:Divbox so we don't need to waste time adding tags. But we do need to use substitution to get rid of transclusions for sure. – BrandonXLF (t@lk)
  • delete, assuming {{divbox}} is not being actively substituted. just because a template has thousands of transclusions, doesn't mean we can't decide to delete it. replacing the legacy transclusions is what the holding cell and bots are for. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 25 October 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_October_22&oldid=866634871"