Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7 edit

Template:Road marker BY M 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, which has been superseded by {{jct}} and a proper graphics library. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 7 June 2019 (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).

Module:Gutenberg 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. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. Wikitext versions of the three templates that use this module written in Template:Gutenberg author/sandbox, Template:Gutenberg Australia/sandbox and Template:FadedPage/sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreenC. Wikidata integration will need a template. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This template has nothing to do with Wikidata. Modules shouldn't be kept now because in some distant future more features might be added to them. In any case, what about this series of templates, even if they were to be Wikidatafied, would mean that Module:Wd, Module:Wikidata, or Module;WikidataIB wouldn't be suitable and a separate Lua module would be required. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 24 June 2019 (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:Vgy 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 subst and delete. Numerically the !votes are close, but the arguments for deleting this template outweigh those for keeping; in the former camp we have a deprecation on a WikiProject/MOS level along with the general convention of not storing trivial coding (such as a piped link) in templates as the primary arguments; in the latter camp there is a concern about old revisions, "not a valid reason for deletion", and variations on "it doesn't hurt". Primefac (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The video games WikiProject does not link years to the "YYYY in video gaming" articles anymore. This is one of those archaic Wikipedia things that used to be done back in the mid-2000s, but overtime the practice has been abandoned. The template should be deleted to settle it permanently. TarkusABtalk 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, but would support deprecation / docs warning against casual use. Maybe even mass subst'ing. It's still used in a lot of articles and deleting will break old revisions of articles, so would prefer a softer approach. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a philosophical question completely not germane to this discussion, but... do we/should we operate as if we care about old revisions? I wasn't aware that old revision readability was something that we were meant to preserve. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never seen it come up as an argument to keep something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Axem Titanium: I say no. If I may quote something I wrote for another TfD discussion:
        This concern seems misplaced. If we thought red-linked template transclusions in article history were problematic, we would never delete any templates ever.

        However, since this nomination suggests the deletion of widely-transcluded templates, one could argue the number of potential red links to be encountered in article history is larger than the standard TfD discussion. But here's the thing: as long as T36244 remain unimplemented, article history will always be fundamentally misleading about how templates worked because it does not show the state of the template at the time it was transcluded; it shows a transclusion of the current version of the template. It should not be our responsibility to create the illusion that page histories display prior template transclusions reliably.

        And the purpose of this template won't be some huge mystery: this discussion will be linked in the deletion log shown on all deleted pages. The red-links actually do the job of conveying the message that the template no longer serves the original purpose.

      • Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template, and templates are not generally kept solely for the sake of preserving old revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Does it really hurt to keep it? Sports articles have their own season/year template, so it's not like this is something that was only done for video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:YEARLINK. The main usages I see are in infoboxes and lead/prose and in neither case these have strong relation to the subject. The few articles that actually talk about gaming years are better off linking directly rather than using an obscure template. And there already are navboxes for years for relevant articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Hellknowz: MOS:YEARLINK does not apply here as far as I know because this links to a related article concerning the year. Or are you trying to say that it goes overkill? --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why wouldn't YEARLINK apply? It's literally for linking to year articles with no significant relation. Yes, it's based on WP:OVERLINK. There are very few valid cases for year links, and it's mostly the year and decade articles. And these templates aren't even used there. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and not deprecate) - While I see a point in such a template, its use in the infobox does indeed violate MOS:YEARLINK, so keeping a template which users don't know when to use correctly, only provides a tool for easier misuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with @Dissident93:; I don't see why the vgy template can't be keep. I do get it for gy but delete the two templates is kind of overkill. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agreed @Dissident93, if deleted, it's not going to be a nice one. Don't to do that. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should be noted that the various MOSDATE scripts remove this template manual links like the one this template would produce whenever it is found in an article being processed. Per nom, per Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that at the very least this template should be substituted or phased out before deletion. At that, it is possible that this could still be used situationally in articles more relevant to video gaming history. --Duonaut (talk | contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duonaut: You misunderstand how TfD works; if the consensus of this discussion is determined to be delete, the template will be put into Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell until all of the transclusions are resolved. Retro (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s a simplistic template which could easily be typed longhand through a direct Wikify or a parenthetical addendum. KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The template serves only to encourage the addition and retention of non-relevant wikilinks. The "Keep" votes all seem to rely on the non-argument "It's not hurting anyone."--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or deprecate - there may be a point in using this template, but if it is being misused most of the time, it needs to go. Besides, simplistic templates such as this stack up template usage, and pages take longer to parse than they should. Gamingforfun365 05:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only reason given in the nomination for deletion is that the template is "archaic", which is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. The template has a specific purpose not filled by any other template, so there is no reason to delete. Phediuk (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, the page you link to actually says that it is a reason for deletion. Right at the top: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following".--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the oppose voters above. This template has a specific purpose that no other template has. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 04:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think part of the question should be whether or not that specific purpose is necessary. If 'YYYY In Gaming' articles aren't being supported by the Gaming WikiProject, then why do we need to keep it? It can just as easily be replaced by a link to the year the game was released, i.e., 2019, if a year link is necessary. I rather agree with Hellknowz about that. --Praefect94 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose anymore and violates policy. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in articles, but not delete: While most of the previous delete votes note that this template's use in mainspace is in violation of MOS:YEARLINK, this template actually has more uses in the user talk namespace than it has in articles; it's used on 1,571 user talk pages it's directly used on 372 user talk pages. I don't see any point in breaking all the links or replacing . Conditional template code can be added to the template so it will not display a link when use in articles, and all occurrences can be replaced as appropriate (not necessarily in that order: the template could be removed in mainspace before applying the conditional template code).

    I will also note that MOS:YEARLINK is not straightforwardly applied here, because the links are to year articles specific to video games. MOS:YEARLINK says:

    Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject.
  • It goes on to give this example of appropriate use:
    [[1787 in science|1787]] might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year.
  • I don't know if linking the date a video game was released to that year in video games is an acceptable example of appropriate use (I suspect not, hence my deprecate !vote), but it might be better to discuss year links separately, rather than pseudo-discussing it in the context of this template and talking past one another. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "has more uses in the user talk namespace" That's because it's used in VG newletters. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hellknowz: I know, but I don't see any reason to intentionally break all those links by deleting, or to edit 1000+ 100+ user talk pages and give people the false impression they have new messages. The argument for deleting appears to be primarily based on WP:OVERLINK, but that only applies to article usage; if we make the template conditional so it only display plaintext in articles, then the overlinking problem is solved. (I am not arguing the template should remain in articles afterwards. It should be replaced, but plaintext will prevent future misuse.) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The newsletter is transcluded, not substituted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hellknowz: It is transcluded in many cases, but that still leaves 372 user talk pages where it was substituted. I'll strike my previous statements to use that more accurate number. I did sample occurrences of it in userspace before commenting (apparently I chose a bad sample since all the ones I saw were substituted), but I should have been more precise with my numbers. I still think 100+ is a significant number of user talk pages to disturb when cleaner solutions are possible. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement (including substitution on user talk pages). no need to encourage linking that is no longer in line with policy. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2019 (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:Bradford City A.F.C. matches 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; deleted as T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and just duplicates information already present in {{Bradford City A.F.C.}}, with no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 19:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You are right. The template should be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2019 (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:POTD-width 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 15 June 2019 (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:The Apprentice UK candidate list 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This abomination should be deleted. It's double usage as both ToC but also top page navigation box (as the "ToC" entries are for other articles) is horrible. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No deletion criteria is cited; template provides useful navigation between 14 main articles and several sub-articles for individual contestants. Rather than deleting, propose either changes to make it better or a replacement that includes all its functions. The template has been used and updated for each new series for eight years. One possible road to replacement would be to have a TOC for each individual Candidate article that lists just the candidates for that series' article and a navbox template for the Candidate articles for other series that doesn't list individual candidates, just links to the candidate articles. —D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to re-invent the wheel here. Each candidate article, such as List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1), has the candidates as sections. A normal ToC does that the job of linking to them and requires no updating, ever. You also already have {{The Apprentice UK}}, which you already have at the bottom of all the pages. It just needs to be updated with the candidate articles. --Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template has been replaced on all fourteen articles and is no longer used. —D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty much every name is non-notable and links directly to the section in the series. Ajf773 (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2019 (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:Australia Men Basketball Squad 1996 Summer Olympics 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th place and lower per precedent are not needed Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (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:Philippine peso NGC 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded as a template; subst the one transclusion and delete. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Template:Philippine Piso NGC series and the 3 TfDs below it, all similar templates closed as consensus to delete DannyS712 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2019 (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:WikiProject Western Governors University 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one-participant wikiproject was userfied, and so the template should be deleted while the project is being incubated (no prejudice against recreation if and when the project goes live) UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (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/2019_June_7&oldid=904110305"