Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25 edit

Module:TNTTools 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 Procedural keep. The modules were not tagged for deletion as required. Ruslik_Zero 13:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary on the monolingual English Wikipedia, and used only by eachother * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this module was only used in the English Wikipedia and was not needed for any other module or template it would not be necessary. But:
  • It is used, and therefore required, by Module:SimpleArgs. This last module is used by other modules (as I will explain in detail). And therefore it is necessary.
  • TNTTools takes functions of Module:TNT (developed by User:Yurik). TNT has not been eliminated, although it is not necessary for English Wikipedia. Although TNTTools does not come from Wikimedia, it's all a matter of time, I do not think that the TNTTools presence annoys somebody, just like the examples that I have put to take advantage of its operation (together with User:Amadalvarez).
Because the multilingual system?.
Since English Wikipedia contains pages, templates and modules that are copied to other Wikipedies, it would be nice to think over templates and modules in which the text to translate was separated of the template wikitext or program code. Text that is in Commons. This is the TNT system. This system facilitates translation to advanced users who are dedicated to this work, since they only have to translate the text of the table located in Commons, after copying the template or module unchanged.
I have also created sample files related to TNTTools (and SimpleArgs) and that you now also want to delete. If TNTTools should not be removed, the examples of your use should not be removed either.
Jmarchn (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice not to include functions in modules that always return the same thing, as any call to this module does on wikis that aren't themselves multilingual. That is called "code bloat". * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any attempt to convince me of the value of this module by appealing to Module:TNT is fundamentally doomed -- because I think Module:TNT is valueless and even nominated it for deletion myself a while ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the details of what each of the templates and modules that User:Jmarchn is defending here is doing, let's step back a bit and try to agree on something else: Sharing code across wikis is a useful thing. This is indeed the English Wikipedia here, and by itself it doesn't need translations, but the code for some modules could be shared in one way or another across wikis. TNT is not perfect, as everyone admits, including myself, and there could always a better way to manage the translations and to share the code. That's what User:Jmarchn is sincerely trying to achieve. Simply blocking any attempt to do it is not so constructive. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a useful template for the multilingual process across WPs, one of the most important WM projects. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:32, 30 October 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:ForMultilingualTrans 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 2019 November 17. Primefac (talk) 03:32, 17 November 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:SimpleArgs 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 2019 November 17. Primefac (talk) 03:33, 17 November 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:Infobox plantasbr 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 G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, probably meant to be placed in userspace? Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can be deleted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monayok (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 October 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:Star Trek planets TOC 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B), where the delete consensus is imminent. ミラP 23:07, 25 October 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).

BPSP variants 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 -FASTILY 00:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See #Template:Basic portal start page below. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nominator. These are all variants on the navbox-clone technique of portal-spamming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As far as I can tell, these are all devices for putting a ballgown on a farm horse and entering her in a horse race. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon, if they did something as fun as that, I might be tempted to retain them, just for giggles. Sadly, they are just tools for creating pointless pseudo-portals, which is no fun at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:BrownHairedGirl - It's no fun for the rider, or for the horse. The horse would rather pull something. The horse's only use for a ballgown is that she is willing to pull a carriage containing a lady in a ballgown (or in work clothes). And the pseudo-portals make about as much sense as entering the wrong breed of horse in the wrong sort of gear in the race. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom (and comments below re main template). Britishfinance (talk) 12:27, 26 October 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:Basic portal start 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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template's only purpose is to create a type of portal which has been clearly deprecated: a navbox-clone automated portal, just like thousands of spam portals created in late 2018/early 2019 by User:The Transhumanist (TTH) and his acolytes.

Most of this portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of spam portals created by TTH (one, and two). The rest were deleted in a long series of follow-up MFD nominations.

The only purpose of this template now is to lure good faith editors to create spam-type portals, such as yesterday's creation[1] of Portal:Poverty (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Poverty) ... or alternatively to assist spammers.

There are currently no consensus-based guidelines on how portal pages should be structured. WP:POG was delisted as a guideline per a recent RFC, and AFAICS WP:PORTAL has only ever been an information page, i.e. explicitly labelled with {{information page}} as "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines".

So it would not be apropriate to create another version of this portal unless and until there is some community consensus on how portals should be built. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template is in current use in subst: form on 30 portals, several of which have recent MfDs with consensus to keep. Certes (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a cunningly artful misrepresentation, @Certes:
  1. If a template has ben substed, it is not in current use.
  2. This template builds its article list from on a single navbox. Category:Automated article-slideshow portals with article list built solely from one template shows that only one portal still uses that structure: Portal:Poverty, created yesterday.
    Any other remaining portals which were created using this template have been extensively modified to use a different structure.
Please note that
A/ Certes has been deeply involved in portals and in the design of portal modules, so it would be absurd to assume that this misrepresentation was made from lack of knowledge of the reality.
B/ Certes opposed the deletion of the spam portals, and attacked the process of removing them as a war on portals. So it's wholly unsurprising that Certes has chosen to misrepresent the status of the template which was used to create them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No misrepresentation; just a reference to WP:TFD#REASONS part 3. As far as I can see from what remains of the Portal: namespace, eight new portals have been created this year, of which three use this template. Compared to about 900 deletions (excluding TTH's creations), that is hardly spam. Certes (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. @Certes: they do NOT use this template. That is simply untrue.
The truth is that this template was used to create some portal. Note the past tense; the usage ended when the substitution was complete. Those portals were subsequently heavily modified to create a different sort of portal.
Yet again, Certes is using a barrage of untruths and half-truths to obfuscate the simple reality that this template creates a type of portal which is clearly deprecated … and follows it up by trying to drag the discussion off-topic into portals deletions. Classic FUD tactics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question User:BrownHairedGirl - Do you really expect the portal platoon to understand the details of the tenses of verbs in a Germanic language? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no appetite for spamming of portals. The recent example of a new editor using this tool to create their own forked portal for topic Poverty, but outside of the heavily edited/ scrutinized large Main Article + large Navbox Series for Poverty is a good example of the problems of portal spamming (per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Poverty). Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have in the past cautioned User:BrownHairedGirl for saying that editors are lying when they are merely saying things that are not true, because the claim that an editor is lying implies that they know that what they are saying is not true. In this case BHG is following my advice and is not saying that User:Certes is lying, although there is no way that a reasoning H. sapiens can think anything else about their "cunningly artful misrepresentation". I am reasonably sure that User:Certes knows what the substitution of a template does. Saying that the template is in current use after it has been substituted is either a delusion or a lie. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I understand the purpose of this template, its purpose is to portalize another template. However, considerable experience at MFD and elsewhere has shown that arbitrarily portalizing a template is a bad idea. Therefore this template is also a bad idea. Write it to dev/null. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - like BHG, I interpret those past discussions as meaning that portal creation with this template is clearly deprecated. It can only lead to unilateral creation of useless portals on subjects which, because there is no portal guideline, have no consensus that such a subject should have a portal. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also be argued that, because there is no portal guideline, this template can only be used to create good portals. Both assumptions are equally unfounded. It has certainly been used in the past to create portals which (after modification – hence "start" in the title) have earned consensus to keep. Certes (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diligent obfuscation by Certes deserves points for persistence, tho sadly not for anything else.
The fact remains that this template creates a spam-style portal, which there is a clear consensus to deprecate. Any portal may of course the rewritten into a different format, but there is no case for starting with a spam format.
And the consensus to not delete some of the portals which originated with this format does not equate to a consensus that their current format is desirable. The format at the time of the MFD could be seen as a positive or negative attribute (depending on your viewpoint), but it has rarely been the only issue at stake in MFDs of portals which don't adopt the classic TTH-spam format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of agreement on how the portals should work (and whether they should exist at all), it is wrong to provide a "basic portal" template. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 12:01, 26 October 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:Solename 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. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is relatively rarely used, appears not to be the subject of any consensus for its use, and appears not to have its use mandated or recommended by any policy or guidance (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Template:solename which has a please-see link from the template's talk page). It has the effect of introducing a non-standard hatnote to a section in a way not required by guidance or policy. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep What do you mean "nonstandard'? Its whole purpose, clearly desctibed in its doc, is to introduce a 'standard' hantnote. I can list you numerous templates not " mandated or recommended by any policy or guidance". Please show me the policy which demands this from templates, and I will see how to satisfy such demands. - Altenmann >talk 08:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: By non-standard I mean not compliant with Wikipedia:Hatnote: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the very top of an article or a section ... Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". The hatnote produced by this template doesn't do that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you it is a hatnote? It is not, like hundreds of other templates. - Altenmann >talk 00:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: You just said it was, in your "keep" response! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before I had read the currnt def. In my times it meant simply a note at top . Wikiburokrats are taking over. Whatever. - Altenmann >talk 07:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use it more widely. It would be helpful to mention it at MOS:DABNAME, suggesting or recommending its use. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from nom) That's really my point: there's no consensus at MOS:DAB or anywhere else for its use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using a hatnote/note at the top of an article to clarify about an individuals name is perfectly standard usage as seen by Category:Hatnote templates for names. Template should however be recategorized to be part of this category. --Trialpears (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trialpears: This template is not used at the top of an article, and it does not clarify anything about a name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Self-trout Sorry, I clearly didn't do enough background checks here. Hopefully my new response will make more sense.
  • Keep but possibly change away from using the hatnote template since it may cause problems with custom CSS or future CSS changes. Currently this template generates {{hatnote|This section lists people commonly referred to solely by this name.}}, which in turn generate <div class="hatnote">This section lists people commonly referred to solely by this name.</div>. This may not be desirable if someone has decided to use modified CSS for hatnotes which may break this message. Instead using template styles or simply :''This section lists people commonly referred to solely by this name.'' would avoid the problem. I do not think deletion would be a good option as it would cause more inconsistencies in this sentance than necessary, even though it's not particularly popular as it stands. Adding it to guidelines would be a way to solve this. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:08, 2 November 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).

Denmark football standings templates 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 this discussion and multiple prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:11, 28 October 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:Tucker Beathard 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) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created in good faith, but after stripping it of works that do not have articles (per WP:EXISTING), it only has three links. Most of the entries that were removed were independently-released songs that are unlikely to have articles. Either way, it's clear that this template in this current state fails the WP:NENAN test and probably won't garner enough content to pass it anytime soon. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ETA: After I nominated the article, an IP added other members of the Beathard family to the template in an attempt to pad it out. The IP may be the template's creator editing while logged out. The other Beathard family members should not be on the template because their connection is not as direct. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Delete this navbox with only 3 links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the four articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 11:53, 26 October 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_October_25&oldid=926546235"