Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13 edit

Module:Anchor/sandbox2 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) 09:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Module:Anchor, which has not been edited at all since it was created, really need two sandboxes? (especially since this one has only ever been used by a vanished user). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 13 February 2020 (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:BananasArgs2 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) 08:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a tutorial on how to use standard modules such as Module:Arguments may be useful, this orphan example module clearly isn't absent any such tutorial. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 13 February 2020 (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:HelloWorld 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 merge to Module:Example. Clear consensus for a merge, going for Module:Example as the merge target as it was the most commonly cited one. Whether the other names should be redirected or just deleted I'll punt to whoever knows whether Module pages work as redirects, as it doesn't seem to be critical here. Also probably worth remembering that (the pages which have) links need to be changed/updated as appropriate, per the last comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:HelloWorld, Module:Bananas, Module:BananasArgs, Module:Example and Module:Basic example.
Is it really necessary to have five different "Hello, world"/test modules? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Module:Bananas was likely created because it's used as the example at mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#Introduction. I have no opinion on whether we want it to actually exist here because of that. Anomie⚔ 22:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that we only need one example. I'd say a merger of the best qualities from the different modules, but that is really something that can be a work-in-progress. Name should probably be "Hello World" or "Example" (if this is chosen, there could be a function called "hello world" for a basic string example). BTW mw:Module:Bananas is on MW so we don't need a local copy. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Don't need multiple modules. Ythlev (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Module:example to stay consistent with the many other example pages on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bananas" is oldest and I think was intended as a local demo that matched mediawiki.org? But who can remember. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. @ Pppery, is there a reason these templates (particularly the pointless Bananas and BananasArg) can't be simply deleted after merge?--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I am aware of, but that's up to whoever implements the close, not me. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not bothered whether we delete them or not, but if the modules get deleted, Wikipedia:Lua (and possibly some other documentation) will need to be updated. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2020 (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:Sandbox/testcases 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) 08:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actual testcases; instead itself a test page, and no tests could be added here because there is no testable content. (As with my other testcases noms from a few days ago, I cannot tag the page) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per no transclusions. If someone wants to have this undeleted to their own sandbox, I have no objections to that, but we don't need this. Doug Mehus T·C 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (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).

Even more TV WP 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 speedy merge to Template:WikiProject Television per the past (recent) consensus on a dozen similar task forces/subprojects as well as past precedent on task forces merging with their parent. As far as WPTV goes, other task force templates can be merged as found/needed. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Heroes with Template:WikiProject Television.
Found a few more templates that should be merged (the task forces are already supported by the template). Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (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:Cfd all 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All cfd templates have now been converted to use Module:Cfd making this redundant and unused. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete Module:Cfd instead; it's an unnecessary Lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. The result of this Luafication is that users have been unable to make their desired changes to the template for no apparent benefit. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, sure all I care about is consistency and that it handles missing parameters and gives the appropriate step two template. There have been repeated issues with people not being able to edit, I implemented an edit request just yesterday, and it will likely continue. In a case like this I would usually like input from the creator, but since they are blocked that's kind of hard. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery and this seems it's still a used template for CfD notifications. I don't have an opinion on the Module:Cfd so won't comment on that, but I think if we're going to delete {{Cfd all}} (and related templates), we should be engaging CfD's talkpage, at minimum. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, it's not used at all and there is no proposal to delete any related templates. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to point out that if kept, this template is still unused (making it still appropriate for deletion). Was there any action taken to make it used somewhere? --Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The TfD of Module:Cfd that will follow will solve that problem. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should tag Module:Cfd in this discussion as well and advertise it at Template talk:Cfd and WT:CFD so we can have a proper discussion about which implementation should be used and then delete the unused one afterwards. I'm mostly ambivalent to which one we use they both achieve the same goal. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply to Trialpears I would have no problem with tagging that Module:Cfd, but my thinking, and perhaps it's my layperson's understanding, but from my perspective, the learning curve for learning wikiformatting versus Lua is much lower. So, I think there's a bigger potential pool of editors able to edit the template {{Cfd all}} than Module:Cfd. This may differ from Pppery's rationale, though. Doug Mehus T·C 00:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - in my opinion it's much easier to edit a template (whose formatting I learn from being around the traps here in WP) than Lua. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 16 February 2020 (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:TitanTV 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) 08:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probable WP:COPYVIO per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is this linkspamming? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2020 (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:I retired in the multiverse 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. It does not appear that opinions have changed much since the last time this was nominated for deletion. If someone wants to take ownership of this template and userfy it (to their userspace) there is no prejudice against that move (since it was suggested by multiple editors but a target not chosen). Primefac (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two translusions, both in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userification doesn't mean it's limited to just that user using it. User templates are cheap, so why not mothball it in storage? There's no consensus here to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 12:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors use templates from user space. I myself use a few:
  This user has the knack.
xkcdThis user cannot go to bed when someone is wrong on the Internet.
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You both missed the point. This template isn't used by anyone. The creator did not ask for it to be userfied to their userspace. So to where exactly should this be userfied? --Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or useify per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If someone wants to leave Wikipedia with style, then let them... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2020 (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:Warningsonsubpage 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) 08:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only four transclusions (one by a long-departed user). Encourages unhelpful, and non-standard behaviour. I suggest we subst and delete, to discourage further use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nonstandard and does not contribute positively to the editing experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with Question for @Tom (LT) and Pigsonthewing: what does this even do? Doug Mehus T·C 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dmehus displays the little box to the side. It's adversarial and nonhelpful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom (LT) Do you mean that it will archive any Twinkle notifications on one's talkpage to subpage specified in the applicable parameter? If so, I can see myself using this, so would ask that, if deleted, it be userfyed to User:Dmehus/Templates/Subpagewarnings. Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No: it does what Tom said it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Pigsonthewing, Okay, fair enough. I see what Tom is saying now. It's just a warning saying that notifications will be archived; it doesn't archive them. It's not necessarily adversarial, but I'm fine with deleting this. Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If anyone is getting so many warnings that they need a special page for them, they need to figure out what they are doing wrong. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (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:Merry Christmas Banner 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) 09:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only five transclusions, mostly in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the original creator of this admittedly ugly template, I have no objections to deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good festive holiday greeting, that can be changed to "Happy Holidays" if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such a hypothetical change would seem to fail WP:USEFUL. In any case, a "Happy Holidays" template with only five transclusions, mostly in talk page archives, would also warrant deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. I would be for keeping, however per the creator's note and lack of use would support subst / delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete per above. Free up this file name for a nice Merry Christmas banner! Doug Mehus T·C 22:00, 16 February 2020 (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:UserUsur 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. Substitute rather than replace because the replacement wasn't specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment per a note on my talk page: Substitute in the sense of replace with a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just 9 transclusions. Can and should be replaced by a simple redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete per nom. Inconsistent with the majority of moves and this makes it confusing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete per nom. Not sure how we'd replace that, per Tom (LT), but I'd support that, too. Doug Mehus T·C 19:20, 16 February 2020 (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:Feedbackreply 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just 81 transclusions, mostly on the talk pages of long-departed editors, or in talk page archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This template is useful and has more than a few uses. I don't see a good reason for deleting it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete This is the sort of template that should always have been substituted, so no "Keep because its used" arguments are valid. One is therefore left with a template that has no possibility of being needed (since Wikipedia:Requests for feedback was shut down) and should clearly be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to the creating editor's account, then substitute and delete the trailing redirect per Tom (LT) and Pppery's point about that it should never be transcluded (thus, if it has 81 transclusions, that's wrong and needs correcting). Doug Mehus T·C 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. I agree with Pigsonthewing and Pppery. --Bsherr (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete per above. The program has been dead for years so no future uses. --Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2020 (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:Editedsince 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) 09:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 transclusions, some on the pages of indef-blocked editors. Unused. Redundant to the better-worded {{not around}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out this was created and edited by a since-blocked vandal, who applied it to other people's user pages, and whose work I have rolled back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perjorative and, as per Andy, susceptible to misuse. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete or userfy to creating editor's userspace and delete as I see no purpose to a template that says one has never edited, other than maybe for alias accounts? I'm not sure. Low usage likely means we can do either of the two options. Doug Mehus T·C 19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: For what it's worth, the word ever is a variable that is replaced with the contents of the date parameter. --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, thanks for clarifying that, which makes sense. I do appreciate the reply. What I meant, though, was why would someone to advertise they've never edited? Doug Mehus T·C 21:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beg your pardon. I speculate that the template would indeed never be used on one's own talk page by a editor who has never edited: firstly, because indeed no one would likely want to promote that; and secondly, because, by the very fact of having edited one's user page, one has edited at least once. That's why I was pointing out that the template has other, more likely uses. --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The formatting of this message like a warning is too extreme. I agree that Template:not around is more effective. --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2020 (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:Discussion tracker 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just twelve transclusions, and a harmful interface variance, as explained here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harmful interface variance, or anything equivalent. It links to history pages rather to a "new section" form. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'll oppose the deletion. --Chriswaterguy talk 13:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. Please treat the example on the linked page as just that - an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Weak-ish Userfy to Chriswaterguy's userspace per Chriswaterguy. I can actually see a use for this template, and don't see how it's harmful. Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userify not seeing the harm here. Not everything is 100% standardised around here so I don't think that is a good reason for deleting. It's in or has been in use by some editors, I don't find the rationale for deleting convincing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (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/2020_February_13&oldid=1007720134"