Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 18

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

January 18 edit

Template:Joke alert 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 redirect to Template:Humor. The counterargument against the sole keep argument is convincing. I see the userfication request, but it's not clear why it would be better than redirection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with and inferior to Template:Humor. Only used correctly as a template message on one page, which already uses {{humor}}. Bsherr (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I   Like it. Let's give it a year and, if it's still unused, then we can re-nominate. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was created in 2011. It's already had eight years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, Still, there's no reason to delete it yet. We, notionally, have no deadlines. If this is leaning to delete, closer, as an alternative to deletion, you may move to User:Dmehus/Templates/Joke alert. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect A fork with the exact same purpose {{Humor}}. We should have one consistent message if there isn't any special reason to have multiple, since it has had next to no proper usage in 8 years there clearly isn't a demand for an alternative version. If Dmehus wants it in his user space I have no issues with that. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 22 January 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:Lancia timeline 1980-2019 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 redirect to Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2019 a user created this template as an exact copy of an established in 2007 existing template. No need for both to exist. Correct one: Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019. YBSOne (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Template:Lancia timeline 1980-2019 to Template:Lancia timeline 1980–2019. Almost duplicates. But the latter is superior, at the superior page name, and older. --Bsherr (talk) 22:18, 18 January 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:User contempt 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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; can be replaced by a more generic "busy" template with suitable message content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 18 January 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:Holiday 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 Template:Vacation. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Holiday with Template:Vacation.
Pseudonymous and redundant; obviously, one name should be a redirect to the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Template:Holiday to Template:Vacation. Agreed, redundant. Vacation is the more generic name. --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge. With a language parameter, per Andy. --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And retain the other as a wrapper. --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonesey95 (was Delete as redundant, after substituting or replacing those that have transcluded it with the Template:Vacation
    Oppose leaving a trailing redirect that is not needed after substituting and orphaning this. Template:Holiday should be a redlink for potential use a different wiki vacation template in the future (that is, WP:FORRED). --Doug Mehus T·C 21:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect is needed to account for language variations; people in the United States, for example, generally say "vacation", whereas people in the United Kingdom say "holiday". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Pigsonthewing, No, that's not really a reason enough. Per your arguments above, we've had two slightly different vacation templates above for as many years and it's not been an issue. We can easily have two different templates that use slightly different English words; people will use whichever one they prefer, particularly if well linked and categorized. Doug Mehus T·C 21:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge They are almost identical duplicates serving the exact same purpose and should use the same code. The redirect should absolutely be kept with users expecting to be able to continue using it like they have before and the redlink argument is irrelevant since we do not want another fork to be created or nonexistent templates to be used. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, We've deleted redirects for templates like Template:Rfl and Template:RFL, though, which were just redirects to Template:Reflist. If the transclusions are all updated to the correct, merged template, there's no need for the redirect. People will adjust and use the new name. Doug Mehus T·C 23:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I'm not completely opposed to a merge as this would combine the content into one template, preserve attribution history, and allow someone to userify the old template from an old diff, if they wish. Doug Mehus T·C 23:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ENGVAR is a good point and both templates should be retained because of it, but I don't think it's a good idea to have different code for both of them therefore I suggest adding a engvar parameter and turn {{Holiday}} into a wrapper. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per MOS:ENGVAR. If a merge is done, a redirect and both wording options must be preserved per ENGVAR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's mistaken of me to claim vacation as the more generic term. Can I get a Brit to confirm this? Holiday does have more transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A Brit has already said above that "holiday" is the term commonly uded in the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ENGCAR does not require us to have two templates. A merged template can easily have a language parameter, with an associated switch for the content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no wrapper. Same exact template. The word difference can be handled by a parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're firm in your opinion on wrappers and you won't change your mind but I'll elaborate on my opinion here for the benefit for the other participants. Wrappers are a useful tool that can allow us to use almost the same code for multiple template while providing useful presets for users. In this case users using {{holiday}} would get the message with holiday and users using {{vacation}} would get the message with vacation. This would lead to users getting the variation they want without having to bother with extra parameters. It is true wrappers can lead to marginally more maintenance if more parameters are added, but by using html comments to tell editors about wrappers these can be appropriately updated as necessary. This is ultimately about prioritizing the user experience of the hundreds of users using the template over the convenience of the few template editors potentially having to make an extra edit to the wrapper. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just found Module:Template wrapper (after duplicating its core functionality in my own module) which solves the new parameter issue. Using that module I see very little reason to not have a wrapper. The wrapper shouldn't have to be updated as long as the localization parameter doesn't change name which I can't see any reason why it would. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still pointless and unnecessary complicated extra code with the module. This is a template for a banner with some text. It's used exactly once per editor when it's used. Nothing will kill the users if they have to write {{Holiday|vacation}} (or the other way, whatever is chosen). --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So while we are all debating if these are different templates or not, apparently this {{Holiday|US=yes}} has been in the template since 2008-2009 and replaces "Holiday" with "Vacation". This whole discussion is now completely redundant. --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and create a language parameter. From what I've seen, vacation is the more commonly used term in most places. ~~ NineFiveSeven 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with consideration to ENGVAR. FYI, Singapore uses holiday more than vacation. robertsky (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two templates together to be culturally sensitive. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:31, 31 January 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:Discouraged2 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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (I just subst the only transclusion, which was in a talk page archive). {{Discouraged}} is available as an alternative.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unneeded. Userfy if creator desires to keep. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unneeded is a very weak reason for deletion. We have a lot of potentially "unneeded" wikibreak templates, but isn't that a good thing? Pinging ((u|WilyD}} and MJL here to weigh in, if they wish. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Astute readers will note that "unneeded" is not the reason given in the nomination. WP:CANVASS also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, I wasn't referencing your nomination statement. I was referencing Bsherr's reason. As an alternative to deletion, this may be moved to User:Dmehus/Templates/Discouraged2 and kept within the applicable userbox/wikibreak template categories. Doug Mehus T·C 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant is that it is unnecessary to have two templates delivering a message varying only in the image displayed and the words self-worth or motivation. If this distinction is important, I suppose the templates can be merged, but a single transclusion isn't a huge vote of confidence in the need for this template. A lot of unused wikibreak templates is a good thing. A lot of unneeded wikibreak templates is a nuisance. --Bsherr (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sco.wiki didn't have any version of this template, so I just imported and translated it there. I'm completely fine with this being deleted here now for precisely the reasons described by Bsherr. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically same templates and as it was almost not used, it just shows there is no need for duplications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 January 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:Nohumor 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) 10:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unneeded. Userfy if creator desires to keep. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - @Pigsonthewing: how can you tell how often a template has bern substed? The documentation suggests substing it, so that would indicate how often it is used. --Nessie (📥) 14:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves a good purpose and it's definitely not unused. I've had a look at 6 of the 28 instances of the template, and there were uses by three different editors, some as recent as 2016. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC) typo corrected 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala and WP:NODEADLINES. It's potentially useful in the future. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gave me a bit of a laugh and since that's the purpose of it that's enough of a reason to keep it. It is not unused since it is supposed to be substituted see this search. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, Good point. I missed that it's for substitution. It's really hard to assess usage on substituted templates. Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no current uses of the template. There have been just 22 substitutions on user talk pages, in twelve years - that's less than two per year. WP:ILIKEIT also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      People liking it is literally the entire purpose of a joke. There is clearly none-zero interest in the template since it has been used by several users over the year and the only argument for deletion is that it's not necessary as far as I can tell. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:41, 23 January 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:Lazy 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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (I just subst: the only transclusion, on the talk page of someone who hadn't edited since May 2017); can be replaced by a more generic "busy" template with suitable message content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unneeded. Userfy if creator desires to keep. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But I would admonish the out-of-process substitution of the template prior to the conclusion of this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to point to a policy describing the "process" to which your refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very fair point. I'll start a talk page discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Unneeded" is not a valid reason for deletion. Moreover, this is a very useful wikibreak template, which we all from time to time, I'm sure. It's a long-standing template, and I see no reason for deletion. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Astute readers will note that "unneeded" is not the reason given in the nomination. However, "long-standing" is not a reason to keep an unused template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, I wasn't referencing your nomination statement. I was referencing Bsherr's reason. As an alternative to deletion, this may be moved to User:Dmehus/Templates/Lazy and kept within the applicable userbox/wikibreak template categories. If you need the space in template space, I'm not opposed to userification. Though, I must admit, I'm not sure why the sudden focus on deleting userbox and wikibreak templates. It's, frankly, a bit discouraging and upsetting. Doug Mehus T·C 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unneeded because of its low usage, which is a perfectly fitting reason to delete. Templates that are only used once are often substituted and deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically same templates and as it was almost not used, it just shows there is no need for duplications. --Gonnym (talk) 08:37, 30 January 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:Busy/Exams 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) 09:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions; can be replaced by a more generic "busy" template with suitable message content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unneeded. Userfy if creator desires to keep. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, respectfully, I think it's disingenuous to say only two transclusions when you orphaned the template from several pages prior to your nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find being called "disingenuous" to be respectful. Nor truthful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hardcoded instance of {{Busy}}, as seen in the raw wikitext. Potientally redundant to {{Exams}} and {{Semi-Exams}}. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 03:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as redundant, though the icon is deleted. Substitute and orphan. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:32, 22 January 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:BusyEmail 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 Userfy. Userfying to User:Dmehus/Templates/BusyEmail and delete Template:BusyEmail from template namespace. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions; can be replaced by a more generic "busy" template with suitable message content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 18 January 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_January_18&oldid=938542548"