Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 13

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

June 13 edit

Template:Lorca FC squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Current squad" template for a team that has been dissolved back in February. BRDude70 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2022 (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:OM lines edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (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:Oslo Metro next edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by {{adjacent stations}} with Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obsoleted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (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:Dashboard.wikiedu.org student sandbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template can be deleted because it is unused – per User:Sage (Wiki Ed) – Special:Diff/1092950452. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2022 (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:LAL color edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (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:FGC style edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line and Module:Adjacent stations/Barcelona–Vallès Line Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (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:D&H style edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unused, probably replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Delaware and Hudson Railway Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean is replaced by the Adjacent stations. Again, it was made when S-Rail was the big thing. The other one was G7ed, this can too. Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 14:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, I mean Module:Adjacent stations/Delaware and Hudson Railway, since pointing to template:adjacent stations doesn't really tell you where the data resides. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly which module you meant. The way you worded it as "probably". It was legit replaced by the module. Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2022 (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:NET colour edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Nottingham Express Transit Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2022 (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:Interwiki redirect1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{soft redirect}} * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that the old one is ugly and it's time to switch to the new version.📨Talk•Evesiesta•🖌️Sign 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then go to the talk page and get consensus to change the style of the template. Creating a template that does the same thing but looks different is not the way. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and Delete as a single use template fork. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2022 (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:WEmoji/bot edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I have adjusted the parent template to take a parameter, which does the same thing that this set of subpages does, so they are no longer needed. Note: I nominated these before I had seen the nomination of the parent template below. If the parent template is kept, these subpages can still be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 23:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all regardless of the result of the main template. No template needs so many subtemplates if a module does the job better. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (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:WEmoji edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 June 20. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (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:Transclusion edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 4 § Template:Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives)
See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 19 § Template:Transclusion orphans

The template alleges it is utilized to avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles. The unnecessary server load claim is unsubstantiated, and what it calls avoiding disruption really is an excuse to store article text in single-use templates to make it more difficult to edit the content, in direct contravention of WP:TG, and in a clear sign of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, I'll add that the accusation that this is somehow WP:OWN is not a valid delete rationale and seems off-topic (if you really think this is that, feel free to go make some dramah at the WP:Dramaboard) and a ridiculously obvious failure to AGF. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR/WP:5P5. avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles is a perfectly legitimate reason to use templates, particularly when those do not need to be edited frequently (for example, Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these, and what other minor edits tend to happen are not really hampered by the use of a template) and even more so when they are really large (for example, Template:2012 Summer Olympics calendar comes in at nearly 40 kb (!!) of wikitext; and the 2021 election template comes it at well over 100 kb (!!!)). Also "keep" as the nominator does not present an accurate reading of the guideline (a mere guideline, on top of that) they are citing: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.. So, beyond the fact that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia; the guideline itself makes clear that exceptions are possible. In this case, both on WP:KISS principles (since most editors will not need to edit those, such large templates being put directly in articles probably does more harm than good); and on the grounds that moving such tables out of mainspace is very likely to reduce disruption and vandalism to them (most vandalism is in article space, not in template space; and most vandals are not familiar with Wikipedia namespaces and template transclusion...). A template explaining this seems therefore perfectly appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These?
— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guarapiranga Searching for "lightweight transclusion" in template space turns up a load of other candidates that have copied the wording of this template without actually transcluding it, e.g. Template:Case Closed manga introduction which is just a paragraph of text. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good one, 192.76.8.94! But all I could find, in addition to that one, was Template:Case Closed anime introduction. Let's add'em to the list above. What did I miss? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guarapiranga There's something wrong with your "insource" search, but I can't figure out what it is, sorry. Use the "hastemplate" parameter instead and it turns up the full 42 results: [1]. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! (It's the curly brackets that are useless there, 192.76.8.94).
So, 40, minus the 2 doc subpages:
And here is the full list of 202 offending templates (thus far):
Btw, how does one batch list all these templates at once? Can Twinkle do that? I see people have requested this over the years—1, 6, 9, 11 years ago—but couldn't find a resolution to it. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up doing it manually here. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM is not a good argument, particularly when there is a detailed counter-argument just above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "detailed" counter argument doesn't persuade. This template seeks to eke out a broad exception to WP:TG, and that's not good enough. There may be some valid cases to keeping single/low-use templates out of mainspace (perhaps "complex use of other templates" is one), but I'm not willing to support a template that says so. As I said, it just makes a nice list of targets to ship to TFD. Your example Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis in fact is a good one to put back into mainspace, as "documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these" is precisely a reason to put it back, because its presence defeats a central purpose of templates: to be a central place to make updates to many articles. Izno (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement? It's much easier and in fact a good idea to split out these complex templates which only need infrequent (if any) editing, and this make the rest of the article easier to edit (by removing a massive amount of wikitext which most editors will have no reason to edit). Enforcing the "rules" would make Wikipedia harder to maintain; and this seems like a valid reason to make an exception (one which already has broad application in practice); ergo, a strict desire for enforcement of the "rules" should not be allowed to stand in the way of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing IAR is almost never persuasive and usually and actively damages the argument citing it in a consensus discussion.
How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement? 1) It's article content. Article content goes in article space. This is almost a QED. 2) Most of these templates are not complicated. Long, but not complicated. 3) It disrupts the ability to find templates that actually are used correctly for their purpose. 4) It disrupts some editing tools.
only need infrequent (if any) editing It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can. You don't get to choose who those people are. That's why what you have said is being likened to WP:OWNership. Izno (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) there are plenty of instances of article content being transcluded from other pages (for consistency, for ease of editing, ...). I don't see how this is any different.
2) long and simple = still a lot of wikitext to parse trough to edit it
3) doesn't follow, even if you assume that these templates are being used incorrectly (heck, by this line of reasoning, this template should be kept so people know which kind of template they've fallen upon)
4) Editing tools being disrupted by transclusions (a frequent feature of Wikipedia) is the editing tool's problems. "only need infrequent (if any) editing" It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can. so, what? Someone who is able to find the template definitively can edit the template when needed; and all the others don't have a huge amount of wikitext to parse through when they don't need to. This is consistent with the WP:KISS principle, making Wikipedia easier to edit even for those who are not aware of it's technical difficulties. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop at 1:
there are plenty of instances of article content being transcluded from other pages (for consistency, for ease of editing, ...). I don't see how this is any different.
Your're contradicting yourself:
Making the tables themselves harder to edit is a feature, not a bug[1]
Section transclusion does indeed make consistent editing across articles easier--especially of tables!--as the transcluded content can be edited in the source article with Visual Editor (which is not available for templates, as these should not normally be used to store article text (WP:TG), but... templates, i.e. repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages (H:T)--I'm sorry you understood it differently, RandomCanadian). — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are deliberately misunderstanding despite me having explained this multiple times. for ease of editing [of the affected articles, not of the tables themselves, as I have been very consistently saying]. Section transclusion requires more technical know-how (it's not as simple as plopping down a {{template}}) and is more prone to vandalism and disruption (since disruption to the article it's transcluded from is more likely than for an equivalent template). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the merits, all of the templates transcluding this one should be deleted roughly for the reasons explained by the nominator, and the argument for keeping is "let's randomly ignore established consensus" and should be given little weight. But that doesn't constitute a good reason to delete this template now rather than after it becomes unused. However, this template as written consists of two parts: a useless tautology that could be applied to almost every single template in existence, and a request to ignore WP:BOLD, so it should be deleted independently of whether its transcluding templates should be. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and pppery. I'm also not seeing a good reason to invoke IAR here. The template basically consists of two parts - some claims that transcluding a table via template is less server intensive than having it in an article directly, and instructions not to edit it because it might be disruptive. The performance claims are unsubstantiated and don't make any sense - how is it better for the servers to transclude a table in a template in addition to parsing it? The phrase "lightweight transclusion" doesn't appear to be used anywhere outside this template and clones of it. The instructions to avoid editing the template to avoid disruption are, again, unsubstantiated - How can editing a template transcluded onto one page cause so much disruption that you need to discus edits first? I also think the wording of this template is deep into WP:BEANS territory - if you tell people "don't edit this page or you'll break the servers" I think the most likely outcome is that you will scare off good faith editors and increase the incentive for vandals. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a cleanup template, eventually delete There are basically two issues involved in this TfD: a) is the practice of writing part of an article on a separate page and transcluding it into the original actually helpful? and b) if it is, is the template {{Transclusion}} itself useful? If the answer to a) is "no", then b) is mostly irrelevant – if every page on which the template is used is a candidate for substing and deletion, then the template can't possibly have any useful use and should be deleted. I think the answer to a) is in fact "no", for multiple reasons: contrary to what the template claims, it probably doesn't reduce server load (it reduces load on the client in some cases, but the server will have to read the whole template in able to transclude it, and this is slower than just using the wikitext directly); it makes pages harder for newer users to edit, whilst not doing much to stop experienced vandals, and as a side effect will make vandalism harder to spot (because it won't show up on the same watchlist as changes to the article); and (probably for these reasons) there's a guideline (WP:TG) specifically banning its use for article text (with the consensus for tables being unclear). I don't believe the server load argument (and suspect that most user's browsers will be able to handle long wikitext nowadays), and in cases where it's desirable to make a page harder for new users to edit, the generally accepted method is to semiprotect it. I can sort-of see the argument that it's more useful to inexperienced users to show some of a page's wikitext but not the rest when editing, but that's the reason why section headings come with edit links (and most of these sorts of long tables of data are likely to belong in sections of their own).

    If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist, then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands – look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions, and decide whether they should be subst'ed into the original article or whether using them as transclusions is preferable (in which case they aren't substantially different from the other pages in the Template: namespace, so we may as well remove this template from them). So what we'd logically want to do is to delete the template, then put a cleanup tag on every page that used it. We could save a lot of trouble by just editing the template into the cleanup tag, though – it should contain a summary of the relevant policy and an explanation of when these fragments should be in template namespace and when they should be WP:substed into the article. The main problem with this is that it's unclear what the relevant guidelines for this actually should be – this might need wider community input to come to a consensus on, rather than being confined to a single TfD.

    Even if we decide that all the pages tagged with the template should exist, though, the template itself has serious wording issues; even though the policy is unclear, the current wording of the template definitely seems to be misrepresenting it (the "server load" argument seems specious, "lightweight transclusion" isn't defined and is probably misleading, and the only instruction is a WP:BOLD violation). The pages it's tagged with don't seem significantly different from everything else in the Template: namespace in terms of, e.g., what considerations are needed when editing them, so if we do keep them all, we should probably just remove this template from them and delete it. So either way, it makes sense to delete the template eventually; it's simply a matter of whether we want to do something about the pages tagged with it (and/or with subst'ed versions of it) first. --ais523 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist
I, for one, do, ais523.
  • then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands
Indeed we do.
  • look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions
Yes, here they are:
— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here they are, listed for discussion. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:11, 20 June 2022 (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:Amtrak British Columbia stations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, no main article, only one link in the navbox body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator. Yes, there's only 1 article linked, but its inclusion in Pacific Central Station was reverted for the same reason. New Westminster station still stands is probably capable of being made its own article. Just requires making it. Worse comes to worse, delete it now. I can make the article and then remake the template.Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere. Navboxes are supposed to aid navigation, a navbox which can be used on only one article and which only contains a link to the article you are on doesn't fulfil any useful purpose. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a navbox to nowhere, per 192. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:14, 14 June 2022 (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/2022_June_13&oldid=1109731596"