Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 7

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

November 7 edit

Template:Split section portions 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 relist at Nov 22. Primefac (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barely-used wrapper for {{split portions|section=y}}, with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions. We don't need {{foo section}} redirects for every template with a |section=y (though a few widely used ones like {{unreferenced section}} should probably be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting portions of a section and not an entire section -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. There are not enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it to pass a single parameter. The use of {{split section portions}} saves a grand total of three characters over use of {{split portions|section=y}}. I have not yet gone through the small number of uses of this template, but I'd bet good money that many of them should be converted to another template anyway. More often than not, people actually want {{split section}}; it's quite rare to need to do a formal split of content that is only a portion of a section (and with the content in question not also forming a subsection – i.e. a section that can be tagged with {{split section}}). PS: The majority of transclusions of {{split section portions}} are actually using the mal-named redirects {{move section portions}} and {{move section portions to}} ("Move" mean "article rename" in WP jargon, so these redir names are confusing). Thus, this template is not being used consistently, and no one appears to be wedded to its continued existence (which is not the case with a widely used wrapper like {{split section}} [note the singular], also a wrapper for {{split portions}} but one that is widely and consistently used and should thus be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not identical to the {{split sections}} but the rationale indicates the same coding, this cannot be, since they have different text. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This nomination has nothing to do with {{split sections}} (see nom below), but {{split section}}, which is a different template (for which {{split sections}} is an even more pointless wrapper). And that wouldn't be a valid rationale against the merge/redirect anyway; we routinely do away with redundant templates that do not functionally differ, but are divergent only in presentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:48, 10 November 2015 (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:Split sections 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 relist at Nov 22. Primefac (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barely-used wrapper for {{split portions|sections=y}}, with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions, though it would be better to replace it with something more appropriate. This one in particular is pointless, as the resultant output is not actually helpful, amounting to "some sections, that I refuse to bother to identify, should be split." If any entire section(s) should be split, the template to use is {{Split section}} in the section(s) to be split. If content diffused across multiple sections needs to be split out, the template to use is {{Split portions|portion=description of the material in question}}, at the top of the article. I'm going down the list of transclusions and so far have not found one that is appropriate, and have been replacing it with something more useful in each case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting sections off instead of other portions of articles, like paragraphs. It would provide a top-banner to go along with {{split section}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. And as noted, its output is not helpful. The |sections=y parameter of the parent template can actually be "retired", and the documentation now notes that it is usually not a helpful parameter to use. In going through uses of {{split section}} in articles and converting inappropriate ones to more appropriate, more specific templates, it ended up that a grand total of zero of them were useful instances of this template (now wrapper). It has never had any reason to exist, as far as I can tell, and seems to have been created because someone wasn't sure what pre-existing template to use. If anyone believes that a section should be split off, but has no idea what an appropriate name for the new article could be, they can use {{Split section}} with no parameters. If they think that some material in an article should be split, but they can't narrow it to a specific section because of how it's integrated into the article, but they can narrow it topically, they can use {{tlx|Split portions|portion=topical description of material to split out|Proposed title for new article. If someone just has a vague sense that the article should be split somehow, they can use {{Split}} with no parameters. And so on. There are no use cases for this template/wrapper that are not covered by pre-existing templates, and more specific options of them, than the vague "some sections", nor were there enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it just to pass a single parameter, especially since none of them turned out to be proper uses of it to begin with, just lazy/imprecise ones that were easily made more specific with other templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (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:Cosmic Marvel 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) 01:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a redundant template. there already is better designed template called Template:Marvel Cosmic. [--Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:54, 07 November 2015 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • delete after replacing with the navbox version. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as all links in this template are in the navbox. And then replace with the navbox on all articles if it isn't there already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2015 (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:Pacific Tigers football navbox 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. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. A third is to the main article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @UW Dawgs: WP:REDLINKS is a double-edged sword: "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template." I hope after we create four or five articles to save these navboxes, all of the enthusiasm for building out these articles does not immediately disappear. That's what the REDLINKS passage above is designed to avoid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dirtlawyer1: Point taken. I would not oppose delinking the years where excessive and exclusively red, and rendering them instead as black font text (with non-participating years remaing in grey), as the span of playing years and any gaps therein are of obvious contextual value to the viewer. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2015 (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:2016–17 Northeast Conference men's basketball standings 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, per CSD G7. --Biblioworm 17:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON. This season is still a year away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom THIS season hasn't even started yet, too early to start creating season pages and templates for next season. Rikster2 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Author of template, so I'm biased (spoiler alert). It is too early but no predictions or speculation it's just the standings template with the teams and 0-0 for the records. Those will be the teams of the conference, changes are usually announced a year ahead of team (also every team is in a conference now, the last hold out was NJIT). The conference will be around and those schools will be around. I hope you guys don't know something I don't (is the world ending in 2016?, ahhhhh). Ok i joke, basically just being proactive and made the template now. Cheers--El Mayimbe (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2015 (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/2015_November_7&oldid=691791738"