Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 15 June 17 >

June 16 edit

Template:Poet 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article in template space found via filter 994 Abote2 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 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:Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast Passenger 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article in template space Abote2 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. This hardly needed a TfD discussion; just WP:BEBOLD. Useddenim (talk) 16:49, 17 June 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:Sliders 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think this used to contain more links, but it's not very useful now. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no longer useful now that the character articles have been redirected. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 20 June 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).

Exo s-line 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for various commuter rail and bus transit services which fall under the umbrella of Exo (public transit) (previously known as AMT and RTM, hence the unusually large number of redirects). Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Exo, except for Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu public transit, which I split off to {{Canada transit color}}. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and past consensus to migrate away from s-line. BLAIXX 13:44, 19 June 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:Marriage Sheikha Nancy Bernadette bin Mohammed al Maktoum 22 May 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 delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet template namespace guidelines WP:NS10. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 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:AMT Station 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⚡ 08:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two rebrandings of Agence métropolitaine de transport and the adoption of WP:CANSTATION no articles use this naming convention, and the template was already almost wholly deprecated in favor of {{Exos}}, which does the same thing. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, as long as there is a WP:HISTMERGE from {{AMT Station}}, {{RTMs}} and {{Exo stations}} into {{Exos}}. (There was a lot of cut 'n' paste editing in the creation of this series of templates.) Useddenim (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: That's an interesting question. For the stations, Module:Adjacent stations/Exo amounts to a "clean room" reimplementation based on the "what links here" for {{Exo stations}}. That's not quite the case for lines and line colors, although the chaos caused by the AMT/RTM/Exo rebranding means that there's a lot of inconsistent information regarding transit agency names. Inasmuch as we're talking about public data and not prose, I'm not sure how important a history merge is; and for line and color information there's no target. I may be misunderstanding which history you're looking to preserve. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's not actually necessary… But now, if one looks at the history of {{Exos}} it appears to have sprung fully-fledged into existence just nine months ago, while in actual fact it's lineage can be traced back almost five years to {{AMT Station}}. But yes, there's no need to keep the original template itself anymore. Useddenim (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a former code that did a process similar to the current one, does not make a newer code based on the former. If that were the case, you'd see even more copyright claims for every piece of code used by Microsoft, Apple, Google and the rest. Code is different in this sense than an article text. Looking at the code of all the links linked above, I see no resemblance of any connection between the new and the old, other than the fact that they both deal with the same subject. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 June 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:Navbox United States 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary fork of Template:Navbox Canada Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this because I wanted to give it a colorful look and also because I want to give these templates a new look. Same goes for every country in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk • contribs)
    • Could you or Frietjes please explain to me why there is even a need for a module (which includes the Canada one also) that duplicates Module:Navbox? --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • the Canadian one has existed since 2013 to reduce the complexity of inline styling introduced in October 2008 (see the complexity of the inline styling version vs the current style sheet version). the Canadian module does not duplicate any functionality in Module:Navbox if you check the code. the module does the calculations necessary to add the thin red borders in the correct places. there is consensus for the Canadian styling at WT:Canada. there is no consensus for the styling introduced by the navbox being discussed here. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I want to make the navbox colorful" isn't a strong reason to duplicate the existing template. While foolish consistency may be the "hobgoblin of little minds", in this case changing the colors from the standard set doesn't seem worth the extra complexity in maintaining a new navbox and module. Railfan23 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 18 June 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:Reasonator 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 June 26. Primefac (talk) 03:47, 26 June 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_June_16&oldid=903539331"