Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2 edit

Template:Enroute 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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This table-cell template is only transcluded via its documentation, and has no transclusions in article space. The user who created it informed me that it was for temporary use within one article, to complement some sister templates, and therefore might be used again. But upon closer inspection, that article mostly just uses the first parameter of the widely useful {{Yes}} and {{No}} templates. For future missions to the moon (transit time is only about three days), I'm sure that article could just utilize the first parameter of one of the numerous existing table-cell templates. I don't think we should be creating hardcoded table-cell templates for every permutation in every article; we have enough already. – voidxor 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could see {{pending}} being a fine replacement for this purpose, with use of the first parameter as described above to change to en route. --Bsherr (talk) 13:49, 3 July 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:National Democratic Party (Bangladesh)/meta/shortname 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. On the one hand, there is the argument that typing in three letters is much easier than typing out the full template name. On the other hand, based on similar templates I believe this template is called more-or-less automatically by other templates, and removing this particular template without discussion of similarly-called templates is problematic and could potentially break the system. That being said, previous discussions have indicated that unused templates should be deleted yet they can be REFUNDED if they find use again.
I would strongly encourage a discussion on this matter, with the main focus being whether these templates are necessary (much like the {{flag}}/"Country data XYZ" group) or whether they can be somehow combined (like the "Country IOC alias XYZ" group). If there is suitable participation at such a discussion, and the outcome is to combine/merge/delete/etc the various meta templates into one main template, I see no reason why we would need a new TFD to enact such an outcome. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. The template name is longer than the text that is the sole content of the template. Whpq (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This template (and others like it) can be called from {{Election box gain}} and others (I think). The consequences of substitution may be wider than seem apparent. Not my area of expertise or interest, however. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its utility is as a tool for keeping usage consistent. --Bsherr (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template; is there actually a significant problem with people making unilateral changes to the colorsnames of parties on individual articles without getting reverted? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Color? I think your comment must refer to a different template. Thincat (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I made a mistake. Still think this should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Template:Republican Party (US)/meta/shortname is of exactly the same nature and is transcluded over 10,000 times. Normally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be no sort of argument but so long as Template:Election box candidate with party link and similar are used and call templates with this set of names, deleting a selection of them is unhelpful. There have been previous purges of these election templates (for example letter A[1]) which have resulted in partial recreations by people continuing with the scheme, probably unaware of the deletions. If this aspect of the election box system is no good (which may well be the case) then it ought to be edited out of the calling templates. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Choosing a few random examples out of the scores of party entries used by Template:Election box candidate with party link is arbitrary, and breaks the functionality for just those examples. it doesn't make any sense as an outcome. --Bsherr (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a systematic examination. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 9 July 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:Zaker Party/meta/color 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. In this discussion there is no consensus (reasonable arguments on both sides). However, as I explained further up the page, this appears to be a "family" of templates that needs wider discussion about how to proceed (delete as they become unused, or bundle into one large "meta" template (no pun intended). Primefac (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. The colour can just be directly coded. Whpq (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The briefly stated rationale is weak; every political party colour template, such as Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color, could just be coded directly. There are benefits to having a meaningful symbolic name for a colour. That way, when editing hundreds of election and constituency articles, one doesn't have to remember which hex code goes with which party (is the Foobar Party 228B22, or DC241F, or 22B822?). It is also a single place to change a party's colour, for example to make it more compliant with accessibility standards. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Worldbruce explains, its utility is as a tool for keeping usage consistent. --Bsherr (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i agree to keep it as Candidate with party link template cant be colored.If a party has party article,they should have meta color atleast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EhsanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template; is there actually a significant problem with people making unilateral changes to the colors of parties on individual articles without getting reverted? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: The issue is in providing simple instructions for Template:Election box candidate with party link, the purpose of which is to allow an editor to just specify the party and get the abbreviation, color, etc. automatically. And when that information changes, to not have to change it across multiple uses individually. Right now, the code in that template for parties is {{#if:{{{party|}}}|[[{{{party}}}|{{Template:{{{party}}}/meta/shortname}}]]}}{{{party_note|}}} So what's the plan if we delete this template? Anyone who has a problem with this system should be discussing Template:Election box candidate with party link, not deleting the individual party entries arbitrarily. --Bsherr (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe the entire system is problematic. That does not mean that individual insufficient-complexity templates should be kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Yes, but how does one use {{Election box candidate with party link}} for Zaker Party if this doesn't exist? Your solution is one simply doesn't? --Bsherr (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a systematic examination of the problem. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 9 July 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:Zaker Party/meta/shortname 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. In this discussion there is no consensus (reasonable arguments on both sides). However, as I explained further up the page, this appears to be a "family" of templates that needs wider discussion about how to proceed (delete as they become unused, or bundle into one large "meta" template (no pun intended). Primefac (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. The template name is longer than the text that is the sole content of the template. Whpq (talk) 19:55, 2 July 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:United States Senate/meta/color 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⚡ 03:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. This was used only once which I reverted. Whpq (talk) 19:52, 2 July 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:Consensus-1 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⚡ 03:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-scheme user warning template attempts to cover several issues at once, but falls short on explanation besides providing links. The UW templates at WP:UTM are more suitable. Bsherr (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; if necessary can be sandboxed in another template for reintroduction at a later date. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 9 July 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_July_2&oldid=966932914"