Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21 edit

Template:! 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a magic word for this template. How would anybody be able to transclude this template? JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was a template for a long time before the magic word was created, so it has a lot of incoming links from old discussions. It's possible to transclude it via unusual syntax like {{Template:!}} or {{tlu|msg:!}}, or by attempting to supply a parameter like {{!|something}}, although anyone actually doing anything like that seems pretty unlikely. Anomie⚔ 00:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anomie to avoid breaking code in old discussions prior to it being rendered obsolete. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page as it is now offers a detailed error message in the event that someone actually transcludes it, and a link to relevant documentation for anyone who wonders what {{!}} means and looks up the template to find out. Deleting it would only cause confusion to editors. The error message is "Error: The retired template {{!}} has been transcluded; see mw:Help:Magic words#Other for details. To fix this, use only the code {{!}} to generate the | character."; this is much clearer than just displaying a red link. User:GKFXtalk 13:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GKFX: There is only one transclusion of the template, so no reason to keep it. Also, the deletion reason can serve as the error message. JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @JsfasdF252: Deletion logs are not a substitute for documentation because they are not editable, cannot contain formatting, and (in this example) cannot display when erroneously transcluded. There are not supposed to be any transclusions of this template; that is not an argument against its existence because it is a link to documentation for an unintuitive feature. Why do you want it gone? Pages are WP:CHEAP. User:GKFXtalk 21:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If categorizing or further marking as historical would help, we can do that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion of general content is for stuff that is not of use to the wiki anymore (or at all). {!} is completely useless as it already exists as a magic word, having it just be a link to magic words in general would be very confusing for anyone going to Template:! as what the template outputs is not what is listed there. These really weird justifications for all this, none of which is relevant at all. JsfasdF252 (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template is not a link to “magic words in general” - it uses an anchor (the #Other in the URL) to link to the right section of the documentation. Wikimarkup is not a trivial language to learn and any efforts to make the use of obscure features, like this magic word, easier to understand are neither weird nor useless. User:GKFXtalk 21:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Why is {{Magic word|!}} the preferred method? The preexisting {{!}} is easier to remember, shorter to type, and it was widely known/used. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 04:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Senator2029: I think you're confused. The only time someone might type {{Magic word|!}} is when they want to produce {{!}}, i.e. a link to the page about the magic word much like how we use {{tl|Citation needed}} to produce {{Citation needed}} when we want to link to a template. Anomie⚔ 15:03, 27 November 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:Editor-Note 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. Replaced by {{Comment|Editor note:}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't really make sense. "Editor note" is the default for any comment made anywhere. That fact doesn't need to be emphasised. Outside template space (sample transclusions on other doc pages etc) this only has 60 live usages since it was created, mostly on very old talk pages, and at a sample check none were legitimate usages. Unclear purpose low-usage template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears in multiple archived discussions; of its 474 live uses as of right now, 25 are archives of discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not 474, you need to filter by template space then invert, because all other note templates transclude this due to the doc. Once you do that, you will get 60 live usages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, but subst into the few pages where it was genuinely used so those discussions continue to look exactly as they did before. User:GKFXtalk 13:52, 22 November 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:Edit few articles 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. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Possibly this was meant to be substituted only and had some way to generate the list of suggested articles. But it's got no documentation, so we don't know what that is/was, making the template effectively useless. If the creator wanted it to endure, they should've added documentation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only substantial editing history is from a WP:VANISHED user, all on its date of creation. The only other edit is someone using WP:AWB for a minor tweak. Clearly this was abandoned before it really got off the ground. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:28, 22 November 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:Early Albanian writers 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. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, included in Template:Albanian Literature. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Literally just a category listed on every page it would be used on anyway. More diverse categorization, e.g. Category:17th-century Albanian writers, exists already and is much more useful. On that I would also debate the usefulness of the template being compared by nominator. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:36, 21 November 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).

Unused election result templates 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. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(50) All of them are unused, and all of them are available in the same way or partly even more detailed in the corresponding articles. I see no reason to keep these templates. --TheImaCow (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In general there really should not be any templates of such kind as these are simple tables and should be used directly in the article. This also makes the data have more watchers as typically pages have more people watching them than templates like these do. As these are unused, there is no other factor. --Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation The style in the past has been to create these templates and then to use them both on the article page for the relevant election and then also to use the most recent election in the "Elections in..." Wikipedia page. This is why you end up with templates used only on the article page. I have no objection to these being deleted. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:41, 24 November 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:Detroit Heralds seasons 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 redirect to Template:Detroit seasons (1920s NFL teams). Reasonable search/template use term. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused, contents are already in Template:Detroit seasons (1920s NFL teams). --TheImaCow (talk) 02:09, 21 November 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:Democrats LegCo members 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused, contents are already in Template:HK Democratic Party --TheImaCow (talk) 02:06, 21 November 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:Criminal justice reform in India 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused work-in-progress navbox, creator is blocked --TheImaCow (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very strange thing to put into a navbox. I don't see how a topic as complex as this one or anyone reading in this topic area would benefit from a navbox. It appears the only one who knows is the creator who, as said, is blocked, so we have an empty navbox with no hope of use. No other template like it even exists on Wikipedia, so we have nothing to compare it to. It also appears that a reminder to use one's sandbox for experimentation is in order. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:30, 21 November 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).

Regional templates 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

34 deprecated {{s-line}} templates in this category replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/NSW TrainLink. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - no need to keep this. --TheImaCow (talk) 02:10, 21 November 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:Countries at the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only red links, unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 00:14, 21 November 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:Countries at the FIBA Basketball World Cup 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only red links --TheImaCow (talk) 00:13, 21 November 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:Console Generation Header 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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to Template:History of video games, in which this information is already in its own section. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:34, 21 November 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_November_21&oldid=991350751"