Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6 edit

NCAA Division I athletic director navboxes 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. So many were removed or changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate any that you still wish to have deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING... only one active link in which this template is used in... needs at least 4 to pass. Corky 17:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy any of these that come up delete to my userspace. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dartmouth ADs. It now has four articles linked. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn Dartmouth. Corky 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bucknell and USF ADs. Each now has four articles linked. Cbl62 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn Bucknell and USF. Thanks, Corky 03:06, 9 June 2018 (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:Maintained portal flag 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 after replacing with {{Portal maintenance status}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internal maintenance items should not be visible to readers when no action is needed. Remove the visible component (flag) or restrict use to talk pages. ({{Portal flag talk}} exists for the latter.) Additionally, tagging something as maintained is misleading since when it becomes unmaintained, the nonexistent maintainer doesn't remove it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for developing a flag specifically for the portal page was to provide an indicator to AWB and other auto-editing tools of the Portal's status. Such as the flag that a page met certain criteria that makes it exempt from batch maintenance runs. These portals will be checked periodically to ensure the flags are still relevant. It was specifically requested that the indicator be visual, and not just in the source, however, if there is significant objection to this, it can be changed. IIRC, there were technical reasons mentioned regarding why placing the flag on the talk page was insufficient, although if that could be solved, we wouldn't need to use flags on the portal page itself. If you'd like, you can join the discussion here on the WikiProject Portals talk page. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. That is not the way to flag things for internal maintenance, especially as there is no indication what it actually does, so will likely be clicked on more often in error than by someone actually using it as intended. The proper way is a category. An hidden category is hidden from readers but visible to anyone who wants to see it, has a descriptive name so is unlikely to be clicked in error, as well as being easily browsed via the actual category. Whatever the specific request this is the wrong way to do it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The flag templates add the page to hidden tracking categories already. As I mentioned above, there was originally a need to have some visible indicator on the portal page itself, if not a top icon then maybe somewhere else. We are currently discussing potential alternatives to a visual flag, and whether tagging the portal page instead of the talk page is necessary on our talk page. To prevent a fractured conversation, please join the discussion there. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'our talk page' ? There was and is no need for any visual indicator; please link to the discussion where this was requested as I have been unable to find it. But the indicator, and so the template, is not needed. Just add them to the category. Easy, much clearer, and much easier to remove 18 months from now when someone notices a redundant category on a portal.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks/Archive 1#Concerning automated maintenance exclusions and the following section. Removing a template is not particularly hard – no harder than removing {{Use British English}}, {{Use DMY dates}}, {{nobots}}, or any other maintenance template. - Evad37 [talk] 02:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, noting that (a) issues with the template can be resolved by editing, (b) there is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Technical#Rethinking portal flag templates, and (c) there's no reason not to help out those performing portal maintenance if it can be done without affecting readers.
    Editing is preferable to deletion per WP:ATD; deletion while discussion is ongoing would be disruptive, and assuming the issues do get resolved, it would cause a lot of "busy work" of both deleting and then re-adding templates to hundreds of pages. No prejudice to renominating following the discussion, if the issues don't get resolved. As a summary of what I've said in the other discussion: The output should be hidden by default, but made available to users who want it (i.e. via custom CSS); and that adding the flag template to the article should make the talkpage project banner display an appropriate message (via Lua magic). - Evad37 [talk] 15:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How is tagging something as maintained is misleading since when it becomes unmaintained, the nonexistent maintainer doesn't remove it addressable by editing? — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The template just needs a |date= parameter, automatically filled in by AnomieBOT, and a process for removal, such as a portal_talk page message after some reasonable amount of time (e.g. six months), requesting that the maintainer update the date if they're still active, and automatic removal of the maintained status a short time later (e.g. one month) if not updated. - Evad37 [talk] 00:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even skip the talk page message, as long as removal is done without a bot flag, and with a very clear edit summary. - Evad37 [talk] 00:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above Dreamy Jazz talk | contribs 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've started working on {{Portal maintenance status}} as a proposed merged template that also addresses issues raised both here and on the Wikiproject talkpage. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Technical#Portal flags: New template for discussion. - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace with {{Portal maintenance status|manual=yes}} and then delete – a better template that makes this one redundant and deprecated. (Note that it's only the bureaucracy of TfD that's stopping such improvement from happening now) - Evad37 [talk] 00:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per Evad37. We're ready to roll over to the new template now. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:36, 11 June 2018 (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:Non-standard portal flag 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 after replacing with {{Portal maintenance status}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internal maintenance items should not be visible to readers when no action is needed. Remove the visible component (flag) or restrict use to talk pages. ({{Portal flag talk}} exists for the latter.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above response on the other portal flag. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be part of the above TFD, all the arguments that apply to that template also apply to this template, and merging is a possible outcome per the discussion on the wikiproject talk page. - Evad37 [talk] 15:49, 7 June 2018 (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:Newarticletext-confirmed 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 merge and delete. This was a relic from before WP:ACTRIAL and WP:ACREQ were a thing. I've merged it into MediaWiki:Newarticletext — MusikAnimal talk 20:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, should be merged with the article MediaWiki page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (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/2018_June_6&oldid=848584503"