Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10 edit

Template:Fb pdl team 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) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 19#Mass Fb cl templates, this template can be replaced by Module:Sports table Hhkohh (talk) 13:52, 10 September 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:Fb cl header pknodraws 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) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed after {{Fb cl3 qr}} is being deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 19#Mass Fb cl templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 22 Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hhkohh, as far as I know, the otwins, pw, pd, pl columns have not been added to any of the Module:Sports table submodules. so, until that happens, I don't think these can be replaced. that is unless, you are suggesting that we take a step backward and replace these with wikitables? Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Frietjes: Maybe we can use Module:Sports table/WL OT and use like |N_header=<abbr title="Won after extra time or penalties">W+</abbr>, thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • okay, I added functionality to the WD OT and WDL OT modules, and replaced the templates. we could probably merge the OT modules with the standard ones (so much code duplication), but that is for another day. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 13 September 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:Fb cl team pnd 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) 00:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hhkohh (talk) 13:22, 10 September 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:Fb cl footer 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) 00:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 19#Mass Fb cl templates but I missed these at that time Hhkohh (talk) 13:16, 10 September 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:ISO 3166 code-3 AD 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 the main three templates, but delete the subtemplates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have only tagged these three templates, but am also nominating the 700 templates in Category:ISO_3166_code_from_name_country_templates, which are anyways unused due to luafication. These three templates all have only a handful of transclusions that aren't from transclusions on the doc pages of the templates in the category I mentioned. See here, for example. These templates are all also redundant to {{country abbreviation}}. This previous TfD is relevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough:The Lua table is already used on all 4 templates relating to ISO 3166. The templates are now useless, and the module was created to avoid have a few thousand templates at one time, not the other way around. Anyways so many sub sub templates were deleted as per a TfD that the templates don't really work properly. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea. I'm sorry that I missed/forgot about deletion of the sub-sub-templates, but that may also have not been a good idea. The idea is to support human editors in a flexible and fast manner, not to reduce everything to neat tidy tables. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough:There were WAY to many sub sub tempaltes that it was insane, but now the sub templates don't work properly, ISO specification don't really change that much and editors can simply put in a edit request, anyways I'm pretty sure the module isn't protected yet, so normal editors can still make small changes. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way were there "too many" - did we run low on disk space? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Well no but it was a lot to keep track of, especially when edits had to be made across all of them and it was and still is very disorganized. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 22:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 listed, speedy others as G6 per above. --Rschen7754 01:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not related to discussion: @Galobtter: Can you wrap the notices in noinclude tags as they seam to be for the sub templates and not the actual templates listed and because the templates only output a few letters and are inline, it makes it harder to read as per MOS:ACCESS. Also, if you give the the go ahead I'll gladly tag the sub templates with the tag as they seam like they should be taged, I can do it no problem using AWB. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of tagging the sub templates since they aren't transcluded anywhere and so no one will see them. Have noincluded the tags. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is pretty clear to keep the three nominated pages (hence the strikeouts) but I'd like to see a bit more discussion on the 700 sub-templates also being nominated, mainly due to the sheer size of the potential deletions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all except the three exceptions, as above. Whatever purpose they once served they have no use now.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:37, 11 September 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:Wikify 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 2018 September 22. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:23, 22 September 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_September_10&oldid=860753169"