Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

April 10Edit

Template:Cr-PSLEdit

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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As per the ongoing discussions for IPL and BBL templates, clear consensus to delete these meaningless templates Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep unlike IPL and BBL ones these include flags. Human (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Astonishing as no noticed this despite the first BPL tournament being held back in 2012, and all the other followed. Human (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see anything in WP:FLAG that forbids us to use team colors. Many PSL related pages are relied on this template, see 2019 Pakistan Super League#Fixtures as an example. Though, this may go against WP:TOOMANY. This can be solved by reformatting the template, so that we can use lesser flag on the page, where needed. Thanks! M. Billoo 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It overall makes a mess where the templates are used now that the deletion tag is attached. Even if the template is deleted, reformatting the page will be a very difficult and time consuming job. Human (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a TfD discussion in 2011 which removed the Flags from the IPL version of this template. There wasn't a huge amount of policy discussion, but editors said they were synthesis of new material. I don't see the need to show the team colours in match results and once they are gone, the templates just become an obfuscation of a simple link. Something taking time to fix is not a valid reason not to do it in my mind (though I think it would be better to do the changes before the template is deleted) Spike 'em (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Though the PSL one can be fixed, the BPL and CPL are the ones that are not given importance. There is a WikiProject about BPL but most of the members are inactive. It will be hard for just one editor to fix articles relating to two different cricket leagues. Human (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It just needs a BOTREQ or someone with AWB to do it. There are 36 pages transcluding {{Cr-BPL}} and 10 {{Cr-CPL}}. It will take longer to do the Search / replace terms than to actually run through these. Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, AWB allows a substitute template option and seems to substitute better than doing a {{subst}} via the browser editor, so this is even less of an issue. Only things stopping me doing this now is that it does subst in the TfD warning! Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete These are used as a transport for some WP:OR images which breach MOS:FLAG / MOS:ICON as they are for decorative purposes only. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
And for the CPL ones, they use a national flag rather than team colours or emblem. These are not teams that represent those countries, they are multi-national teams that happen to be based there. Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - not needed, better served by standard links, the addition of graphics without suitable alt text to a page should always be avoided, the addition of multiple (in some cases, quite possibly, tens or hundreds) of additional templates to a page should be avoided in terms of page load times, particularly when using mobile networks. So many reasons for deleting them as opposed to the reasons for keeping them which seem to be "it's too much work to replace them". As Spike has already suggested, this is a really straightforward bot request to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Template:Cr-PSL has been fixed on my request by User:Frietjes, so now no need to delete. Similar to Template:Cr-IPL. Thanks! M. Billoo 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that we're using templates when it would be more effective to use plain text links. For example, on the 2019 PSL page the template is used over 100 times. Add that to other templates on the page (flagicon, cite etc...) there appear to be getting on to 400 templates used just on that page - there are tables and so on which cause issues with counting the brackets, but I reckon it's at least 350. From the point of view of load-time overheads, especially when on a mobile network, that's actually quite an issue that could be reduced by simply using regular links. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The result of the TfD for {{Cr-IPL}} was to delete, so saying PSL is more like does not encourage keeping it. Spike 'em (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
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).

Several merged tables (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. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

merged with parent articles (with attribution) per this thread and subsequent TfD discussions. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • subst and delete as per the discussion and similar league table templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete all per nom Hhkohh (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
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:University of CraiovaEdit

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) 00:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Only 3 navigable links, including the head article, so it fails WP:NENAN.
The rest of the template is a forest of plain text listings of departments, research centres, etc. Navigation boxes are for navigation, not for making fancily-formatted lists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. University navboxes can certainly be valid, but this doesn't cut it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless. Even the linked items shouldn't be in there as they are not specific to the subject! --woodensuperman 12:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
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:Cast list breakEdit

The template was deprecated unilaterally last year, and is used on about 100 articles. Functionally, the template currently just adds <br> to the start of the input, and could easily be replaced through substitution in a few minutes. I would support keeping the template and possibly improving it with TemplateStyles so that it can use <p>...</p> without causing a large gap between lines, but (as suggested by SMcCandlish) I am procedurally nominating it for deletion to assess whether there would be consensus for improving the template instead of replacing the template through substitution. (If the template is kept in its current state then I would support deletion.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning delete, absent a showing that we need to keep and refine it. I'm not opposed to it being kept if the need can be established and the coding for this gets done. I'm not sure what the use case(s) is/are for such a version, or I might just go do it myself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: If it's perfectly acceptable to use the plain br tag for the specific purpose then I would probably lean towards deleting as well. On the other hand, in other situations (especially discussions) it would be nice to have a line break which inserts a <p> with less paragraph spacing. Jc86035 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, well, this doesn't really seem to be a discussion-page-oriented template, but intended for mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Template:Template for discussion is effecting its usage in articles. Is there a way we solve this while this discussion is taking place?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Already resolved (someone <noinclude>'ed the TfD tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template is useful in organizing cast lists and was working fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: While on a functional level the template make the wikitext slightly more readable by allowing for line breaks in the code, it is also possible to use a generic template like {{break}}, and it's even possible to insert a line break character within a <br> tag (although using the former would probably be better since AWB genfixes and similar tools may perform <br> tag autofixes). Alternatively, a hidden comment could be used. Since the vast majority of film articles don't use this template, there's not much point in keeping it just because the template has this easily replicable functionality. Jc86035 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    This template is not the same as <br>, that is my whole point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Adamstom.97: On a functional level, the only thing the template actually adds is the <br> tag, so the only purpose the template really serves is to make wikitext more readable. A replacement will not make the wikitext any less readable, because line breaks can be inserted with other templates which are more widely used. Jc86035 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete if kept in this original form per the discussion at Template talk:Cast list break#Deprecation as using the br tag is better in this situation than this template. --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template was introduced after significant discussion because it was the best option for making detailed cast lists more readable. None of the opposition here appears to have addressed this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: per TriiipleThreat and adamstom97. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, just use <br />. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: No one voting keep has explained why cast lists should use this specific template instead of more general options like {{break}} or <br />. Jc86035 has suggested that this could be used to create thinner paragraphs, but I don't see any problem with the current paragraph layout. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing to keep the template because the status quo works fine. But those voting delete are not disputing that this template works; they're simply suggesting it be replaced by more general markup like <br /> or {{break}} because as currently implemented, all {{cast list break}} does is insert a <br /> between lines. To make a convincing case for keeping {{cast list break}}, you have to argue what specific purpose this template could serve that other markup or templates don't. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Bonnie LangfordEdit

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) 00:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This actress/musical artist's navigational template consists of the biography article, the three acting credits that should not be located in the template, a link to a section of the biography article, a link to a section of a musical and a redlink. The template is only located in the biography article so it currently does not navigate anywhere and with no articles for her own albums and/or songs, there is no justification for having this navigational template. Aspects (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Obvious delete. This isn't properly navigating.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nominator is spot on with analysis of what's wrong with this. --woodensuperman 12:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
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).