Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 30

April 30Edit

Template:Blocked sockpuppetEdit

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 relisted on 2021 May 8. Primefac (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2021 (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:Planck constantEdit

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) 02:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose deletion: This table is not suitable for general use in articles (and has only seen use in one article: Planck constant), so use of a template is inappropriate. —Quondum 20:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Not what templates are for. Besides, the nominator has copied its contents to Planck constant, so no information will be lost. Tercer (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as single-use template that has already been substituted. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Tercer. The template is used in only one article. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really what we need a template for; it's hard to imagine this box actually being necessary or helpful on multiple pages. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (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:StarKid Productions CastEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Unused, highly specific templates. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:09, 30 April 2021 (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:Eredivisie teamlistEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Has not been updated since 2014. Serves no purpose. Superseded by the general Eredivisie template. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:06, 30 April 2021 (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:Railway OSM mapEdit

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 relisted on 2021 May 8. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2021 (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:Biden presidencyEdit

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 relisted on 2021 May 8. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2021 (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:UTF-16Edit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Replaced with Module:Unicode convert. User:GKFXtalk 15:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose I would rather these two get converted to wrappers for the module rather than be replaced by it. The module can definitely be hardcoded into {{charmap}} to take care of the vast majority of uses of these two templates, but they are still useful and intuitive to use in their current template form for those of us who document characters and encodings. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Personally, I object to the creation of template wrappers around modules. It makes the call stack longer and adds complexity to the codebase of whatever uses the wrapper, and the only benefit is slightly more familiar syntax. However, I recognise that this position is not policy, and if you want to replace these templates with wrappers around the Lua module they will probably survive TfD. User:GKFXtalk 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, we're a week in and haven't gotten any more comments. I'm going to post this on WT:WikiProject Writing systems to see if we can't drag some more perspective in on this. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Template wrappers are preferred where the use of the module will be in mainspace. From what I can see, UTF-8 and -16 templates are not intended to be used in mainspace. If that is so, then delete. Otherwise, they should be reasonably be kept wrappers. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: is there a guideline or policy to that effect? It seems prima facia to be a reasonable principle, but I wonder if there are some subtleties that need to be taken into account. So if it isn't already codified somewhere, I would highly recommend that it go through the guideline process so that it can get a broad enough perspective to be formulated into good policy for these kinds of situations. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't think so, but I think that's just because it's not written down and not because that's not SOP. Generally, we prefer templates where casual editors will use them and module invocations in template-space only (in mainspace in exceptional circumstances such as having to deal with WP:PEIS). Keeps teaching/training easy for template use and teaching how to make modules easier (you don't have to deal with all the relevant frames if there's just the template frame passing information to the module). Izno (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Probably should be codified. I also believe this is a best practice. But there are cases where modules are used on a large scale in mainspace, Module:Chart and Module:Sports table being the ones that come to my mind. Posted at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Modules in namespace. --Trialpears (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Modules in namespace didn't get that far, but the guidance that eventually got written was that "it is generally not desirable to use template wrappers in other templates". These templates have now been unused for about 20 days; let's delete them. User:GKFXtalk 18:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Izno. Since these templates aren't intended for use other than by templates and modules we might as well delete them. --Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • delete, while there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having template frontends for modules, in this case, I don't see a strong reason to have the template frontends. these are generally going to be used outside of articlespace, so the need for multiple entry points (and avoiding problems with parent args) is not an issue here. Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (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:Irish Stock ExchangeEdit

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 relisted on 2021 May 9. Izno (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2021 (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).