Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2 edit

Collegiate ice hockey standings (men) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All unused. Looks like data has been moved to other templates. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All unused. Elli, you beat me to the punch. I was going to nominate these next. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, we have other templates for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (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).

TeamBracket 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: the Hockey East template could potentially be used in the future, it was intended to be used for the 2021 tournament but a team dropped out and we used a 10 team version. Mushh94 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As creator, I'm happy with 64TeamAnd32TeamX2RoundBracket-NoSeeds being deleted - 64TeamAnd32TeamX2RoundBracket-NoSeeds-Byes can be used for a draw in that format. Keep 11TeamBracket-Hockey East2 as per comment above. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mushh94, I'm not sure there should be a template just in case it were to be used. That is not how Wikipedia works. Same would be for an article or category to be created just in case notability were to be established. It's always created after it happens. What team dropped out and what tournament? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 2021 Hockey East Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, Merrimack had to drop out due to positive COVID tests right before the start of the Opening round. Thinking about it now, I'm ok with deleting the template. That particular tournament was unique in that it included only single-elimination games (opening round and quarterfinals are usually best-of-three). The odds of it being needed again next year are slim, and if it should arise, it's not too difficult to create it again. Mushh94 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verified all are currently unused. As work has been ongoing on Module:Team bracket, any new style should be brought to that talk page first. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2021 (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).

Temple Cup Champions 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 relisted on 2021 June 10. Izno (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (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:Argentina national football team results navbox 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. Izno (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed now as it has already been covered by the Argentina NFT template. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:36, 4 June 2021 (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:Done-t 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 relisted on 2021 June 15. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2021 (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:If/errmsg 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. Izno (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused even in the parent template. Might be a failed experiment. Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't look like it should be used in its parent template. It is a supplemental template for printing a standardized error message for template coding; according to my reading of the documentation and the source code. IT should be used by coders who write code containing IF and IREXPR statements. You would add this template to the clause checking for errors thrown by these statements, so that they print the standardized message. The input parameter 3 would be the parameter being tested by IF, parameter 2 would be the false action, parameter 1 the true action, parameter t the statement name. If it were I who were using this, I'd use parameter "t" to state which if-statement was throwing the error, so instead of "t=ifexpr", it would be "t=ifexpr#56" or something. It would be used in an if-error statement
{{if|error //// this provides a wrapping if for error handling to the {{if|1=version}} do-work statement
 |{{if|1=version|2=testobject|3=trueaction|4=falseaction)) //// this error test condition of the code's do-work statement
 |{{if/errmsg|t=if version|1=trueaction|2=falseaction|3=testobject}} //// this is the formatted error message //// this should be customized to indicate the breakpoint the code failed at
 |{{if|1=version|2=testobject|3=trueaction|4=falseaction)) //// this is the code's do-work statement
 }}
In my reading of the template it is used thusly, so would not be used by template if itself, rather, by coders writing with template if to code their error messages.
-- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{if|error|{{if|expr|4/0|true|false}}|{{if/errmsg|t=expr|1= true printout |2= false printout |3= 4/0 }} |{{if|expr|4/0|true|false}} }}

{{if/errmsg|t=expr|1= true printout |2= false printout |3= 4/0 }} 

{{if|error|{{if|expr|1|true|false}}|{{if/errmsg|t=expr|1= true printout |2= false printout |3= 1 }}|{{if|expr|1|true|false}} }}

true 

{{if|error|{{if|expr|0|true|false}}|{{if/errmsg|t=expr|1= true printout |2= false printout |3= 1 }}|{{if|expr|0|true|false}} }}

false

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:Yesno2 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. Returned to user's space. Izno (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused other than in a test page and a sandbox. The regular {{Yesno}} template seems to be enough. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (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:COVID-19 editnotice 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. Izno (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; and at this point probably won't be used. Also doesn't make sense to have a general edit notice like this - annoys people using VE especially and contributes to banner blindness. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the nom. I think this was probably a good effort at the time, back when this was a new developing issue, but has probably served its purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; unlikely to be used for the reason that most pages where it could be used already have a different notice about MEDRS, or the {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}. This is more like a WikiProject banner, but we already have {{WikiProject COVID-19}} for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As creator, I don't see any big need to retain this (although I'll probably copy the code to my sandbox just in case). The original goal was to provide a friendlier counterweight to the scary GS editnotice, but GS is a massive problem that I now think would be better addressed on its own terms. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:32, 2 June 2021 (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:Othernaming 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template; not sure what purpose this serves. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2021 (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:VB auto1 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2021 (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:Vb hvn1 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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace; not sure what purpose this serves. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2021 (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:Vb st1 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (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:Vb st1 start 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (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:Vb st1 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (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:Clubvt1 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; deleted by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (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:Total lunar eclipse contacts 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 convert to be more obvious as a legend. There is (if you want to get bureaucratic about it) no consensus on whether to delete or delete this template, but the primary concern seems to be over whether this template is a "legend"-type template. By converting this to a template (with {{vte}} and other sundries used) it will be more obvious as a legend. That being said, there is no prejudice against renomination if and when this is complete and those opposed feel that (as a legend-style template) it is inadequate (not just that "it is article text in the template space"). Primefac (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this template was ever even created. Its existence makes it more difficult for readers to edit the article on lunar eclipses, and I have now transferred the information within it to that article and removed the template from it. I've never seen this in a Wikipedia article before. A loose necktie (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless template. More like an article masquerading as a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful information useful in many articles. Sharing them in one place avoid duplicated content, and allows them all copies usages to be changed at once. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't a template that follows template guidelines on Wikipedia. No one is arguing against the usefulness of the information. The nominator has transferred the information to the relevant articles, thus the template as it stands has become useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The template is active in 6 articles at the moment. I don't know why you wouldn't choose to use a template like this. - Tom Ruen (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete Article tesxt should not be stored in templates * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is NOT an article test. I don't even know what you mean. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a typo for "article text" * Pppery * it has begun... 01:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this template does have some value in providing a consistent description across several articles, but shouldn’t just transclude text; ideally it would contain the associated diagram and put the whole thing in a box with V•T•E links. User:GKFXtalk 11:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Justput in abox with VTE links.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. Additionally, I don't find value in this template for its apparent use; an article summarizes. Each individual eclipse article should instead link to the appropriate explanation of a contact, not explain it itself. Accordingly, I recommend not substing before deletion. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 04:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without substitution (which I suspect will be okay with Pppery who was the only user to vote for substitution). This kind of information should not be in templates, hence the delete, and shouldn't be in the articles to begin with, hence without substitution. For example, at April 2014 lunar eclipse, the relevant section at the time it passed GA was the same as now, except without this template. The information is just confusing. If this information, or some variant of it, is needed on the half-dozen transclusions then of course it can be discussed on a per-article basis, as it should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed okay with me. I feel strongly that this shouldn't be in a template, and don't really have an opinion about whether the content appears in the article at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but add a box and v-t-e links to make it clear that it's the legend for the table and that it's being transcluded. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with v-t-e links per above. I don't see any problem with having the table legend in a template. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. It is best no to have article text in templates (it is un-wiki, as it is hard to edit). Also, the uses I see are inadequate (used as a table legend, better done by a link pointing to a section on lunar eclipses explaining this) - Nabla (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2021 (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/2021_June_2&oldid=1033432338"