Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 30

November 30

Template:Time element

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. ✗plicit 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Time element (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Follow up from the previous TfD here which the nomiator withdrew, as they likely didn't know the substitution count. Unused template, with no transclusions and only one substitution by the template creator themselves since 2013 (see this insource search). Aidan9382 _(talk) 13:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I have no particular recollection why I created it, but it's clearly not needed anymore. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2022 (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:Singtel

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. ✗plicit 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Singtel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. All transclusions were in non-blocked stale IP talkpages and have been by removed by MalnadachBot task 13. Per the template talk page, most IPs that had this template had stopped editing in 2009. Singtel stopped assigning IPs to proxies, so this template is unlikely to be used in future. The parent template {{SharedIP}} can be used if there is a need. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (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:Wdtable row

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 keep. ✗plicit 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Wdtable row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is incompatible with Visual Editor. Things like adding or moving rows to a table can't be done in lists which use this template. Comparing List of learned societies in Australia (which uses this template) to List of learned societies in Italy (which doesn't) shows the different behaviour when you e.g. try to add a column between the other columns, or try to add a row between the existing ones, or try to move a row up or down or a column left or right.

These issues were brought up last month during Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikidata lists. Until they can be solved, the template should either be deleted or disallowed in mainspace. (Note: I seriously dislike Visual Editor and don't use it, but this doesn't mean that we should introduce templates which make editing a lot harder for those of us who do use VE). Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - Fram has it right. If a template is incompatible with VE, it needs to go. Blueboar (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep this is a spurious argument, you can't do many things in the visual editor like edit photos and alter template formats, this is no different. Note that this is part of a long-running campaign by Fram against anything Wikidata-related. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Editing tables though is a thing you can do in VE, in fact it is often praised as the one thing where Visual Editor is clearly better than wikitext editing. Claiming that a thing which you normally can do in VE but can't do with this specific template is the same as things you just can't do in VE is bizarre. Note that I take your word about VE not being able to do these other things, I don't really get what you mean by either "edit photos" or "alter template formats" but I guess that's not really important for this TfD anyway. Fram (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• This is forum shopping. Fram failed to find consensus for his viewpoint at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikidata_lists and now we are here? I will respond to the substantive issues later, but it has all been said already at the other discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The village pump discussion is about Wikidata lists in general. This is about this specific template and its issues. Feel free to create another template or solution which doesn't have these issues, if possible. And no, the issues with this template have not bean dealt with at the other discussion. You agreed that the issue I raised was a valid point (on 14 October) and said that you would seek advice on it. That's the last we heard about it, and no improvements were made. Fram (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The claim that this is "incompatible with Visual Editor" is false. The allegations of forum shopping are also troubling; as is the hectoring in this discussion. List of learned societies in Australia is exactly the sort of thing we should be using Wikidata for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What about that claim is "false"? Am I mistaken in any of the issues I listed? Fram (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The entirety of the claim is false. This is why I said "The claim that this is 'incompatible with Visual Editor' is false". Now, what was I saying about hectoring..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Using "hectoring" as a way to avoid questions about your false rationale, nice. I guess whoever closes this will give your vote the total lack of weight it deserves. Fram (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Incompatibility with the beta Visual Editor is not a valid reason for deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: This TFD, submitted in good faith I am sure, seems to be a bit of a mess. The nominated template has no transclusions in article space, but it is used. It appears to be a sort of placeholder to document Module:Wikidata table and also a parent template to subpage templates that are actually transcluded in article space. I encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination and come back with a nomination that has a valid TFD rationale and that nominates the template or module that they actually want to discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per direct violation of established consensus. lists [] are articles, and we have established consensus against linking to Wikidata anywhere in the body of the article.Therefore all occurrences of this template may be immediately deleted from any list or other article as a consensus action, rendering the template deletable as unused.
  In theory the Wikidata links could be removed from the template, however I believe/hope that the wikidata-enthusiasts here would not be so perverse as to advocate a blatantly broken and blatantly harmful template. It would be practically impossible for ANYONE to edit the page via Wikipedia OR Wikidata, as the wikitext contains nothing but jibberish and there would be no pencil link to edit via Wikidata.
  Based on the current headcount I can see "no consensus" being a very tempting close. I seriously hope one or more 'keep' voters recognize that non-consensus would be an unconstructive outcome here and change their vote. I or anyone else can summarily eliminate this from mainspace per cited consensus. Alsee (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep Agreed with everyone above that not being visualeditor-friendly is not a reason for deletion. On the merits of the dispute over usage of Wikidata I agree with Alsee, but it's premature to bring this to TfD before Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikidata lists is closed, and even if it were disallowed this could still be useful as a subst-only template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Disruptive nomination that is forum shopping per MSGJ. There is no valid reason to nominate the template here while the other discussion is still ongoing, rather than once it has resolved. The fact it's been allowed to accrue comments is an example of a WP:PROCESSFIRST issue. To the extent it's necessary to entertain, keep per Jonesey95 and per arguments in the other discussion about why Wikidata is useful for lists. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:14, 6 December 2022 (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:National parks of Tasmania interactivemap

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. ✗plicit 06:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Template:National parks of Tasmania interactivemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template. The notice supports substitution stating "This template is intended to be placed within an article, like an image (map with a frame)." WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Although this is a single-use template, it is common to put exceedingly intricate code, like this and railway routemaps, into templates so that the map does not get broken and so that the wikitext of the article is not overwhelmed by code. This is definitely not article prose. Ideally, we would have a tradition of using article subpages for technical single-article content like this, but we do not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Subst and delete I've never been a fan of the principle Jonesey95 refers to, and this isn't actually that complicated as templates go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per Pppery. Izno (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2022 (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).