Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

Template:Population of castes in Maharashtra in 1931

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) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of castes in Maharashtra in 1931 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not edited in 10 years except for cleanup edits. It's better not to have unused templates that need to be cleaned up periodically. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's better not to have unused templates, even if they don't need cleanup. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 16 April 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:¡

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. Withdrawn after the purpose of the template was clarified. Pppery expressed an interest in renaming the template but that doesn't require a TfD to discuss. (non-admin closure) User:GKFX^talk 09:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:¡ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After talking to the template author, it seems that this template was created in the belief that {{pipe}} doesn’t work. {{pipe}} does work as discussed at that link and so this can be deleted. It’s also a hard-to-type name for for many (most?) users. User:GKFX^talk 21:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant mis-characterization. There have been periods in the past (when {{pipe}} had been redirected to {{!}} ) that it did behave as I described, so I stopped using it. The "hard to type" argument is dangerously close to WP:IDL; however, if GKFX can suggest an alternative simple way to insert the unicode character │ I'd like to know it. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting {{source?}} into another editor's comment is not a good idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine; GKFX's claim that It’s also a hard-to-type name for for many (most?) users is baseless and unsubstantiated, and must therefore be treated as a straw man argument. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are long Q&A threads of people discussing the matter. Many keyboards do not have a key for it. It's nothing to do with whether I like it. User:GKFX^talk 07:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That thread is not particularly long, and is a decade old. If Pppery can dismiss something 13 years distant, why is your example any more relevant? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The point of this unused template is to make a small number of things not break in the unlikely event a template editor unilaterally overturns a TfD and breaks a large number of other things. Template editors can be trusted not to do that (and the aformentioned periods where {{pipe}} was redirected to {{!}} were in 2008, which says little about what will happen 13 years later) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (struck * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Pppery: The template appears to be unused because I always {{subst:}} it so that the Unicode character is inserted. And as I alluded to above, I'd be happy to support deletion IF you can show me a just-as-easy-to-use alternative for inserting the unicode character. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to your special characters tray with a user script? (The one under the editing textarea). User:V111P/js/Simple_Keyboard_Layout_Changer might also be helpful, although I haven't tried it. User:GKFX^talk 07:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're just guessing. SKLC is convoluted, not fully developed, and has drawbacks — hardly an easy replacement for a simple template. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please not the difference in height between the two characters: E|E│E; the Unicode line is taller and whitespaced. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are adding the │ character for some reason other than not being willing to code a template that produces a pipe that is never treated as a template parameter? This appears to contradict the claim you made on your talk page in January since, if it was true, the behavior of {{pipe}} would be irrelevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example

					Stop\|Station

					Stop│Station

The "some other reason" is stylistic. Is that a problem? Take a look at the Example to the right (which is how I employ it most often): much better visual separation with the box-drawing character. And again what was said is being mischaracterized. I wrote that if [{{pipe}}] is subst'd (and possibly … deeply-nested … – which was true at one point. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "at one point" is in 2008, which long enough ago to have no bearing on what decisions to make in 2021. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Template:Spaced pipe. It appears both GKFX and I were suffering from misunderstandings of the purpose of this template. This template is not an attempt to work around the limitations of the | character in wikitext, in which case it would indeed be redundant to {{pipe}}, but instead a perfectly standard typing-aid template for a non-ascii character. Any concerns about the name being hard to type should be addressed by a rename, not a deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a name that better reflects the name of the character? It's a vertical box drawing character—not sure how to abbreviate that snappily. Fair enough if AlgaeGraphix has been substing it because they like that specific character, but that is a bit different to what was implied in our earlier chat and the template's doc page. Happy to withdraw. "¡" can stay as a redirect, ~~and the doc page should get a re-write~~(done). User:GKFX^talk 18:29, 17 April 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:PWI awards

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) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PWI awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every single page in this template link back to the SAME EXACT article. You aren't even supposed to link to the same article twice in a given navbox so this template is 100% completely unnecessary and serves no purpose whatsoever. AEWFanboy^talk 19:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provides no useful navigation, redundant to the table of contents. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed since every award is linked to the same article --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a navbox and not useful. A navbox should link to different articles/topics. Wario-Man ^talk 17:35, 16 April 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:20TeamBracket

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) 22:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:19TeamBracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by standard 5RoundBracket template Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 16 April 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:Wikidata date

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) 19:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikidata date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Wikidata date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in creator's userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this offers any improvement over Template:Wikidata which can already read dates, and has a lot more built in functionality for formatting them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 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).