Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

[edit]

Template:OASA Metro stations

[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) 19:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Athens Metro and Module:Adjacent stations/Athens Suburban Railway REEDriler (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2022 (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:BookReferenceMacDonaldMammals

[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) 22:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reference template that only has one usage. The template originally created with the expectation of heavy usage, which it has not gotten. The book has been referenced multiple times, however: All pages with source code containing ""The New Encyclopedia of Mammals"". Should the template be deleted and the one use be inlined, or should the already-existing citations be converted to using the reference template? SWinxy (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want a search like this. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Forgot the quotes. Thanks lol. SWinxy (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete after substitution. as it stands right now, this isn't particularly useful since it doesn't take any input parameters. I would support a reincarnation at some point as a fully functional citation wrapper with input parameters, but as it stands right now, it's not particularly useful. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2022 (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:Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives)

[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) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 6 § Template:Transclusion

Template transcluded to a single article (2022 Australian federal election) contravenes WP:TG: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. Rather, 2022 Australian federal election should transclude directly from the main article cited in the section (of the same name as this template): Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives). — Guarapiranga ☎ 12:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not being used to store "article text". Having templates for tables or other stuff which takes up a lot of space and code and doesn't necessarily need to be edited very often if at all is rather common and a good application of the WP:KISS principle. The nom is otherwise self-defeating as the two tables in both articles are exactly the same (suggesting that the template should be used on the other page too), and for something like this there is no reason to not want consistency between them (which a template accomplishes very easily and elegantly). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst to article and delete. Templates should be created for things that are repeated over multiple pages, or used as helper functions. Creating a template to store a table is a bad reason to create a template. Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This exact same table is used on multiple pages (was, before attempts to remove it); so I don't see the logic behind your argument. We want consistency; and this table will not need frequent editing; so there is no reason not to have a template for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the logic of my argument when the template was transcluded into one page? Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template is used (as of time of writing; [1]) on two pages (the two ones listed in the nom's statement); but even if it wasn't there is precedent for keeping tables or other pieces of more complex and rarely-needs-to-be-edited stuff such as stand-alone templates used on one page (ex. Template:Inner West Light Rail RDT); particularly with election templates (ex. Template:Canadian federal election, 2021; which has a sub-page for every riding; ex. Template:Canadian federal election, 2021/Papineau or Template:Canadian federal election, 2021/Fredericton) which are used on only one or two pages, to make the resulting articles easier to edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template was obviously not used on two pages which you clearly know, as you edited to include it two minutes after you commented that it was used on multiple pages. So if you're trying to find holes in arguments, at least don't hide the fact that you changed transclusion count. Also, the Canadian elections are the (very bad) exception to the rule. See the lack of templates for other countries. Gonnym (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template was used on two pages well before Guarapiranga removed it from one of the two and nominated it here; so the only one guilty of changing transclusion counts is the nominator here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. Here are:I filed this TfD 12:12 pm, 4 June 2022 (UTC). What I did do after that was to transfer the table in {{Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives)}} to Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), as it was more up-to-date, and transclude it from there to 2022 Australian federal election, adding the {{main}} link. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use excerpts if needed. These tables shouldn't be the same anyway: the one on the election page aggregates parties who did not win/lose a seat into an 'Other' row, the one in the full results page should list all parties. Then each table will only have one use, removing the utility of a template. If it is needed to display either table in another article (and I don't see how it would be), excerpt code can be used like on the electoral division pages.. --Canley (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like that?
{{#section:Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (Senate)|Australia}}
— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Canley's reasons Find bruce (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the tables don't need to be the same (consistency seems a better choice, and WP:NOTSTATS, but oh well); that still doesn't address the WP:KISS issue here, and the fact such single-transclusion tables are in fact rather common for elections, particularly when the resulting articles are rather large. Heck there's even Template:Transclusion, which shows how common this is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that essay have to do with any of this, RandomCanadian? It's about keeping rules and procedure pages simple and short. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no excuse for not having read through to the end, it's so short. Likewise, prefer simple article coding so non-technical people can edit. This is of great help not just for beginners but generally to keep articles more easily editable. Putting tables as templates also minimises disruption to them (and given, once the results are final, there is no need to edit them, this is a good thing) and guarantees consistency. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Keep it WP:CIVIL.
    2. How does putting tables away inside templates make articles more easily editable? It seems to me it makes it more difficult that non-technical people can edit.
    3. That page you linked is an essay, not WP:POLICY. Not even a GUIDELINE. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Because the tables don't need to be edited that often, and in the articles they take up a lot of space (in terms of wiki-text). Also, because large articles can be slower to load and harder to edit for people with slow internet connections. And of course, let's not talk about mobile, where all of these problems are probably compounded.
    3. There is nothing in WP:TG which says that templates must be used on multiple pages; or that using templates to keep technical code away from articles where it rarely needs to be edited is objectionable. WP:KISS is good advice (on and off Wikipedia) even if it's "just an essay". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise that encapsulating tables in templates hinders, not facilitates, editing by non-technical users, as they can't use VisualEditor to edit them, yeah? — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes editing the rest of the article easier, as explained. Making the tables themselves harder to edit is a feature, not a bug, as that means they are also less likely to be subject to disruption or vandalism (and really, why would anyone need to edit the tables once we have the final results in?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────┘
Making the tables themselves harder to edit is a feature
Now I see where you're coming from. — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous and nonsensical accusation. Have you read the rest of that sentence as that means they are also less likely to be subject to disruption or vandalism (and really, why would anyone need to edit the tables once we have the final results in?)) or are you trying to score rhetorical brownie points? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 6 June 2022 (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 Boss Baby

[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. ✗plicit 09:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links plus primary so fails WP:NENAN which recommends five plus primary Indagate (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2022 (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:Cite DMM

[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 merge to Template:Cite Grove1900. ✗plicit 09:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates {{Cite Grove1900}}. They both link to the same edition of A Dictionary of Music and Musicians over on English Wikisource. Cite Grove1900 is more fully functioned and has multiple uses. Cite DMM only had three uses, which I have transitioned a short while ago and therefore it is now unused. I assume the reason for the DMM name was because that's the abbreviation we have used at enWS, however the work is well-known as the Grove. To prevent further uses I request deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect after fixing any transclusions. It is better to keep the name, since this name will be familiar to editors from Wikisource, who might otherwise be tempted to recreate the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2022 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_4&oldid=1144457346"