Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 July 29. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find sources to add confirming the information Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I clicked on the link in the sources section of the template, and found the election results. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, plus it can be done by just {{they are|Example}}n't. Currently not used. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nardog, "didn't, haven't, weren't" would be the same issue. There is no need for these negative forms. Nobody (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would wrapperifying the base verb, plus "n't", as proposed by the OP, be an acceptable alternative to deletion? I could see the template names as used now being convenient shorthand, and the simpler base implementation should reduce overhead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference between that and keep. And keep doesn't reduce overhead. Nardog (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Article for this election has election boxes as part of the article. Not needed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}. Also still transcluded on a lot of previous Labour shadow cabinet members. --woodensuperman 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather see {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} become a redirect to the current instance (so, right now, {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}} than it be deleted.
Either way, clearly it should be rapidly removed (by bot? by AWB?) from politicians where it is no longer appropriate. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I see the benefit of this, as it leaves it open for more instances of out of date transclusion in the future. --woodensuperman 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Move the content of British shadow cabinets template into this template (UK Shadow Cabinet was created earlier than British shadow cabinets), and merge the templates altogether. —— Eric LiuTalk 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two templates cover very different topics. {{UK Shadow Cabinet}} shows the current UK shadow cabinet (i.e. the same topic as {{Sunak Shadow Cabinet}}), whereas {{British shadow cabinets}} lists all of the different shadow cabinets in the past. I have no objection to discussing renaming {{British shadow cabinets}} in the future if this one is deleted, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Reading between the lines, I don't believe you are actually advocating a "keep" !vote for this specific template. --woodensuperman 12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only by its name, I mean that we should merge the content of this template to Sunak Shadow Cabinet first, and then subsequently merge the content of British shadow cabinets to UK Shadow Cabinet. —— Eric LiuTalk 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please strike your "keep" !vote, as it is misleading. I believe what you are actually advocating is a delete/merge. A move of the unrelated template can be discussed afterwards. --woodensuperman 13:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:Edit filter. Izno (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:AbuseFilter with Template:Edit filter.
There is no need to have 2 separate Templates for this. The differences could be added as parameters. Nobody (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine as long as you add the link to the filter log into the target. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guy I think that should be easy with something like {{#if:{{{log|}}}|({{plain link|url=https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/?wpSearchFilter={{{1}}}|name=log}})}} Nobody (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. I didn't want to edit the original, but if anyone with template-fu can do it, please fill your boots. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.