Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7
October 9 >

October 8

[edit]

Autumn Classic International templates

[edit]

Not a significant enough skating competition to warrant navigation boxes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acclaimed Music templates

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manual edit requests

[edit]

No transclusions. This appears to be an abandoned experiment from 2021. It is also possible that this just needs {{subst only}} added to its documentation, if it is still used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion after the usual seven days. It was a neat idea, but the person who was pushing for it largely retired from Wikipedia before it could get deployed anywhere, so nothing happened. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd-NPF

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Rfd-NPF with Template:Redirect for discussion.
There has been an ongoing issue with Template:Rfd-NPF for almost a decade now. During the past decade, Template:Redirect for discussion and the way that it is structured has been integrated in various gadgets that are on Wikipedia. it has gotten to a point where gadgets, such as Wikipedia:XFDcloser, are reliant on the way Template:Redirect for discussion is structured. At the present time, Template:Rfd-NPF works in the way that Template:Redirect for discussion functioned prior to the template having most of its functionality moved over to a module.

In a nutshell, the structure of {{Rfd-NPF}} is outdated and needs to conform to what {{Redirect for discussion}} does in its entirety. In other words, though I am requesting this as a "merge", my actual vote is for Template:Rfd-NPF (and any related subpages) to be redirected to Template:Redirect for discussion (and/or related subpages) so that any call to {{Rfd-NPF}} actually calls and uses all paramters in {{Redirect for discussion}}. (Shortly after making this nomination, I will inform the talk page of the gadget that uses {{Rfd-NPF}} (Page curation) about this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, the target of redirect Wikipedia talk:Page Curation, has been informed of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I said at WT:NPR, the seven day timeline for TfD is unrealistic to make this change. Please withdraw this TfD and create a phab ticket detailing the changes that need to be made. Once the extension has been updated you can proceed with the TfD. Sohom (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
..."Once the extension has been updated you can proceed with the TfD." ...No, this TFD is happening now. Per what I said at WT:NPR, a "seven day timeline" is not what happens at TFD and could take longer, which is why the "holding cell" subpage of TFD exists. TFD is for forming consensus, not to necessarily implement the consensus immediately after the discussion is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Extension:PageTriage, when tagging a redirect for RFD, currently writes {{subst:rfd-NPF|Reasoning goes here}}. What is it supposed to write under the new system? If it's just suppoed to write {{subst:Redirect for discussion|Reasoning goes here}}, you can just WP:BLAR it. Otherwise you'll need to file a Phab ticket and tag it PageTriage to change PageTriage's code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae To my understanding, we need to do something like:
{{subst:RfD|content=
#REDIRECT [[Hello]]
}}
which imo might require more work due to fact that the deletion module treats tags as append or prepend-only. (AFAIK) Sohom (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: That's essentially what I was getting to in my nomination statement: The resolution is not just a simple WP:BLAR; However, ultimately, the optimal solution after all the other tools and gadgets are resolved is to perform a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What code do you want PageTriage to append prepend instead of {{subst:rfd-NPF|Reasoning goes here}}? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: I'm not sure what you mean here? I don't know the ins-and-out of modifying PageTriage to make this work. But, if I had to guess what you mean, the "prepend" would be:

{{subst:Redirect for discussion|content=

...and the "append" would be:

}}

...Basically, what Sohom Datta stated in their comment. The only main question I would have then which may help figure something out, given it truly seems that Sohom Datta sees what need to be done to the PageTriage code to make this work is: Does the "name=" parameter in {{Rfd-NPF/core}} need to exist? (From what I'm seeing, it seems that PageTriage users are somehow putting their rationale in that parameter rather than its intended purpose: See this revision's page syntax.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got my head wrapped around this. Filed phab:T375440. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Just FYI, I just tested a substitution of {{Redirect for discussion}}, and the additional line breaks (\n) are not necessary at the beginning or the end. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I updated the phab ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shindo

[edit]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Object as the creator. This is a template that largely exposes the Shindo module in a manner that can be used by casual users. We can use it as a placeholder to redirect users to more appropriate templates. Awesome Aasim 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of this specific template? If it's only use is documentation, it does not belong there. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new scale is added to the module, but that scale's template cannot exist for some reason because the template already exists, then this can be used instead to invoke that seismic intensity scale. Awesome Aasim 19:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the templates like Template:JMA and Template:CWA I actually think those should be deleted. {{Shindo|JMA|1}} works and that is much better than needing to create a new template for each scale when there is no real reason for it. So I support the opposite, replace the various scales with this. Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome Aasim, thank you for adding basic documentation and a category. This template appears to do most of what {{CSIS}} and similar templates do. Would you be open to a merge to single template? It looks like someone might have to add a few features/parameters to {{Shindo}} to make the merge easy to perform. If you think a merge is possible, I'll be happy to add relevant templates to this TFD. A complete list of those templates would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am terrible at documenting my code, sorry. I make the individual scales invocable for ease of template creation. I have no objections to a merge, but be aware that a lot of the work I did for the module was to ensure backwards compatibility with the previous template code.
I do think there are some useful areas like templatestyles and the like to make the coloring more uniform and dark mode compatible, which currently this module isn't. But that will require a bit of testing, and I do not want to break a thousand pages to attempt to make dark mode work. Awesome Aasim 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Odense Bulldogs roster

[edit]

Single-article roster template with no template parameters, documentation, or categories. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keser

[edit]

Only two albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lochiel railway line

[edit]

Unused railway route template. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 World Athletics Championships

[edit]

Unused, all red links, created over a year in advance. Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2025 Rugby Europe Championship pool tables

[edit]

Unused as 2025 Rugby Europe Championship uses different tables. Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Undated

[edit]
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. Withdrawn by nominator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rational for this template is no longer true - dating of comments is not required - the WP:REPLYTOOL breaks when a date is not used. We should not support systems that not only conflict with better systems but also break them completely. Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gonnym: dating of comments is not required isn't the rationale – it's a comment in the documentation (that can be removed) saying that this template was designed to be optional. The template is so that users can add the timestamp to comments that were added without dates. If the template doesn't currently work with WP:REPLYTOOL, then it might be best for the template to be fixed to be compatible with it, and a bot run through previous substs to make sure they're compatible too. There are still many many unsigned and undated comments on talk pages across the project; if an editor comes across one of these and wants to fix it, surely removing this template would prevent them from doing so (or lead them to use an unsuitable template, such as {{unsigned}}, instead) --YodinT 09:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other templates that do that - {{Unsigned}} and {{Unsigned IP}}. This one specifically mentions to not use a date, while the other two do require a date. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood this template. The entire purpose of this template is to add a date to a comment that is signed but not dated – where does it mention not to use a date? {{Unsigned}} and {{Unsigned IP}} are for comments that haven't been signed at all – {{Undated}} is for comments that have been signed, but without a date, and it allows other editors to add the date to these comments after the fact. --YodinT 10:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying it. Not sure why I missed that. I've withdrawn and reverted the nomination. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 8 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_8&oldid=1250170438"