Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14

edit

Template:Boris Johnson cabinet 5 vertical

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 00:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are used in only a single article each. They each encode a table which is better served as directly editable within the article itself instead of sequestering it into the template space. It is highly unlikely for this template to be used on any other articles. Per WP:TMP, the template namespace should not be used to store article content.

A recent TFD deleted another template in this tree. Out of over 100 templates in the parent category Category:Cabinet templates, only these templates in Category:British cabinet templates are used in this idiosyncratic single-use way. The rest are proper navboxes that are transcluded multiple times in their respective articles. Subst and delete all. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: Pinging participants in previous TFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst all per nomnination. No need for all of these to be on template space when article exists for the purpose of these tables to be on there. No need to ping me. I'm a regular here at Tfd's. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete I can't see a benefit for these being separate from the original article (especially because section edit links are available to help with finding the right part of the page to edit). --ais523 22:30, 14 July 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:ÖPNV Hamburg

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 00:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Hamburg S-Bahn, Module:Adjacent stations/Hamburg U-Bahn, Module:Adjacent stations/HADAG, Module:Adjacent stations/AKN Eisenbahn, and Module:Adjacent stations/Kassel RegioTram Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 14 July 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:BIMSTEC

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 relisted on 2022 July 22. ✗plicit 00:30, 22 July 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:Infobox natural region of Germany

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 no consensus. There is a consensus that this infobox should be ultimately replaced with different infoboxes, but there seems to be little consensus on how to do this. Substituters made a point about how their proposal will help German-to-English translators of articles given German Wikipedia's different template culture, while deleters showed no sympathy to either these points or to relisters pointing these out. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a standard request but this will make sure this gets more eyes. Propose to convert this template into a always subst template (if this is indeed a template used to convert German language articles) with a new template created with English parameter names. The template's parameters are in German and from past consensus we don't allow for non-English parameter names in articles. While it has only 11 transclusions, I don't see any other template it can be merged with which is why merge wasn't proposed. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the proposal (as the creator of the template) to convert it into a subst, provided it can copy with the parameters from de.wiki. The idea is that editors can import the German template and have it automatically converted into an English one. The only translation task is then to change any data if necessary. This is done elsewhere and is a huge time-saver. Bermicourt (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we want to make this a substitution-only template, then we need to decide which infobox we want to replace substituted instances with. Our {{Infobox natural region}} redirects to {{Infobox settlement}}; but {{Infobox protected area}} might be more appropriate in some cases. Either way, we don't need a separate new infobox just for a dozen regions of Germany (or any other individual country). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the purpose of deciding which replacement template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither opinion given after the previous relist actually addressed the question of a potential target for a subst-only translation wrapper (as proposed by the nominator). This is a helper template, not a standalone entity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:40, 14 July 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:SWASTHA articles

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 along the lines of Pppery's comment. Izno (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not linked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep @Gonnym: It is now at Wikipedia:SWASTHA/Goals where it is supposed to be. I fixed it and now it is in use. Thanks for flagging it. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete as a single use template that is unlikely to be used anywhere else. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, I am unlikely to use this particular template elsewhere, but I do not know how to make a reusable version of this.
I do not think templates should always be reusable. This one combines the subpages {{SWASTHA articles}}, {{SWASTHA articles/top}}, and {{SWASTHA articles/list}}, and I do not find it simple to substitute three pages into one. Also if someone wanted to copy this model then I think the multiple pages make this easier for copy and adapt.
I have other designs for language templates such as on meta:Wiki99/LGBT+ which uses one version, and meta:Module:Wiki99 which is another version I am developing.
The point of these templates is to have a way to coordinate multilingual cross-wiki projects. Usually Meta is the place for that and maybe it will be in the future, but I think it is okay to have an example in English Wikipedia to experiment with the idea and show it off. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to get opinions on subst'ing or potentially converting to a WP-space subpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:38, 14 July 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).

User:Shaav/HPTransBloomsburyCount

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 after replacement. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is needed, then Template:Harry Potter translation count should be created where with a parameter you get the wanted value. So something like {{Harry Potter translation count|total}}. There is certainly no need for 3 templates for this and a user page should not used here at all. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you have two objections: 1) that I created these under my user page and 2) that I created three of them rather than integrating them all into a single parameterized template. Is that correct?
My thought process, I guess, was that creating something so very specific under 'Template:' was inappropriate since it has no generalizable use to any other article. It is quite useful for this specific article as these numbers are repeated multiple times throughout the text and it has been common that when the numbers need to be updated, instances are overlooked creating confusing inconsistencies. Given that transcludes from User: are not banned (obviously) and even acknowledged in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Template_namespace from my (admittedly probably imperfect understanding) it seemed that my user page was more appropriate than cluttering up Template: with something of such limited use. I'm still not exactly sure why it's a problem.
With respect to three vs. one template: I understand that objection within Template:; I'm not sure why it would matter within User:. I was preferring to make them as simple and editable as possible, should someone else besides me be trying to update them.
Nonetheless, I'm happy to move it to Template: if it isn't just going to get flagged and deleted from there as well... Shaav (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the section of the page that uses these transcludes has been largely rendered illegible—can I at least add "|type=inline" to the Tfd template? I have no experience with these templates so I'm not sure if me adding that after the fact is problematic. Shaav (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in understanding my argument. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst per nomnination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close These are not in Template: space, but in User: space, so should have been sent to WP:MFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two separate issues here. Re procedure, I agree with Redrose64 that TfD does not have the jurisdiction to delete a page in userspace, but I don't see why TfD should lack the jurisdiction to remove the mainspace transclusions (thereby making the page no longer a template and outside the scope of TfD), so I see no need for a procedural close.
    Re the merits, none of these templates have been edited since their creation so have failed to achieve their claimed purpose. For that reason, in addition to the concerns raised by the nominator, they should be orphaned. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After doing a lot of reading and trying my best to understand the guidelines and issues here, I believe this is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate use.
    1. These are User: space pages that do not meet. If they were not transcluded to Main: would we be having this conversation? The issue is not about deletion, it's about the appropriateness of transcluding them into a Main: article.
    2. There is no a priori reason that User: space pages cannot be transcluded to Main: space. It obviously is permitted despite the fact there is the capacity to prohibit it. Wikipedia:Template namespace explicitly says: "Although the Template namespace is used for storing most templates, it is possible to transclude and substitute from other namespaces, and so some template pages are placed in other namespaces, such as the User namespace." I have not found any specific guidelines as to when it is or is not appropriate to use transcludes from other namespaces—if it exists and I haven't found it, please do point it out.
    3. These obviously don't belong in Template: space because they are not generally useful. That doesn't mean that they are not useful—they are useful for Harry Potter in translation and specifically to me as a major contributor and the one who has historically maintained this number.
    4. User: space is appropriate given that the primary utility of the templates are to an individual contributor on a specific page. The use is inline with Wikipedia:User pages guidelines which include Useful links, tools and scripts—I consider this a tool that I use to make editing these numbers more transparent. Yet, they remain universally editable and could be easily replaced if I vanished.
    5. To @Pppery's point: the fact that the numbers have not changed since I created these templates to assist in maintaining the article does not mean that the templates are not fulfilling their stated purpose, nor that the numbers don't change or will not change in the future. The changes are unpredictable; however, I can say that the total has changed nine times in the last five years—just not since 2020 (the article includes a list of those changes for anyone wishing to verify that). The 'Lack of use' argument for deletion includes the caveat: and has no likelihood of being used so the fact that it hasn't needed to change yet is not a valid reason for deleting it.
    6. The fact that these are extremely simple templates that don't fit the prototypical template model—content that is used across multiple articles—and instead content that is used frequently within a single article does not delegitimize them. They make it easier to ensure that the content of an article remains internally consistent as it is updated and fits well within the computational principal of only updating changing data in a single location and referring to it elsewhere.
    7. IAR Shaav (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Pppery. There are only 2-3 transclusions of each in the article. It is hardly an onerous editorial lift to change these 8 instances when the number changes (which appears to be infrequently). More troubling is that it appears to be a form of WP:OWNership of the article. New editors trying to improve the article will encounter strange wikicode {{User:Shaav/HPTransTotalCount}} in place of what they expect to be a number. Templates should not be used to store article text per WP:TG. Alternatively, consolidate into one, move to Templatespace, and parameterize per Gonnym if there's not enough support for deletion. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 15 July 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).

User:Ben5218/Egyptian clubs in African competitions

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. Hiding article content in userspace not found to be warranted; substitution underway. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a user-page, it is transcluded into main space articles. There is also no need for this to actually be a template as each team's table should be inside the relevant article. Subst each club's table into their article. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 14 July 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).

Single-use World Championships in Athletics medalists templates

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 keep. Consensus to delete these is clearly impossible to achieve. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are single-use templates, contravening both H:T, that templates are for repetitive material that might need to show up on a larger number of articles or pages, and WP:TG, that templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. These are the same reasons why Template:Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives) was deleted. Template:Transclusion was similarly deleted, as it was used to justify their existence, as they are used alledegly "to avoid disruption and unnecessary server load" (which were rejected in TfD:Transclusion). This is a relisting of a subset of a list proposed on 19 June, following the closing recommendation that the templates should be nominated in similar groups. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guarapiranga I randomly selected 3 templates and they each had 3 transclusions. Please explain what your nomination proposes to do with these as they aren't single-use. Gonnym (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to what you recommended regarding the Template:Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), Gonnym, they should be subst'd and deleted, as indeed it was to Results of the 2022 Australian federal election (House of Representatives), and from there section transcluded to the 2022 Australian federal election article. For instance, in the case of Template:World Championships in Athletics medalists in women's 5000 metres, it should be subst'd to the List of World Athletics Championships medalists (women), and from there the section transcluded to the 5000 metres and 5000 metres at the World Athletics Championships articles, so as not to hinder editors's ability to edit the table (with Visual Editor, especially). But you're right, Gonnym, single-use is not exactly what they are. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority (possibly all? I haven't checked all of them) of these templates are used on multiple articles, so substing them would be a net loss. Arguably the articles on which they're used should be restructured; those articles are substantial duplicates of each other at the moment, and at that point it would make sense to subst the template into whatever single article ended up holding the list of medalists. But given that we do have near-duplicate articles at the moment, it's definitely for the best that we have a way to keep them in sync (and section transclusion of one article into another should never be used – it's far too easy to break by accident). So we have to keep the templates until the articles can be restructured. --ais523 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • section transclusion of one article into another should never be used
    That is in stark contradiction to WP:TRANS.
 — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any alternative, and the current way also protects against vandalism.LJstats (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete doesn't warrant a template for 1-3 uses of this. Having them in template space to "protect from vandalism" is a fallacy, as more editors have the page on their watchlists than the templates, and so vandalism of them gets fixed way quicker if they're in articles. And any multiple uses can be fixed by calling the table from other articles to embed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an apparent even split between subst-deleters and keepers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:02, 14 July 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_14&oldid=1100286102"