Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6

Template:Archiving

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 July 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2020 (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:Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 2020 July 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2020 (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:CompetitionRecordTenth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need to create a separate competition record template for every ordinal Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (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:AbRep-multi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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.

(non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused template from a decade ago for a process which is marked historical. Izno (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (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:AbRep

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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.

(non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused template from a decade ago for a process which is marked historical. Izno (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (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:Burgerkill

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (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:TAFISS

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 redirect to

Template:TAFI scheduled selection. Izno (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Unused, seems not very useful. TheImaCow (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Template:TAFI scheduled selection using the exact same parameters with the exact same parameter names. The nominated template does nothing to distinguish itself from the template it forces to be substituted, but that doesn't mean that the nominated template is not in use, so redirection would be the most beneficial failsafe in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2020 (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:Subs:pr

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems not very useful. TheImaCow (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the template is not hardcoded to be transcluded directly in any templates, so "unused" seems irrelevant. I'd like to see if this template is called to be transcluded (almost as an error) via any other templates ... which, again, will not have a "transclusion" on the respective "Template:" namespace pages themselves. So, I'm conditional keep pending some sort of evidence that exactly zero templates (or other pages intended to be substituted or transcluded) are not set up to transclude this template in certain situations (such as calling an error). Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the creators contributions it looks like they were a newcomer struggling immensely to list
    Engels' Pause for peer review before sadly leaving Wikipedia forever showing us how important it is to make our templates accessible. Right before creating this template they made this edit misspelling {{subst:pr}} as {{subs:pr}}. It seems like just an error from a newcomer and not some fancy part of template logic. --Trialpears (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Seems like a stillborn template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2020 (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:St. Cloud State Huskies women's ice hockey navbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. Izno (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused work in progress since 884 days. TheImaCow (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2020 (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
).

Module:ISO 639

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (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:Char

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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.

(non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

For anyone coming late to this discussion, the template in question has been changed while debate is in progress. In its original form, the template rendered the subject glyph in a one-pixel box with a very pale grey background. --

talk) 08:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This template was created by

talk · contribs) justifies the template on its talk page by writing This template exists to provide an alternative to {{code}} for articles about symbols where the clarity of the glyph is critical. Maybe they have a point, but wait just a minute though, {{code}} is not called for by the MOS either, so at least in the case of numero sign, and many other articles it's being used in, this template replaces a non-existent problem with a problem. Þjarkur (talk · contribs) wrote at the template talk that they have doubts about this template. Friedman asked them if they'd read the documentation. Well let me just say, I have, and I have doubts too, and am unconvinced. This should not have been added without consensus and without an RFC to the MOS. I'm sure it was done in good faith but it feels like this was snuck in through the back door, and I want the template deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

⚠️ Urgent: A deletion-notice template is currently displaying in-line wherever {{Char}} is being used, and it is highly disruptive. I have no knowledge of the policies around its use, but the notice is so damaging to the fundamental comprehensibility of many articles that I strongly advise that we immediately remove the notice, standard practices be damned. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current implementation is a placeholder, then intention was so at least the *same* text was used everywhere. I see no problem with removing the "serif" and you certainly can change it to angbr or whatever is really wanted.Spitzak (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Oppose. If an MOS discussion decides that this is an unacceptable styling, as opposed to just not the same as the currently recommended styling, then this template might be eligible for deletion long after that consensus is established. But MOS is not a straightjacket for inhibiting clear presentation of content, it is a tool for enabling it. Obviously, someone feels that current MOS guidelines obfuscate meaning in a particular circumstance, and they went about implementing a solution in the most singularly helpful way possible - they created a template with the styling so that if the emerging consensus differs from their solution, it can be quickly and easily implemented universally. This template is the key to having that discussion in the appropriate forum (i.e. NOT in tfd), implementing any consensus that emerges from that discussion in the appropriate forum, and evaluating the efficacy of that consensus in meeting the needs that it was originally created to address. In short, this topic belongs at MOS, where the concerns that initiated this template's creation can be properly discussed, and under no circumstances should this template be deleted. If you have a particular instance where it is unhelpful or inappropriate, simply remove it from that context. VanIsaacWScont 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I invited User:SMcCandlish as a significant and respected contributor to MOS to solicit input from his perspective. VanIsaacWScont 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that the proper venue for this discussion is at MOS. The fact that this template exists means that any consensus reached there can be implemented simply and universally. JMF and Spitzak did not bypass anything, they did precisely what they are supposed to do: they were
WP:BOLD in solving a problem that didn't have a solution they could find. But if you think that solution was wrong, then they have helped you immensely if consensus at MOS agrees with you after considering this matter. The MOS is built precisely on discussing these kinds of situations. It is not illegal to encounter something the MOS hasn't considered yet. VanIsaacWScont 01:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said anything about "bypassing" any sort of discussion. I simply think that discussion should not happen here. As I previously explained, there absolutely should be a discussion about the use of this template, either at MOS or on individual article talk pages, as may be appropriate to the situation. I also find it rather strange that you're calling this template's creation "improper ab initio." I am not aware of any policy or guideline which might lead one to that conclusion. --NYKevin 02:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NYKevin: It's of course never improper to create a template. It's improper to make a change that is sure to be controversial, to articles like pilcrow and numero sign, without seeking consensus first or a change to the MOS.
We're all congratulating their boldness, so let me be bold as well, and return at once the
WP:CYCLE; it is also, as Vanisaac says in their edit summary, not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but rather working with the fact that it's at least one template that can be replaced with a no-op. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but I simply don't follow. I see no reason why a minor change in formatting on a small number of pages is "sure to be seen as controversial." (Was there some longstanding dispute? Did the community impose
general sanctions on those articles? I really don't know any of the background here...) But my lack of understanding doesn't matter, because this entire discussion is out of scope for TfD regardless. I would respectfully suggest that you restart this discussion at a more appropriate forum such as one of the MOS talk pages, as it seems unlikely that this TfD discussion is going to result in deletion of the template. --NYKevin 03:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - It is apparent to me that different people have different opinions about exactly when and how this formatting should be applied. TfD is a poor forum for hammering that out; this discussion should move to an appropriate MOS talk page (or, if MOS is unwilling to discuss it, to individual article talk pages as may be applicable). Default to keep until we have an actual {{MoS guideline}} about the proper use of this formatting (or more plausibly, a tiny subsection of an existing guideline...). --NYKevin 23:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. The fact that a template might be abused or over-used isn't actually a deletion rationale, though objections to undiscussed uses of it that aren't seen as helpful are grounds for reverting those uses. I think this would have more utility if put in <kbd>...</kbd> markup, to indicate that it is character strings. This would fix the problem that the present template is basically useless from a
    WP:REUSE one (by providing a non-generic element to do something special with, instead of just a span doing nothing but visual effects). {{Code}} should not be used for this purpose, unless the material inside that tag is actual computer source code, so it would be a good idea to have a template of this sort. There's nothing wrong with doing things like "the DirectX scan code for the tilde (~) key" or "the character é, an e with an acute accent"; but it's nice to have options, especially if the context already has a lot of brackets or italics in it. That said, I agree this should not be imposing a serf font by default. That should be an option to turn on for cases where it is needed (e.g. to distinguish between glyphs that tend to look the same in sans). This is how we did it at some other templates, e.g. {{var}}. I think the docs should be updated to outline good and poor use cases. I would be in favor of limiting this to a) discussion of glyphs and keys as such, and b) cases of small marks like `. Thus "the DirectX scan code for {{char|~}}, the tilde key" would be appropriate, but "the character {{char|é}}, an {{char|e}} with an acute accent" would not, since italics is the proper markup for that kind of situation. Anyway, please remember that templates are not carved into a mountain face; if we find utility in something like this, it is a simple matter to change the template code to do a better job.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Should be settled elsewhere. Nardog (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2020 (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:S-line/JR East right/Chūō Rapid

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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.

(non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Cards84664 with the reason "Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/JR East" FASTILY 04:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not sure why this was brought here. Cards84664 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2020 (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:S-line/JR East left/Chūō Rapid

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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.

(non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Cards84664 with the reason "Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/JR East" FASTILY 04:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: What was the issue with speedy in this case? Cards84664 12:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure why this was brought here. Cards84664 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G6 isn't applicable to orphaned templates. -FASTILY 22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2020 (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/2020_July_6&oldid=967817519"