Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 22 - Wikipedia
- 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) 22:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. It is marked as historical, which would be fine if there were talk page links from discussions about it, or examples of it on talk or testcases pages, but there do not appear to be any such links. It is unclear what value there is in keeping this template around. It looks like it used to be substed into pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/News/September 2011, but that code can easily be copy/pasted into a project-space page if the project's newsletters are revived. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:21, 23 January 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).
- 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) 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Subjsec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions. Only edits were creation in 2018. Typing this template is not any easier than typing "[[#Section name]] section". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I think Jonesey95 has misunderstood the purpose of this template, which is designed for talk pages referring to sections in their associated pages, for which [[#Section name]] is not a substitute. Daask (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Daask: You are correct; I did misunderstand. I see that it can be used on a talk page to link to a section in the article, not on the talk page itself. Please help me understand why this template does not appear to be used on any pages. I still don't think it's any easier to use this template than to copy/paste "[[Article name#Section name]] section" from my browser's address bar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unused, not complicated enough to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also feel that this is not something that is needed, and apparently, over 3 years it hasn't found use. Gonnym (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Clearly not too useful since no one has used it. Or perhaps no one knows about it. Either way it should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 06:32, 23 January 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).
Current top 5 Women's UCI Rankings templates
- 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Module:ISO 8859-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Show file signature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This module and template have no transclusions. At the time of the 2018 TfD (closed as no consensus), they were used in one page. If it hasn't found a use in over three years, we probably shouldn't keep it around. If there is a use for it in current articles, by all means transclude it and I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was used in List of file signatures, and was removed in this edit (2021-05-15). It was used to display a graphical representation of the bytes in the file signatures. The module is called what it is because the graphical representation partially agrees with the ISO 8859-1 text encoding, but displays control characters as
.. The editor who removed it apparently basically substed it in most cases, except the control characters, which were written as., are now represented with Control Pictures, like ␀ for 0x00, a definite improvement that the template could also do. - The template is still useful on that page, because manually typing out the hex and graphical representations of the file signature and making sure they agree is pretty error-prone. But the module should be renamed because it's not implementing the ISO 8859-1 encoding because of how it displays the control characters. — Eru·tuon 06:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a module to convert hex strings to the ISO 8859-1-style rendering seems useful and would help to verify that the article in question is consistent. Both the module and its template wrapper should have the same name, and neither of the current names are really quite right. User:GKFXtalk 12:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the nominator in the 2018 discussion; my position has not changed since. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend toward a weak delete here given the single-page use, even though the use is probably one of the few I've seen where template/module is appropriate for a single page. :/ --Izno (talk) 22:36, 29 January 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Roadlink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Apparently identical to {{jct|noshield=y}}, and used in only one article. User:GKFXtalk 11:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Struck; I'm still unconvinced it's useful to have separate templates that do essentially the same thing except for one being substituted, but this isn't worth getting into an argument over. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—this should be substituted, which is why it doesn't have transclusions. It's not quite the same as {{jct}} because it gets turned into direct wikilinks upon saving/substitution. Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a distinction between them, as
{{subst:roadlink}}appears to behave exactly the same as{{subst:jct|noshield=y}}even when substituting, see Special:Permalink/1067237498 for an example. User:GKFXtalk 12:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]- For various reasons, we should not be encouraging substitution of
{{subst:jct}}, even with that parameter in place. In short, based on actual usage, this is not redundant and should not be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For various reasons, we should not be encouraging substitution of
- That's not really a distinction between them, as
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Arguments like "It's not quite the same" and "For various reasons" are not convincing. Nigej (talk)
- This template is supposed to be auto-substituted. The other is never supposed to be substituted. For that reason, they are not the same. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure anyone's arguing that they're exactly the same. The question is whether we really need it. We've got Jct with 30,886 transclusions and Roadlink with 1 transclusion. It's simply not worth maintaining templates unless they have significant use. Why has it not been used when its been around so long? What can Roadlink do that Jct can't? Why do you believe Roadlink will get vastly more use in the future than it does now? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, roadlink should not have any transclusions, by design, because it is supposed to be substituted. It is an editing tool to produce wikilinks to highway articles. For example, there are 50 states in the US, each with its own naming scheme for state highways. If I'm in the middle of writing an article and need to link to a highway in Wisconsin, I can type out
{{subst:roadlink|WI|32}}and get the link and proper abbreviation I need without looking that up. Once I save that edit, the link gets created and there isn't a transclusion left behind. So yes, this template is used and useful. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Ok, but when I enter {{subst:roadlink|state=WI|WI|32}} {{subst:jct|state=WI|WI|32|noshield=y}}, save it and then look at the file, I've got [[Wisconsin Highway 32 |WIS 32]] [[Wisconsin Highway 32 |WIS 32]] so the two seem exactly the same to me. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, roadlink should not have any transclusions, by design, because it is supposed to be substituted. It is an editing tool to produce wikilinks to highway articles. For example, there are 50 states in the US, each with its own naming scheme for state highways. If I'm in the middle of writing an article and need to link to a highway in Wisconsin, I can type out
- I'm not sure anyone's arguing that they're exactly the same. The question is whether we really need it. We've got Jct with 30,886 transclusions and Roadlink with 1 transclusion. It's simply not worth maintaining templates unless they have significant use. Why has it not been used when its been around so long? What can Roadlink do that Jct can't? Why do you believe Roadlink will get vastly more use in the future than it does now? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This template is supposed to be auto-substituted. The other is never supposed to be substituted. For that reason, they are not the same. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as used, useful, and properly labeled as subst-only. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above, it's still not clear what the useful difference is between this and {{jct|noshield=y}} is, whether substituting or not. User:GKFXtalk 21:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above, if roadlink is used and not substituted, it will be substituted by a bot, while jct should not be auto-substituted. That is the difference. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above, it's still not clear what the useful difference is between this and {{jct|noshield=y}} is, whether substituting or not. User:GKFXtalk 21:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, the fact that one is auto-substituted by bot and the other is not is enough of a difference for me. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 24 January 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).
- 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 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:DYK archive editintro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:DYK archive editintro/tomorrow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:DYK changes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Apparently unused parts of the DYK process. User:GKFXtalk 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As creator of {{DYK changes}}, which was planned to be part of introducing a backlog review blitz at DYK—the blitz ended up not being needed—I'd like to move it to my user space in case it should be needed in the future. Might this be possible, GKFX? (If not, I'll just copy it.) Regarding DYK archive editintro and its /tomorrow subpage, Support deletion of both. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @BlueMoonset: Yes, you can move it to your userspace as a valid alternative to deletion. We can delete the resulting redirect as part of this TfD or you can tag it for speedy deletion. User:GKFXtalk 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, GKFX. {{DYK changes}} has been moved to my userspace and the TfD template removed from it; I have tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @BlueMoonset: Yes, you can move it to your userspace as a valid alternative to deletion. We can delete the resulting redirect as part of this TfD or you can tag it for speedy deletion. User:GKFXtalk 19:14, 22 January 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).