Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 5: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 60: Line 60:
*:::It's less clear than the bracket that was used previously where it showed you which match the week two winners went to. [[User:RoryK8|RoryK8]] ([[User talk:RoryK8|talk]]) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::It's less clear than the bracket that was used previously where it showed you which match the week two winners went to. [[User:RoryK8|RoryK8]] ([[User talk:RoryK8|talk]]) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::I find the "no transclusions redundant to..." egregious behaviour from a long-time editor who went on an editing spree to then suggest there were not multiple articles using these templates before doing this tfd nomination, without proposing changes to either [[WP:AFL]] or [[WP:RL]]. [[User:Storm machine|Storm machine]] ([[User talk:Storm machine|talk]]) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::I find the "no transclusions redundant to..." egregious behaviour from a long-time editor who went on an editing spree to then suggest there were not multiple articles using these templates before doing this tfd nomination, without proposing changes to either [[WP:AFL]] or [[WP:RL]]. [[User:Storm machine|Storm machine]] ([[User talk:Storm machine|talk]]) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Seems pretty unanimous here, can Pbrks revert his edits please, I have tried to do many of them, but it has taken ages and has been extremely disruptive. [[User:RoryK8|RoryK8]] ([[User talk:RoryK8|talk]]) 02:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' for now. The rectangular line spaghetti isn't perfect, but neither is the alternative. Diagonal crossovers would be the ideal solution. Even though the templates are redundant (and I agree that they are), that alone shouldn't warrant deletion; and the layout in the AFL template (preliminary finals positioned closer together than semi finals) should still be an option as a matter of style, preference or familiarity, as this is the most common layout used for it in Australia. That said, with some tweaks (options for more than one score in a box like the Page template has, and options to enter your own round names) the AFL-replay and NBL templates could ultimately be made fully redundant and deleted, but that's not yet the case. [[User:Aspirex|Aspirex]] ([[User talk:Aspirex|talk]]) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' for now. The rectangular line spaghetti isn't perfect, but neither is the alternative. Diagonal crossovers would be the ideal solution. Even though the templates are redundant (and I agree that they are), that alone shouldn't warrant deletion; and the layout in the AFL template (preliminary finals positioned closer together than semi finals) should still be an option as a matter of style, preference or familiarity, as this is the most common layout used for it in Australia. That said, with some tweaks (options for more than one score in a box like the Page template has, and options to enter your own round names) the AFL-replay and NBL templates could ultimately be made fully redundant and deleted, but that's not yet the case. [[User:Aspirex|Aspirex]] ([[User talk:Aspirex|talk]]) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The {{tl|8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} does not have the same utility value that this one has across multiple Australian sports, and deleting the replay variant breaks the unique occurrence in 2010. [[User:Storm machine|Storm machine]] ([[User talk:Storm machine|talk]]) 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The {{tl|8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} does not have the same utility value that this one has across multiple Australian sports, and deleting the replay variant breaks the unique occurrence in 2010. [[User:Storm machine|Storm machine]] ([[User talk:Storm machine|talk]]) 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:03, 6 September 2022

Unused rail line template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 21:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket}} – Pbrks (t • c) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, redundant to {{4TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 18:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominations. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions; redundant to {{8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} (without the line spaghetti). – Pbrks (t • c) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The AFL and NBL final 8 system require the so called "line spaghetti" as teams cross halves of the draw unlike the page 8 system. These are not redundant templates. Please do not touch the NBL and AFL articles until there is a resolution. RoryK8 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The text "Winner advances to Preliminary finals" is clear enough that the winning teams advance to the next round. No readers would be confused trying to figure out how Team X made it from Round 2 to Round 3. – Pbrks (t • c) 21:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they would, they suddenly change halves of the draw, this is a different finals system to the one you have put on all of the AFL pages without any consultation with WP:AFL or any consideration whatsoever. RoryK8 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less clear than the bracket that was used previously where it showed you which match the week two winners went to. RoryK8 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the "no transclusions redundant to..." egregious behaviour from a long-time editor who went on an editing spree to then suggest there were not multiple articles using these templates before doing this tfd nomination, without proposing changes to either WP:AFL or WP:RL. Storm machine (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pretty unanimous here, can Pbrks revert his edits please, I have tried to do many of them, but it has taken ages and has been extremely disruptive. RoryK8 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The rectangular line spaghetti isn't perfect, but neither is the alternative. Diagonal crossovers would be the ideal solution. Even though the templates are redundant (and I agree that they are), that alone shouldn't warrant deletion; and the layout in the AFL template (preliminary finals positioned closer together than semi finals) should still be an option as a matter of style, preference or familiarity, as this is the most common layout used for it in Australia. That said, with some tweaks (options for more than one score in a box like the Page template has, and options to enter your own round names) the AFL-replay and NBL templates could ultimately be made fully redundant and deleted, but that's not yet the case. Aspirex (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The {{8TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}} does not have the same utility value that this one has across multiple Australian sports, and deleting the replay variant breaks the unique occurrence in 2010. Storm machine (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the AFL version looks much neater (even if it could be open to a few tweaks, which should have been discussed first), and the crossing lines to indicate switching sides of the draw, whether diagonal or rectangular, are much better than "Winner advances...". The nominating editor's behaviour, to remove the transclusions without discussion and make out that there were never any at all, is disruptive, and better should be expected of a more experienced editor than probably all of us. 4TheWynne (talk contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion in the main article. Body of navbox contains only one link, which goes back to the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{16TeamBracket-4way}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{6TeamBracket-info}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Redundant to {{4TeamBracket-info}} and {{4TeamBracket-PagePlayoff}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{4TeamBracket-Stepladder}} – Pbrks (t • c) 03:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are not templates, but instead a collage of images of the temples. And should be substituted either all articles used or just the mainspace articles the templates are the namesakes of. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three links. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, recommend subst and delete Izno (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see how deletion gains anything - this is the sort of template that could well have more than just the single use. A use case of users displaying them on their userpages would be a reasonable use and not against policy, I don't see any compelling reason that substing and deleting is needed or would really have any benefit. Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – A handful of users utilize it, and a fair amount of work went into it. Substituting would add a long list of wiki markup to users' pages, which would look sloppy. Every template that is not used a great deal does not need to be deleted. Wikipedia servers are not running out of space. Deletion wouldn't provide any benefit. North America1000 03:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]