Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12

[edit]

SydBus route templates

[edit]
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 -FASTILY 05:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 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:AFB game box end

[edit]
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:End. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These templates all perform the same function, to add |} at the end of a table to close it. Nothing else. {{End}} already does that. There is no need to create a separate closing template for each and every type of table. Nothing to merge, just a simple replacement. I've placed the notification in a noinclude so it won't mess up the tables. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to remove the noinclude. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or keep, otherwise we won't be able to find unmatched pairs (i.e., potentially unterminated tables) with Petscan's "what links here". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I see some variation in whether the |} is wrapped in <includeonly>...</includeonly>. I can't think of a reason something so simple needs to be wrapped like that, especially since it will now be used in many contexts not as well self-documented by the unified template-name. Lots of docs will have to be updated. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transclude or keep (Plastikspork's options 3/4 not 1/2). Helping editors and gnomes is important (I oppose option 1 based on others' comments, and I further note that if we have nested tables (ugh) the more specific name clarifies which is being closed) and I see no harm. I think having a redirect (option 2) means each does not have its own {{documentation}}. For 1/2, we have to have a single /doc that says generically "it is used as the end-marker for the following templates (see each for further information)...[bullet-list]". That means there is a long list unrelated to any given editor's reason for looking there and no specific content that may be useful for a given context. For 3/4, each's own /doc (or pointer to the associated table-start template's doc) makes a more self-documenting set that can have an on-topic and detailed set of docs linked from itself. IMO there should be a single /doc for the whole [start, entry, end] set of templates on a topic. An item on my MOS/feature wishlist is standardizing explanatory footnotes for tables, so if one type of table decides to use a certain ref group-name, the table-end could include its reflist. DMacks (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please redirect (or leave alone) for the sanity of gnomes who look at wikicode and template transclusions to try to figure out why tables aren't working quite right. Also, something intelligent will have to be done with documentation of these templates if this merge happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • something intelligent will have to be done with documentation of these templates if this merge happens you mean like saying "use {{end}} to close the table."? I'm struggling to understand why updating the /doc is even an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (as the creator of {{Species table/end}} - they all do the same thing so they don't need to be separate templates, but "end" is ambiguous and having a domain-specific name makes it much easier to the casual editor what each part of the tri-part templates do. --PresN 15:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's with all these /doc fearmongering comments? Have you never seen a shared template? {{End}} is used on over 40,000 pages, with a lot of "start/body/end" style templates already using this without any problems, including {{Canadian election result}} which has over 8.6k transclusions. A different template, {{Archive bottom}} is used by many other templates, yet does not list each one in the /doc. Editors aren't stupid. --Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all, including Template:End, to Template:!). There is zero reason for so many templates that all do literally the same thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per above discussion. Really there's no need for so many templates to do the same thing. The preferable target would be {{End}} because it's plain English, as compared with the punctuated "!)" which is likely to be confusing to most editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{end}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{end}}. This is seriously pedantic, but whatever. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to {{end}}. –Fredddie™ 18:27, 14 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).

ABS-CBN navboxes

[edit]
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 21. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:48, 21 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:EngvarC spelling

[edit]
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 Replace and delete. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace single use with {{Canadian English}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 12 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:User page rounded

[edit]
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 merge to Template:User page. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User page rounded, Template:Userpage blue border, and Template:Userpage blue border rounded with Template:User page.
{{User page}} has parameters for rounding the border and all of the other variations that {{User page rounded}}, {{Userpage blue border}}, and {{Userpage blue border rounded}} employ. They should all be turned in wrappers, which will not affect their display, but will simplify their code a lot and keep them all synced. There are already some minor examples of them drifting out of sync (for instance, the "original page" link displays for most of them as an external link, but that was fixed at {{User page}}). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:32, 12 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).

Strong Greek/Hebrew/number

[edit]
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 merge to Template:Strong-number. Feel free to rename as desired. Izno (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Strong Hebrew with Template:Strong-number.
Both templates link to the same version of Strong's concordance, but {{Strong-number}} is much more versatile and used on a lot more pages. --Trialpears (talk) 00:55, 12 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_12&oldid=1192124852"