Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plastikspork (talk | contribs) at 02:20, 12 June 2018 (→Module:ShowMath: Relisted on 2018 June 12 (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

Module:ShowMath

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 2018 June 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:20, 12 June 2018 (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:Shogiboard

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 speedy delete. as G7, by page creator (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to Module:Shogi diagram {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it's my mistake. I forgot why i even created this page. Either testing or must a name change? Anyway, i'll delete it. – ishwar  (speak) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (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 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) 01:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template this claims to implement is already implemented in Wikitext and does not need to be luafied. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the module author. This is exactly the sort of template that should be converted to Lua. It contains several sections of duplicated code, that in Lua can be reduced to simple for loops; it has an arbitrary upper limit of possible parameters, which will go away with a Lua version; and it contains complex if/else logic which is difficult to indent and comment clearly in template code, but trivial in Lua. Given the fact that it uses a large number of parameters, and that it already calls Module:String, a Lua version is also likely to be a lot faster. The module needs to be tested and deployed, not deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Stradivarius: the module might not be deployed yet, but it's clearly a step in the right direction for Template:Search link. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep replacement would use lua anyway, so no there would be no performance improvements, and there is no harm in keeping the more human-readable module. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 13:53, 11 June 2018 (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:H:title

Instances of use are either abominations violating MOS:ACCESS ("Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text") (as in here, or here) or abbreviations in which case {{abbr}} should be used, as in here. Maybe allow outside of mainspace, but definitely not in articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replacement would probably be done similar as sort of being done for the redirect {{tooltip}}; in both there is mixture of legitimate abbreviations and illegitimate uses. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and {{H:swl}} is unused so delete that anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling things that others have spent many hours working on "abominations" is, at a minimum, unproductive... Nevertheless, as one of its creators, I think it would be okay to delete this template at this point because its main functionality has been much more effectively achieved by the Wikidata project. --Benjamin Good (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Tooltip}}, if there are any features that should be merged; remove uses of the template that violate MOS:ACCESS; and replace uses of it with {{Abbr}} when it's marking up abbreviations. Whatever the original intent, the output of {{H:swl}} (which has a name that means nothing to anyone but it's author) is presently identical to that of {{H:title}} (which is also at WP:RM for renaming; see Template talk:H:title). So, even if H:swl were used, and even if H:title is kept under a better name, H:swl would merge, one way or the other.

    Input requested: See also Template talk:Tooltip: We need to find a way to bring the output of the template into compliance with MOS:ACCESS if this is technically possible. The summary is that the <abbr> element is accessible, but is strictly limited to abbreviations (including acronyms/initialisms) by the HTML specs (both W3C and WHATWG versions). The title= attribute is part of both specs but is not presently well or at all implemented in many if any screenreaders (and improvements to their functionality are very, very slow to appear, almost shockingly slow). If anyone knows of a way we can resolve this, like through new site-wide or user-level Javascript or something, please do chime in at Template talk:Tooltip. It needs to be fixed, because we need to undo the abuse of {{abbr}} and the underlying <abbr> as a general tooltip trick, but {{tooltip}} isn't the ideal solution (yet).
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{tooltip}} is a redirect to {{abbr}}.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. This edit was recently undertaken, converting the hoverbox to a note. I don't see how taking pertinent—but secondary—information out of the infobox where it is used to explain a metric and placing it at the bottom of the page in the reference section is helpful. If we are barring its use on the basis that it requires "interaction" I do not see how converting it to a citation actually improves the situation, given that the footnote system also requires "interaction" and is more disruptive to reading flow. Hoverboxes are used extensively in tables where space is a premium, such as at Motion picture content rating system where hoverboxes are used as an aid to provide further clarification without cluttering the table with information. If the template were deleted some tables would require an extensive redesign, and it is not immediately clear how one would go about this. If it is causing a problem for screenreaders then why can't the template just be fixed to make it accessible to screenreaders? Surely it can't be that hard to make screenreaders correctly interpret a hoverbox? I am not saying that accessibility problems should be ignored, but is this problem being approached from the right frame of mind? After all this is an online encyclopedia so surely the direction of traffic should be to make Wikipedia more reader interactive, rather than less? Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pieces of explaining text are, anyhow, generally put as notes instead of tooltips; this is hardly a strange thing to do. If the template can be made accessible to screenreaders, good, but I do not know how, and until then per MOS:ACCESS instances should be fixed and this template deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are essentially for bits of information that readers don't need to look at while hoverboxes are generally used to integrate essential information into a confined space, such as a table or infobox. I take access very seriously (and have initiated several improvements for color-blind users) but we shouldn't be taking retrograde steps just to improve accessibility for a small subset of users if this affects the majority too adversely. For example, if we can redesign a table to make it more accessible—either through using color-blind color schemes, supplementing color with labels and getting rid of problematic row and column spans—without compromising it for the main readership we should absolutely do that, but MOS:ACCESS should be not used as an excuse to to reduce functionality and usefulness for the main readership. We should be aiming for optimal solutions i.e. page design that benefits the most readers. Sometimes that will mean we should redesign a feature to improves its accessibility, but at other times it will mean sacrificing that goal to retain usefulness. If acceptable alternatives to the hoverbox exist or can be made to exist (they seem to exist for abbreviations) then we should explore those, but they are not interchangeable with footnotes in every scenario. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HK Metalurgs Liepaja roster

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HK Metalurgs Liepaja folded in 2013 which means a roster is no longer required MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2018 (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:2014 NPSL season by team

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no links, and in any case none of the redlinks would ever be created as they all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2018 (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:Tremors Release Dates

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of a navbox, as it doesn't navigate anything. However no point in converting this to another format, as it's pretty fancruft-y. --woodensuperman 11:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Concur with nominator. Used in one article, but the information is covered in the text and the timing of releases doesn't seem to be important to the subject, suggesting substitution (albeit not as a navbox regardless) unwarranted. --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no useful purpose. MarnetteD|Talk 05:00, 10 June 2018 (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:Nepali Actress

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant to {{Cinema of Nepal}}. I have replaced all transclusions of this template with that one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2018 (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:Fb cl header H&A

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 as unused. But feel free to add functionality to the module if it's needed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Fb cl header H&A with Module:Sports table/WDL.
Propose merging Template:Fb cl2 team H&A with Module:Sports table/WDL.
Almost same style Hhkohh (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FOOTY and S.A. Julio's longer argument above about this. While wikiprojects don't create rules, once they've non-controversially normalized an enormous category of articles and their navigation, it's a poor idea to start forking "my article/subcategory is special and different" exceptions from it unless there's a crystal-clear WP:IAR reason that justifies the divergence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging as what Hhkohh explained. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2018 (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:Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL The main entry did not form a bi-directional connection, nor should it account for Taiwan’s cheaper Zenk0113 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (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:SBN

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and too specific lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext with a call to Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the module author. This would be more awkward to do with Module:String, as you would need two calls to the match function instead of the one call to string.match that the current version uses. The error-handling code would also have to be replaced with multiple #if parser functions (maybe necessitating more match calls). Even for short modules, this kind of logic is more readable in Lua, because we can use variables, and because we can indent the code without having to worry about the extra whitespace changing the output. Delete I just checked, and the module isn't actually used, which makes my argument moot. If anyone starts using SBNs we can always reinstate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Is the plan to change {{SBN}} to use a Module:String call to do this, or to also delete that template along with the module? I'd be in favor of the conversion, but not a double deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My original plan was to Wikitextify it, but Mr. Stradivarius seems to be advocating a delete of the template too, which I wouldn't oppose. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right, I think the template should be deleted too, as it isn't being used. If there's a chance of it being used, though, then I think both the module and the template should be kept. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:41, 6 June 2018 (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:SHA2

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under what circumstance would a Wikipedia page want to calculate a SHA2 hash as part of parsing? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2018 (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:Revision

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext (and is, via {{diff}}) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2018 (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/2018_June_4&oldid=845481245"