Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Template:Houston Cougars men's basketball retired number navbox[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Houston Cougars men's basketball retired number navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after I merged it with the article. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Background and font colour 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete some, redirect some, keep some, and no consensus on the rest. Feel free to renominate or rename any of these, but I will start by deleting a few that are orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg only)

Template:Bkg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg only)

Template:Background color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg only)

Template:Colors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg and font)

Template:Font color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg and font)

Template:Color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (font only)

Template:TextColors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (bg and font, but in a table)

Template:Colorbold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (3 ticks will do)

How many of these do we need? — Lfdder (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a nomination for deletion it should be closed because no rationale has been given. If it is intended to start a general discussion, then I don't have anything interesting or relevant to contribute. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- are you daft? — Lfdder (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not aware of it. Is this a nomination for deletion? Thincat (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete some perhaps, redirect others. They all more or less do the same thing. — Lfdder (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
some number between 0 and 8? {{colorbold}} and {{TextColors}} should clearly be deleted. {{Background color}} has a subset of the syntax of {{bg}}, so one could be redirected to the other. same situation with {{colors}} and {{font color}}. so, that would reduce the number of unique templates by four. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{bkg}} can go as well, no transclusions in article space. — Lfdder (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{colors}} has only got about 50 transclusions, better to just delete it. — Lfdder (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst + Delete if transclusions are few (eg <10) LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what I think should be done:
- {{Bg}} – redirect to {{Background color}}
- {{Bkg}} – delete
- {{Background color}} – keep, but merge code from {{Bg}} (the latter has named params)
- {{Colors}} – delete
- {{Font color}} – rename to "Text and background color", keep redirect
- {{Color}} – maybe rename to "Text color" and keep redirect
- {{TextColors}} – delete
- {{Colorbold}} – delete
— Lfdder (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So...
- recode all the templates to use SPAN
- redirect {{bg}} / {{bkg}} to {{background color}}
- repurpose {{font color}} to only deal with font colors, and not background colors
- rename {{textColors}} to {{text color}}, so that it deals with both font and background color
- delete {{color}} and {{colors}} and {{colorbold}} as confusing names
- the recoded templates {{background color}} and {{font color}} should become wrappers for the new {{text color}}, one only dealing with background color, the second only dealing with font color, both taking only two parameters, color and display data; the new {{text color}} would take three parameters, background, foreground, and display data.
- this will also necessitate changing all transclusions to match the new formats.
-- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need a wrapper for something this simple. You don't seem to know the meaning of font or text....or wrapper. — Lfdder (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you only want to change either the font color or the background color, then using a three parameter template with anonymous parameters is not ideal, and would require that our editors learn more about template usage, instead of just giving them two more templates that are simple wrappers, so it is a good idea. And you're the one who doesn't know, if you're criticizing my usage of the word font. As for "text", it is the composition of glyphs on a page, so is perfectly appropriate the way I'm using it. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when did I ever say that there should only be 1 template? I'm sure you're old enough to be able to use a dictionary. — Lfdder (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we're not gonna delete a tpl with 90k transclusions that's doing its job and replace it with another that's not used anywhere cause it's got a better name; we'll just rename the former. — Lfdder (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the former, or recoding the latter to use SPAN is the same outcome. I'm saying that the name "font color" should not be used to code background colors. That should be replaced with transclusions of the new name, while font color should only be concerned with the color of the font, not its background, which isn't part of the font. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Iranian languages word table[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iranian languages word table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content w/ only 1 transclusion before merging into Iranian languages. — Lfdder (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is proposed for the articles still linking to this template? The template is being used in a non-standard way in these other articles but is that a problem? Thincat (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the section of the article? — Lfdder (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Section links to the newly merged table seem a good idea so I have gone ahead and done them Thincat (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realise I have rather hidden which other articles were linking to (not actually transcluding) the template. They were Pashto language and Kurdish languages. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Familypedia[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Familypedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to an external wiki that cannot be used as a source (because it does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) nor as an external link (because it falls under #12 of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided). Previously deleted: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 8. DrKiernan (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could probably substitute and delete, since the backend is using {{wikia}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linking like this is not terribly useful. It's kind of like deferring to a better wiki, in a way; what good, valuable information does that wiki have that ours cannot? (It does seem like it would have a bias, though.) Lazy Bastard Guy 05:53, 12 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Convert to use Infobox settlement[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert to use Infobox settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Does the same thing as Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement which was deleted in March 2012.[1] Pigsonthewing says its not the same but when he told Frietjes that he'd made it Frietjes thought it was the same so its not just me.[2] The only difference is that it says "may". The other TFD discussion was clearly against this sort of template so I nominated it for deletion. RHaworth deleted it but Pigsonthewing recreated the template today. User666777 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If WP:CSD#G4 was applied correctly before (and I trust that it was), then it certainly applies again now. Also, I happen to agree with the consensus at the previous AfD. A tracking category, without an display in the article, might be OK (but that would involve completely changing the contents). Thincat (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this template with different wording and thus meaning to the previous version (which I !voted to delete). For that reason XSD#G4 was not correctly applied, and I only recreated it yesterday after RHaworth undeleted it to my user space; I did so with his blessing. There is no "display in the article" with this template, which is used on template documentation pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I misunderstood the use of the template. But is the present version different from that G4 deleted on 27/09/13?[3] My reading of the history seems to show it is unchanged. I know G4 only applies to pages deleted after a discussion but If the first G4 was valid then another would be. Thincat (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clear recreation of a deleted template, the category is enough to tag templates for potential conversion, or just create a list in project space. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect if it looks like there's going to be constant recreation. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I merged the history from the prior version of this template here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for doing that. It shows that the templates are so close together that the original TFD consensus should be followed. User666777 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.