Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9
October 11 >

October 10

[edit]

Template:Main Page history generic calendar

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or categories. Created in 2019 as a proposal, but it was not adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Countdown2

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 October 17. ✗plicit 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lux Style Awards hosts

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:PERFNAV. Hosting an award show is not notable enough to be transcluded through navbox space. And not very defining for these people who have an article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:English cricket venues to 1725

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 17:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No article, so navbox not verifiable. Also, it is mostly just a list of towns, not actual cricket venues, so inclusion of this navbox onto the town articles is WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Road to episodes

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication, already included in {{Family Guy}} --woodensuperman 11:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IOS version table

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on one page and makes editing a table harder for no real value, as the tables has only 3 columns and the template is only used on one page. Additionally, this template either violates the MoS or makes semantically wrong syntax.

  • The top part of the table which lists the the devices has no semantic connection to any cell and shouldn't be part of the table.
  • The header columns mid table violate MOS:COLHEAD.
  • The autohide violates MOS:DONTHIDE.

The template creator does not seem to care about MoS guidelines and I don't see what value this template has even if fixed as the amount of time it might save, isn't worth the complete new style that editors need to learn to edit these tables. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template has worked adequately well for years. The reason this was moved to a template was to reduce duplication of having to recreate the same table over and over again, which is a pain in the ass for editors. Deleting this would also break a significant number of inclusions. Just because a template is used on only one article doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist? And this is how these tables have worked as far back as the early 2010s even prior to being converted to a template. You are nominating a template for deletion that actually has a valid purpose, and are targeting me with not wanting to respect the MOS which is downright not true. And saying that it’s difficult for editors to work with this template is also very obviously untrue, as it is very clearly documented. The reason the template is collapsed by default is to mark a distinct difference between the current iOS version, and past versions. You seem to have a bias against me because I reverted your edit removing the auto hide, despite it being the status quo of the template. You do not make disruptive changes to the way the template works without first discussing them on the talk page.
The Manual of Style is an important guideline, but at the end of the day it’s not policy, and it can be bypassed when necessary if the table calls for it, such as to indicate supported iOS devices for a given version. I don’t know why, after years of this template existing, you are suddenly complaining about them? It’s the same story with the other templates you have nominated for deletion relating to iOS and Apple, they exist for a reason and if they are deleted they will cause a major disruption. Therefore I urge you to rescind this nomination, as this template being deleted would cause a significant number of disruptions. Hell, it was even agreed to move these tables to a template due to the fact that it would allow editors to more easily add new iOS versions to a table without relying on the standard table syntax. It should also be noted that this same exact table style and implementation are used on a multitude of other templates, such as Template:Routelist row, to allow easier usage of these tables and templates… You’ve been on Wikipedia since July 2011. You should be incredibly familiar with the fact that not all articles or templates follow the MOS, for one reason or another.
And your bullet point that the device cells don’t have a semantic connection to the other cells isn’t a Wikipedia Manual of Style policy or guideline, so you can’t use that as a reason for deletion. There are allowed to be deviations in how the tables work. You, instead of holding a conversation on the template’s talk page, went straight to nominating a useful template that actually benefits editors for deletion, over my disagreement with your auto hide removal edit. How is that cooperating with other Wikipedia editors? Also, see WP:IGNORE. If a rule or guideline is to the detriment of Wikipedia being able to be improved, it can be ignored. And while there is a bullet point on the template space usage guidelines that mention that templates used only on one page may be nominated for deletion, I believe that relates to templates that are only used once on a single article or page, and the iOS version table template is used pretty significantly. Therefore I vehemently disagree with the mere notion that this template should be deleted, especially because of the severe and significant amount of work and time it would take to retool and change the usage of the template back to regular tables, time that most Wikipedia editors just don’t have, including me. However, I have stopped the template from autohiding by default. This makes one of your bullet points entirely redundant, with the only semi-valid bullet point remaining being about MOS:COLHEAD, however I strongly believe that WP:IGNORE does apply here as the device list serves a valid purpose. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 13:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have since changed my mind; I am changing my vote to Delete, and I am proposing that Template:iOS version table/iOS version (and its redirect at Template:iOS version as well as its documentation page at /doc) and its sibling Template:iOS version separator also be deleted, via speedy delete. Due to something I said in response to @YannickFran regarding the tables being a breeding ground for copyright violations, I went through the tables again, and I have noticed a significant number of entries in the tables that read eerily similar to Apple's own release notes, which the tables basically encourage due to their format. I do not want there to be another AfD due to the copyright violations and the article potentially violating WP:NOTCHANGELOG again, so for the betterment of the article, I have decided to remove the remaining usages of the iOS version table template. This will very likely disappoint readers of the article who liked there being tables in the article, to easily process the list of versions, but at the end of the day, WP:NOTCHANGELOG is a major policy on Wikipedia, and this article sets a bad example of pretty much still violating that policy. This is one of the only remaining articles that has managed to escape the wrath of a Delete vote in an AfD (which cannot be said for previously-existing version history articles, such as the version history article for Google Chrome), as it was said at the last nomination that effort would be put into converting the article from being heavily reliant on tables, to be almost entirely written in prose. I have spent a signfiicant amount of my time rewriting a couple sections in the article (iPhone OS 1, 2, and iOS 7) to be prose-based and have a significant number of high quality references (instead of relying solely on Apple-aligned sites such as MacRumors, AppleInsider, etc, and I believe that if this is followed for other iOS versions in the article, the article could be of significant high quality for what is effectively a list-based article. I am sad to be voting to delete my own template(s), but I have since come to the realization that it is for the best that tables as a whole be avoided on iOS version history. While the tables are deleted, the article will likely be in a rough state for a while, but I will try my best to bring the article back to a workable state, while being prose-based. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 05:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree very strongly with Evelyn Harthbrooke on this. I don't understand the logic behind wanting to delete this template in the first place, it serves a specific purpose and does it (very) well, deleting it would only create (huge) new problems and needlessly increase editor workloads. The "issues" raised seem like minor quibbles at worst, and are ones that could (and should) be addressed through changing the template and its usage rather than via outright deleting the entire template (which is an absurd escalation that is totally unjustified). This is like demolishing a house because you don't like the color of the wallpaper in one room, only worse, far far worse. Garzfoth (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MOS:DONTHIDE isn't very applicable in this situation and not a reason to delete it. But the table head beyond the first body cell is in fact problematic. And yeah, the MOS is a guideline, but that is as per WP:IGNORE not a reason to ignore it just because we feel like it, nor a reason to not strive for a better solution or a reason to ignore its violation entirely in this discussion. The device list sits in the "Overview of iOS n versions" table. It objectively isn't a version. That doesn't seem right and can easily be solved with simply moving it out of the table, as such it would solve the valid concern of MOS:COLHEAD (if all instances of Template:iOS version separator are removed as well) and make more sense in its placement in the article sections themselves. However, solving that issue would turn this template in essentially just a wrapper around the table element, that isn't any more simple than just using the table element directly and is exactly what tvOS#Version history and watchOS#Version history among many others already do. The Template:IOS version template is literally a wrapper around "|- ! || ||", using it is very much more complex than using the existing simple table syntax.
The issues mentioned in the nomination can be solved within the template, and as such shouldn't have warranted a deletion nomination. However, solving these issues does make the template pretty much redundant. It would just be a wrapper around a very basic table. Requiring users to learn an alternative template-based syntax that only applies to 1 article for 3 simple tables is as a matter of fact adding more complexity than it should, no matter how well it is documented. This is also clearly not comparable to a template like Template:Routelist row which actually does serve to simplify an otherwise complex syntax that isn't easily figured out. The fact that individual version articles like iPhone OS 1 already do use the normal table syntax makes the lack of necessity for this template extra clear. Furthermore, the iOS version history article - as mentioned; the only article to use this template - seems to be phasing them out anyways with only 3 tables remaining, compared to the 6 that existed when October began, so it isn't like its use is widening, quiet the opposite.
Upon potential removal, the flatlist box may be useful to move to its own template if retained at all (it's purpose frankly also seem to be better served in tables further down where a more complete overview is available for all versions).
For further discussion; I'd like to remind others here, per Wikipedia policy, "it has always been like that, no need to change it" is not an argument for anything (we can take that to ridiculous conclusions; e.g.: prior to this template existing, it didn't, so why create it in the first place). Also, "is a [...] guideline, [...] it's not a policy" is very literally just quoting WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. I'd also like to remind participants to assume WP:GOODFAITH, accusing someone of "having a bias against [you]" just because you disagree isn't that. YannickFran (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the iPhone OS 1, 2, and iOS 7 tables were removed was because they had such little information in them to where they could be rewritten to use prose (however the iOS 7 section has not been rewritten yet); another reason the article is slowly moving away from the tables are because of the fact that having tables is ground central for encouraging copyvios (which can be managed if it is caught and deleted on sight but is still basically ground zero for copyvios). However, the 16, 17, and 18 tables are staying for the forseeable future because of the intense effort and time that would be required to rewrite these in prose. And no, using the template is not *more complex* than using existing table syntax, because by the very nature of the template it means the cryptic syntax necessary to create a table is avoided, however at the end of the day this is all opinionative and not an objective reason to delete. Moreover, the template syntax is self-explanatory, as it isn't a bunch of gibberish. Also, deleting this template at this stage would, again, cause a lot of breakage. It should not be deleted until at the very minimum all usages of the template is deleted (such as when the article is fully prose). Until then I do not suggest that the template be deleted. And for the record, the MOS isn't being ignored because I felt like ignoring it. That is not the case at all. The formatting of the template is the same exact formatting it was pre-template conversion, device lists and all, and is how the tables have behaved for as long as I have been editing and contributing to the iOS version history article.
None of these are reasons to delete a useful template, least not until all usages of it are gone, in which instance I will nominate the templates myself for speedy deletion, as I am the creator of the templates. But for now, I very strongly feel that the template should remain in template space for now because a) it would completely and utterly break all three remaining tables were this template to be deleted and b) it would leave the related templates without a host template, thereby effectively orphaning them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PTG/all-wiki-pt

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 07:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sub page (which seems to duplicate language links from wikidata) and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_10&oldid=1251764247"