Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

Template:Current U.S. representatives from Delaware

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.S. representatives from Delaware (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Article content on template space. No need for substitution anywhere. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): Part of the complete set of Category:Current U.S. representatives by state templates. Will have two transclusions when I get there. Had been procrastinating and then exams hit until 30th July. Will try to complete it in some time. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep until the end of July. I've mentioned this to CX Zoom on their talk page that eventually the templates will get be sent to TfD. There are currently around 50 of these unused. A full year to transclude a simple table template is way too long, and in the future it would be best to create a template and use it immediately, instead of creating a set and forgetting about them. If this template is kept, and if they are still unused next month I will re-nominate them. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. You've been template-izing tables that should be directly editable from their respective articles and really only belong on their respective articles. There is no benefit to creating this additional barrier to editing for content that is not needed to be repeated elsewhere. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at #Template:Current U.S. representatives from Montana section below. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the template creator announcing their intent to use these templates on multiple pages soon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to bury article content inside a template -- Whpq (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at #Template:Current U.S. representatives from Montana section below. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:53, 13 July 2022 (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:Current U.S. representatives from Montana

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.S. representatives from Montana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Article content on template space. Montana's at-large congressional district doesn't need this. Nor anywhere could this be substituted on. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): Montana gained a second seat in 2020 United States census. Will have 3 transclusions when I get there. Rest of the reason as stated at #Template:Current U.S. representatives from Delaware section above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. You've been template-izing tables that should be directly editable from their respective articles and really only belong on their respective articles. There is no benefit to creating this additional barrier to editing for content that is not needed to be repeated elsewhere. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that because it's much easier to edit them at once. I don't see what barrier you're talking about. They have been edited several times by other accounts and IPs as and when required. I have explicitly added (view/talk/edit) links to the table for that very reason. I did not create them for nothing. The tables I already replaced with the templates sometimes were often way outdated for several months, because it didn't catch anyone's eyes. Plus there were inconsistencies in PVI ratings, incumbency date, and residency across articles. Consolidating the exact same table from across many articles into a single one, helps keep them better updated, and show correct information. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not used across many articles. That's the whole problem here. You should not sequester main article content into a template if there is no compelling multiple use case. In fact, both of these templates at TFD are only edited by you, so there is evidence that you are creating a barrier to editing. If they are outdated, simply edit the content in the article. Putting the information into a template does not make it more likely to be updated and in fact would likely have the opposite effect. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said as and when required. There have been no changes in Delaware & Montana's delegation yet. Why would anyone want to edit the template, unless they still believes strongly in 2020 election conspiracies? Well, now, look at Template:Current U.S. representatives from California (11 of 13 edits are other accounts & IPs). Similarly Template:Current U.S. representatives from New York, Template:Current U.S. representatives from Texas, Template:Current U.S. representatives from Nebraska. These states had a change in delegation, because of vacancies and subsequent special election and hence were edited as and when required by other accounts and IPs. The barrier, or so you claim, is just a very visible "edit" link on the top of table, that has had no visible problem for IPs. As for usage of the template, I've already committed to use them efficiently across articles that share the same template. Give some time man. There are 50 states, and I have a non-WP life too. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to know how many edits you've inhibited by hiding article content in a template. What we do know is that they're only transcluded in one article each and should be WP:SUBSTed into those articles. See WP:TMP, article content should not live in the template namespace. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still ask why would anyone want to edit that more than the edit numbers we've already had? It's perfectly updated, without any input from my side since creation, apart from subtle maintenance work. As for WP:TMP, it doesn't refer to "article content" even once, it clearly says Templates should not normally be used to store article text (emphasis added) all the times it approaches anything close to that meaning. Tables aren't text. The information page the blue linked "article text" takes us to doesn't mention anything about tables either. Further, I did say that these are supposed to have 3 transclusions when I reach there. I don't understand what's so difficult for you to understand. As for the current number of transclusions these templates, I already said I need time. Contrary to popular beliefs, I'm not a bot, neither do I know how to build one. When you have to compete with some 3 million students for a few tens of thousands of seats at affordable government colleges, right after you spent entire 23 months at home (not school) because of lockdown, you'd know my burden but you wouldn't. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Template creator announced a plan to include the template in more articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to bury article content inside a template -- Whpq (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I reiterate that it is much better to keep a template that has a better chance of being updated, than having the same table across several articles that sometimes shows months old data. See, not every state has as many "updators" as California and Texas. Next, what part of View/Talk/Edit links do you find hard to use? If there is a real problem, I can add a invisible comment everytime this template is used. But, I don't think that's needed, it has been demonstrated above that IPs and other accounts have no problem editing those templates. For article content, I already showed above that "Article content in template is bad" is not a good argument. It is not a real policy nor guideline on English Wikipedia. It applies only to article text. Not tables. If you want to change that, feel free to start a RFC but until that is approved, your reasoning is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the prior discussion prior to providing my opinion. I take a different view on "article text" than you do. Whpq (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2022 (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:Ts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a template that adds simple styles and which can trivially be replaced with those styles directly. It has no business existing accordingly.

Its use also encourages adding styles, when we just simply should not in most cases. And lastly, the codes are absolutely opaque. Izno (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (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:Stadtbahn-S-U

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stadtbahn-S-U (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Stuttgart Stadtbahn Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (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:Double strikethrough

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double strikethrough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, documentation, incoming links, or categories. Without an explanation for why this is needed, it does not appear to be usable. I have never seen a MOS section that advises the use of "double strikethrough" formatting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are you also included module:dssplit ? -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2022 (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:Speciesbox/hybrid name

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speciesbox/hybrid name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after Template:Speciesbox/name was converted to Lua here. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, no longer needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2022 (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:Double strikethrough/backend

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double strikethrough/backend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Dssplit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Double strikethrough/backend with Module:Dssplit.
Template:Double strikethrough/backend is only used by the module. In general, if there already is a module, then the entire code should be there and not split between module and templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both without merging as part of a walled garden of unused templates created by the same person who does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Template:Double strikethrough/backend to Template:Double strikethrough, Delete the module. The current setup of a template invoking a module which expands a sub-template is daft and unnecessarily complex - just use the template directly. I don't think the "added functionality" in the module of redacting url's is a good idea - a double strikethrough template should just strike through the text, it shouldn't have extra functionality as it is more likely to confuse than help. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't work without the module, it needs it or else it will break whenever there is a new line. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both without merging per Pppery. Proliferating templates or modules should only be done with a good reason related to improving the encyclopedia. There is no reason for these. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with a delete both outcome. I didn't nominate the module for deletion out of the benefit of the doubt that it has use, but seeing as how the other related modules created by the same editor (Module:RedactURL and Module:Qssplit) are at TfD, it seems the community does not find these useful. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom wants to merge, one other wants to rename, and two others want to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nom was fine with deletion as you can see from my previous comment. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with deleting outright, especially since the main template seems to be heading towards deletion. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as not usable. There is no MOS-related reason to use this formatting, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2022 (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).