Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6

[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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tr4c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tr5c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in one/two articles; test subst shows that table renders properly; solution without a problem  Gadget850 talk 22:30, 6 March 2015 (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.
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 relisted on 2015 March 22Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dell monitors table header row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dell monitors table data row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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.
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in articles or templates.  Gadget850 talk 22:11, 6 March 2015 (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.
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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant and more complex than standard wikimarkup. Used in two articles and a few talk pages.  Gadget850 talk 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete after replacing. I am happy to help convert any transclusions to standard wiki markup. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, just replaced one here and here using a script. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (keep.) (see below.) Although I use the normal markup extensively, there are some circumstances where I find it vastly superior to use the compact {{table}} syntax. Is it more complex? Well, you have to specify a row number and you have to use {{!!}}, but other than those two points, I find it much simpler because it lacks all the fancy features of the standard wikimarkup. In particular, when the rows are short, it is really nice to avoid having to include the |- lines. I remember there is a way of using some HTML code to avoid this, but when I discovered {{table}}, I thought I'd hit upon the approved way to avoid the extra vertical gap in the source text. Incidentally, I suspect the low counts are at least in part due to Frietjes doing a lot of edits in February. One of them pretty much destroyed the purpose of using {{table}} -- which was to provide editors with a nicely lined up information both in display mode and in edit mode, to make it easy to copy-and-paste. I promptly reverted. The other one simplified a navbox in part by eliminating the use of color. The simpler code is nice, but I have yet to figure out how to restore the color without completely reverting the edit. I can't tell how extensive this was, because the same edit summary including "wikitables" was included whether or not the change involved wikitables. It is of course possible that the only two that involved wikitables were on the two pages I've watchlisted. YBG (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • for the non-psychics the two edits are this one and this one. don't really understand the objection to the first one. as far as the second one goes, it's a massive reduction in code complexity, and fixed a fundamental problem of using 'br' tags instead of table rows. the result is that the information in the far right of the template was not logically aligned in the code. I also see no reason to not use {{geographic location}} for this application, since it is the current standard for indicating spatial relationships with neighbouring localities. if it were up to me, that entire navbox would be simplified even further to reduce the over-formatting, which should be reserved for an article, and not needed in a navigational box. I have found no cases where {{table}} is actually needed. in the extreme cases where you need to pass a template to {{navbox}} or {{infobox}}, I find that {{aligned table}} works. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For uses of a table inside a template where table markup breaks, the simpler method is to create the table as a sub-template and transclude it. --  Gadget850 talk 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Frietjes, for taking the time to explain in a bit more detail, particularly, mentioning the specific edits and {{aligned table}}. I see you used {{aligned table}} in the 2nd of the abovementioned edits. I readily admit that I allowed my frustration to keep me from examining the 2nd edit in more detail. As I said above, on that edit, I do appreciate the added simplicity (= subtracted complexity). My objection was to the removal of features I thought helpful: (a) the light green color (b) widths and (c) <br>'s, all of which allowed the 'squares' to look like squares. As for the 1st edit, now that I have seen the use of {{aligned table}}, I will endeavor to change my uses of {{table}} to {{aligned table}}. I fully expect that I will succeed, and anticipate being convinced to support this deletion. Thank you again for your patience and forebearance. YBG (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. OK, I've replaced the instances I've created. YBG (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (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.
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 - simply not needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not necessary; consensus at WP:FOOTY is not to hard code short-cuts for football team names.. JMHamo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2015 (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.
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/replacePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Brazilian ministry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox government agency}}, except for {{{operational_centre}}} and {{{command_structure}}}. When used in ministry articles, {{{command_structure}}} invariably contains a link to the Cabinet of Brazil, and can probably be omitted. Otherwise, it maps to {{{parent_agency}}}. {{{operational_centre}}} is not used in any article. Alakzi (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (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.
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 mergePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Statutory Instrument (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox UK legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Statutory Instrument with Template:Infobox UK legislation.
A statutory instrument is a type of secondary legislation. Alakzi (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2015 (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.