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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently no transclusions of this template. The only two blue link players are with other clubs meanwhile. The club plays on the 4th level of Turkish football which is not a fully professional league. Kq-hit (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2016 (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:Alki Larnaca squad
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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Club dissolved on 6 May 2014 Kq-hit (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a current club. --SuperJew (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2016 (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:Hampton Park Promotion/Relegation Playoffs
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. ~ Rob13Talk 02:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
superfluous template, used once of an article now on AfD (sixth level of Australian football pyramid) The Bannertalk 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why is this even a template in the first place? --SuperJew (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (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:2016 State League 4 Ladder
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 ~ Rob13Talk 02:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only one time used. Ranking of the sixth level of the Australian football pyramid. The Bannertalk 19:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge with article. Frietjes (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2016 (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 merge/redirect ~ Rob13Talk 02:37, 12 September 2016 (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:Gsvlink
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).
External link template with 93 tranclusions. Many of these are in external links sections, where the link is inappropriate, and redundant to ((Coord)) (or other coordinates links). Also requires a full URL as the parameter.
If there are bona fide uses of this template, other uses should be removed and, if necessary, a namespace-sensitive warning displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
restrict to prevent use in articles where it's redundant to linking to ((coord)), or move back to the author's userspace. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, coord makes this template unnecessary, and although it does provides faster access to an image of the location, most articles with this template already have images and the few that don't could be tagged for image requested if required. EdwardUK (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2016 (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 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).
Single-use weatherbox templates
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 merge/delete. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
single use weatherbox templates, per numerous prior discussions, these should be merged with the transcluding article and deleted. we have thousands of weatherboxes in thousands of articles, and the convention is that we put them in a separate template only when they are transcluded in more than one article. Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- Single-use templates are at higher risk for vandalism than when merged, because there are fewer people who watch them. —hike395 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: It would have done you good to check that many of these templates are semi-protected. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the subtle climate vandalism I've seen has been done via destructive accounts, such as User:Belruin or User:SpaceX33333. In those cases, the vandal(s) would have been able to edit semi-protected templates. I think these templates could be valuable if they were all changed to "Pending changes protection level 2". —hike395 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks to me like the data in them should be moved into the standard weatherbox template in each affected article. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I cannot speak to all of these templates, I know that the Nashville one is well-watched, and in its more than two years of existance, it has had no apparent vandalism. The sole instance of a poor edit was reverted within minutes. That said, the Pending Changes option mentioned by Hike395 above seems like a potential solution. — Huntster (t@c) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user (Bjs5890) that tried to corrupt ((Nashville, Tennessee weatherbox)) seems like another example of a climate vandal account where semi-protection would not be effective. Good work, CaradhrasAiguo, in catching that vandalism. —hike395 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Frietjes: is there some reason why you added <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the tfd templates? Pppery (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant articles per WP:MADPppery 20:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Single-use meaning only one transclusion. In that case, I can understand the reasoning. — Eru·tuon 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following, which are transcluded twice or more (the merits of their additional transclusions should be discussed on a case-by-case basis), and Merge the remainder:
@Frietjes: That is a separate discussion, and for now what matters is that these templates are saved from the fire. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merging something with the article is not sending it to the fire, it's moving the content to the article. you should really consider LST to avoid splitting the weather box from the article. you are trying to perform an end-around to have zero of these merged. Frietjes (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of that, especially with the nonsense on American football, changes the fact that many of these are now doubly transcluded. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete those that are used only once. (It was kind of annoying, when I was adding North American locations to the List of cities by temperature, to have to go to a template page in order to copy or modify a ref. No good reason for that if the template is used only once.) — Eru·tuon 20:13, 11 September 2016 (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:Reflist newuser
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).
Completely incorrect template for a relatively minor issue — refs do show up even if there it no ((reflist)) template, and the missing ==References== header will get fixed by a bot. Pppery (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references have been automatically displayed at the bottom of the page since phab:T68860 and gerrit:141583 in 2014. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2016 (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).
No changing these default values will break lot of pages. The CURRENTXXX are based on current time at time of rendering pages. The XXX templates are (purposely) documented to take defaults on January 1, at midday (this is critical dor many other templates computing dates; chanfing these defaults would mean that the other templates would need to specify explicitly the month=1, day=1, hour=12, minute=0, second=0 everywhere; those tempaltes are already performinf complex computations and will become muich less readable and needlessly longer). verdy_p (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We should not have multiple templates if one will suffice, but in this case the functionality and intent appears to be too different for this to be practical. I wouldn't be averse to seeing a sandbox that works around the problem, if someone thinks it can be worked around. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TfD template placement
Please reedit those templates you have broken by insterting the Tfd request at the wrong place: the banner must be in the noinclude section (preferable the same noincldue section at end for the doc) and must NOT instert newlines before the transcluded template.
You've broken many pages with these incorrectly placed banners (but some of them are blocked for editing for good reasons, as they are widely used, but now broken by your edits !
I repeat: never place such banners this way in templates! At least, never insert any newline between the noinclude sections and the transcluded content. Thanks. That Tfd banner must never be transcluded (and notably not in such templates widely used in various date computations or to render calendars: you get formatting errors such as broken paragraphs, broken lists broken tables/infoboxes, and various #expr errors. verdy_p (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't revert my own corrections of these incorrect placements of Tfd requests ! I've not removed the Tfd, they are just in the only correct place for templates! And this is independant of whever templates are substitured or not. These templates are widely used in computations and the generated HTML and presentation wiki of the Tfd banner breaks many #expr or other value tests with #if or #switch.
Tfd on templates require more attention (and we never need to see this banner on the many pages using these widely used templates). verdy_p (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You have a point about the spurious newlines, Verdy p, however you are incorrect about the proper place for tfd notices being noincluded. From the listing instructions: Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page: [...] For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice ... (emphasis mine). Those clearly suggest that the tfd tag should normally be transcluded and that it should be located at the top. Pppery (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why at the top ? just below the transcluded template and before the documentation (or within the doc page itself) is perfectly fine. But for these tempaltes widely used in expressions and #if /#switch tests, this is not true. These tempaltes are not intended to be just displayed as is on wiki pages. What they generate must be just a plain string. And there's absolteuyly no need to put two noinclude sections (notably not the way you did it). The guidelines on the Tfd doc pages applies to templates generating content displayed as is. It may be correct to put the Tfd request above infoboxes, but it is in fact not even necessary. Just place it at the begining of the noinclude section (at end of the template). The Tfd banner will still render correctly. For inline templates, you must not insert any newline in the transcluded code (only newlines at end of the transcluded code are discarded by MediaWiki, but newlines outside noinclude sections are part of the transclusion and thus not discarded if the noinclude section for the Tfd is at top on a separate line).
The Tfd doc also indicates placing the Tfd in a noninclude section, but if there's alrayd one at end (the standard for docs and other usage tracking categories, or protection categories), you can place it directly in it and don't need to add another noinclude section that just clutters the code. Make things simple: the transcluded code (possibly in includeonly if it cannot be rendered directly without parameters or outside some namespaces), then a single noinclude section with the doc transclusion. normal categories should also be part of the doc subpage (if there's one) . PP tracking templates should be in the noinclude section too. Conditional tracking categories for errors , or warnings, or deprecation or for tracking works to do in pages using some unchecked combinations in parameter values (for cleaning up pages using the templates possibly incorrectly) will be directly in the code section. licence/copyright templates should also be in the doc subpage (this is rarely needed in templates, and just liek with images, these are in separate description pages, here the doc subpage for templates). verdy_p (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Verdy p: I'm not challenging you over the newline which you seem to keep arguing over. That was an error on my part, and I wouldn't have reverted if you has just removed it. You are not providing any reason for avioding two noinclude sections by putting the tfd at the bottom, and in doing so, you are violating instructions that have been in place since 2004Pppery (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You interpret this doc which suggest this. Unneeded code cluttering for a template that will only generate a very short string that should remain at top and the banner just below it (not hidden at all). There's absolutely no interest in splitting it in two noincludes, that will generate two giant boxes and making the generated small string almost unnoticeable. These were suggestions to help both viewers and editors with the simplest syntax and the smallest code that keeps the template performants. Grouping noincludes has always been highly recommanded everywhere to help editors. verdy_p (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interpreting anything. How can you read step one of WP:TFD#Listing a template to suggest the tfd tag belongs at the bottom, instead of the top which it clearly states. Grouping noincludes has always been highly recommanded everywhere to help editors.[citation needed] What makes you say that? If you wish to change that fact and suggest noincluded tfd tags should be put at the bottom, the proper place to take that concern would be Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Pppery (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT at the bottom but just at top above the doc where it is extremely visible (because the generated transclusion is just small a single string. The notice banner is still at top, not at bottom of the template page. It is highly visible there and there's no cluttering of existing transcluded code womewhere in the middle of the line where we must decode the line to locate it. this solution is also what generates the smallest and most efficient code (without even needing complex and inefficient hacks , and frequently not working, in those banners). Keep things simple on Wikipedia! (this is a general recommendation, Wikipedia is not intended to be edited only by specialists and code hackers). verdy_p (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Verdy p: Yes, it is not at the bottom, but in the middle. No difference. It's still not at the top. It's still violating the instructions. My arguments still stand. Pppery (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Violating??? An extreme word for something that is not even a policy but a collection of mostly undiscussed) suggestions trying to exhibit some use cases (and forgetting others). This doc page is a real mess (constantly modified by many without any form of reflexion) and the obscure parameter names and values added there are in fact not even needed. A first priority goal of Wikipedia is still "keep things simple" (for more participants): the Tfd template is supposed to help attract more participants but the way it is cocument is compleltely going to the reverse direction. A perfect example of things NOT to do on Wikipedia (with complexity added for EVERYONE and even for the server itself). We should better discuss about how to promote discussions and use the sitewide or interwiki notifications and how to look to these discussions: the Tfd template should post a link somewhere in community page, and if needed some addon tools or extensions developed. Code cluttering is definitely not the best option (notably when it is not even needed like here!) verdy_p (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to revise the instructions so that TfD notices do not end up appearing in articles. Our readers do not give a damn about this stuff, and it's not right to disturb their reading with claptrap that no one cares about but editors. It's fine if TfD notices appear in transclusions of templates that are never used in mainspace. I fixed this myself about a year ago, but someone reverted me claiming that it was terribly important that TfD notices show up in articles so that more editors can see and respond to the TfD. But that's dubious, for the reason I just gave, and because a flood of input at TfD is rarely constructive – people unfamiliar with TfD have a strong tendency to insert WP:AADD "reasons", and to panic about even the suggestion of a merge much less a subst-and-delete. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a large-scale community discussion. I'd have to think about it, but at first glance, I can't think of a better way to increase the criticism that deletion processes like TfD function like cabals than to remove TfD notices from articles and insulate ourselves further from outside opinions. ~ Rob13Talk 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot freely insert tfd templates within such templates that are NOT only used to generate contents displayed on pages. These templates are highly used in #if/#switch/ or to generate links to subpagenames. They do not support any addition of custom boxes and HTML/SSS. And they are used on so many pages (through other complex templates) that such thing would completely pollute the articles with multiple inclusions of the banner occuring at unexpected random places. All inline tempaltes that generate simple strings used to directly to create links or perform computations must be kept clean after transclusion. There are much enough places to display the Tfd notices, and all interested users already receive notifications of changes (because these unexpected changes with added formatting are already know to break many pages). The Tfd is also just a suggestion, not a decision, and for thius reason it should not impact existing usages (the Tfd request may finally be rejected). Code cluttering must be absolutely minimized and the impact of their insertion on existing usage must remain completely void. verdy_p (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (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).
Current time templates
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).
Most of these templates can be substituted by just one parser function: #time. Others can be substituted with the #time function and the #expr function.Wetitpig0 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all A few templates of similar names, such as ((CURRENTYEAR)), are implemented as magic words, so it might make sense to expect that these use that format too. Also, ((TODAY)) is much clearer than ((#time:j F Y)) to people who don't know the somewhat obscure syntax of the #time parser function. Pppery (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ((#time)) parser function is already here, and it's also formal wiki markup. Therefore, there isn't a problem of obscure syntax. Wetitpig0 (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is obscure is not the #time template name but the formating string (frequently misused) with obscure letters (and people from various cultures will atempt to change these according to their locale preferences, not working correctly on this English wiki. These templates are simple to use, have coherent names, they are really compact and easy to understand, and fast as is (even if internally they use #time). Many people don't understand how to use #time correctly and in the visual editor #time just clutters with too many unnecessary parameters to specify. There's no parameter needed at all for the CURRENTXXXX templates (in capitals only) that are self-descriptive. Their name is coherent also with the few magic words that have always existed in MediaWiki and their returned format is also coherent. verdy_p (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Besides breaking historical versions of pages by deleting this - these are useful for displaying only the piece of information requested in a way that is easy to use. No complaint if someone wants to update them to display the exact same data using a different mechanism. — xaosfluxTalk 04:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all CURRENTXXX templates (those in capitals only) In addition CURRRENTXXX templates use the XXX templates by filling the default values completely. The XXX templates do not use the same defaults (only the year is required, other defaults are set on January 1 (at midday exactly, not 00:00, so that the returned value for dates only are exact integers) and NOT the current month, current day, current hour, current minute, current second. These CURRENTXXX simplify a lot the usage (they also help tracking pages pages on current time that are refreshed several times a day, separated from those that are preserved in Wikipedia caches for long as they don't depend on the date of rendering). The CURRENTXXX templates cannot be substituted in pages, but the XXX templates can be safely substituted by their static result. but may be the "Current hour", "Currentday" and "Currentmonth", may be replaced (their names and returned format are incoherent). "Plain now" and "Now" are obscure about what they return, as well as "Current date" vs. "TODAY". NEXTYEAR is frequently used to display calendars. It's avoiding several #expr and #time with obscure format, and is as simple to use as "CURRENTYEAR". verdy_p (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is a report at VPT about a breakage caused by the tagging of at least one of these templates. As pointed out above, even if they were redundant, templates like these should be kept so old versions of pages render correctly. The documentation for ((currentmonth)) shows its valid purpose. As an aside, if anyone thinks about doing any work on date templates, please bear in mind that Module:Date and Module:Age implement most operations—I just haven't got around to doing much with them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: There is a fundamental tension between the desire to use a single function with many parameters to configure its action and multiple functions that need few or no parameters to do the same jobs. The Wizard of Oz gained his power by obscuring his technology from others. In the same way, my 40-odd years working with IT professionals leads me to believe that there is a similar mind-set among many. If they can keep their craft mysterious, they improve their status and become indispensable. I'm afraid that I view the desire to replace ((TODAY)) with ((#time:j F Y)) as exactly that same behaviour. I can assure you that it is far easier to teach someone to use the former than the latter. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per RexxS.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per all the reasons given above. I think it is snowing heavily. Wetitpig0, please withdraw this nom so that this can be closed and we can get rid of the "template for deletion" notice everywhere this template is being used (my userpage looks like hell ever since this XfD started and I have to edit by hand the pre-formatted references that I use all the time). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A withdrawal is not necessary. This can just be snow closed. (Which I would do if I weren't involved) Pppery 15:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should just have closed it, but now that I have !voted, I guess I'm involved, too... --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2016 (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).