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).
Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both This is a much more complex situation than it looks – the developers are involved, see T287997. What seems to have happened is that there was useful functionality (with respect to table backgrounds and mouse hover) which was included into the site functionality by mistake, but because it was useful, started being used. The functionality was widely used, and then (because it was an accident rather than intentionally included in the software) ended up breaking at some point, and some people made templates to try to recreate it.
It seems uncontroversial that having highlight-on-hover behaviour is useful for at least some tables – generally speaking, tables that are being used to hold tabular data (as opposed to being used for some other purpose) benefit from it. As such, we either need to merge it into the main "wikitable" CSS class, or else split "wikitable" into two (together with WP:MOS guidelines as to when to use each version). Creating a template to do the same work via TemplateStyles and editing it onto every page indiviually is a clever short-term workaround, but a bad long-term solution to the problem – we'll end up with a range of different methods of row-highlighting tables and it'll be harder to move over to a coherent system once the software starts working again.
It's quite plausible that the situation will be fixed by changes to MediaWiki itself; however, if a short-term solution is desirable before then, it should surely be done via site CSS rather than via editing a template onto every page individually, and thus neither of the templates under discussion should really exist. (It is possible that we'll want "Wikipedia's own" data table CSS class with row highlighting, rather than using one which was incidentally part of MediaWiki, in order to be able to optimise it for usage on an encyclopedia; but in that case, we can do a one-time replacement of the CSS class name on articles using a bot, which has to be better than adding a template to every page and then removing the template again once the CSS is fixed properly.) --ais523 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Let's not Merge into MediaWiki:Common.css and delete both. WP:TemplateStyles are sufficient to support whatever is going on with the relevant templates and should always be preferred to Common.css for the general rationale behind TemplateStyles (see prior link) as well as my project to remove Common.css styles. Common.css should be reserved exclusively for modifications to site chrome.
The functionality was widely used is an incorrect assessment. It was used by some 300 pages or so. Widely used would be much more than that. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The functionality was used on many more than 300 pages (with many uses being indirect via templates); see Timeshifter's comment at the end of this archived VPT discussion. (There are at least 1000 uses: over 300 direct, over 100 via ((Static row numbers table)), and over 600 via ((Kommunestyre table)).) It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia, including the ones that don't currently use it, which is a reason to add it to the global CSS rather than placing it on every page individually. --ais523 23:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
It probably should be used on almost every table on Wikipedia I don't think this is supported solely by the fact that essentially one user has added this class/styles to these 300 some odd pages +- template links. There remains no reason to add this to all tables (all wikitable tables I presume, for obvious reasons like ((infobox)) opposing its general use), and if you think there is, you may submit the patch to the developers that does so. There remain sufficiently many cases where it should not be employed, so I anticipate it being shot down for that reason alone (because Wikimedians are bad at using tables as tables). This is an excellent use case for TemplateStyles. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify: my second choice would be to merge the templates with each other, rather than to keep both as separate templates. --ais523 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Normally, merging templates implies that we create one template which has the functionality of both of the original templates; the basic question about the merge, therefore, is "are there cases where we'd also want a template that does less, or could all situations where we'd want to use either be able to use an improved template that has the functionality of both?". You might want to recommend a particular functionality for the merged template (e.g. that it's based primarily on ((import-blanktable))'s code), but as it is, your bolded recommendation and your comment with your reasoning don't match each other. --ais523 23:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
OK. The most advanced tables, in my opinion, are the automatically updated scrolling tables discussed at Help:Table#Scrolling. They have a white background due to ((import-blanktable)). They are listed at Category:Automatically updated COVID-19 pandemic table templates. They are used, for example, in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory. Nearly all the other data tables in that article also use ((import-blanktable)). I have seen those data tables there with and without the white background. They are more readable with the white background, especially the less bright one's monitor brightness setting is set at. I don't think the functionality should be tied to wikitable. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clear merge of the templates. These are doing the same thing. My preference would be to support to end up with the title at Template:Row hover highlight. I would not reference mw-datatable as the above task would have been avoided if we were using our own classes. Secondly, I would generally support restricting row hovers to wikitable class tables (perhaps with some name row-hover). --Izno (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not referencemw-datatable
Yeah, that's meant just as a legacy redirect. — Guarapiranga☎ 23:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:12TeamBracket-reseed
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 as completely redundant. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Deleteslow
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. A clear WP:SNOW deletion. JBW (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion tag template for a deletion process that does not exist - there is no process that results in pages being deleted after 3 days "unless they are revised" on the English Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This user is cremating template for processes that do not exist and is creating work for other editors cleaning up after them. If this continues they should really get blocked from creating new templates. Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user has now been blocked. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It could be mistaken for a real process; successful use of this template would probably result in an out of process deletion. 82.132.186.65 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion G3 and G5AKK700 04:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 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:Starship flights/suborbital
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 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:PopulationData.net
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 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Antigonadotropic effects of estradiol
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 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Absolute activities of tibolone and metabolites
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 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Letters with bar
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).
Comment Looks like these need procedural and tech check. -DePiep (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. "as discussed" not found. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This whole thing looks a deliberately disruptive spoof. There has been no discussion and therefore no result and no deletion. WP:DISRUPTIVE. Close as nonsense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This nomination was by a new [today] editor, who should be blocked without wasting WP:ANI discussion time since they are clearly WP:NOTHERE.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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).