Template:2004 Summer Olympics Argentina men's football team roster
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).
Delete all as per nom, these templates aren't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 12:23, 18 February 2023 (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:List of aqueous ions
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 no consensus. to delete, but there may be consensus to move it out of template space. Please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere! Or, renominate in the future if there is still desire to delete the template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into articleKeep as data repository, consider (evaluate) content & RS differences. DePiep (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 'Keep' . Per YBG 03:23 below, well-maintained data to be used & reused in multiple places & formats (in current article table, in current article image-into-template). Could need a Move as documentation. Example: this overview. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination or Merge per DePiep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per @DePiep:. My !vote for merge is conditioned on having the merged list table rely on the underlying data page in template space. That way the periodic table picture can be replaced by template calls, ensuring that the two tables are always in synch. As currently constituted, an editor can change the list table, making it disagree with the periodic table until and unless someone else comes along and uploads a new graphic. Further, there is no easy way to validate that the two are in synch without a tedious element-by-element comparison. Try spending a few minutes for yourself to see if you can verify whether there are differences between the two tables. YBG (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From this case: Keep as being documentation/background data (move under template name ...?). As YBG describes, such tough data overviews are very helpful in keeping the article presentations synch and consistend (data curation). Good example: ((List of oxidation states of the elements)) and ((Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state)) both are used to upgrade data quality & sourcing, while their data (content values) are reused throughout e.g. in infoboxes.
For this template: whether the article table is read (automated) or c/p from data central repository, that repository is useful because also the (now imaged) periodic table has the same data, which could also be read from the same, well maintained, repository. DePiep (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 13:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was actively editing the article, the list seemed to change every week or two. Some of these edits would not have caused the periodic table to change, but many of them would, and there was no easy way to check to see if the periodic table needed to be updated.
Both the template and the subtemplate depend on the same underlying data, so they are guaranteed to be kept in synch.
Apart from using two templates based on the same underlying data, it is very hard to keep the two tables in synch.
Note: The graphic PT uses 1 or 2 colors per element from 8 colors total. The template PT uses 2 or 3 colors per element from 5 colors total. I prefer the latter because it makes a clear distinction between orangish positive cations and blueish negative anions, and also a clear difference between simple anions/cations with dark colors in the upper left quarter and (hydr)oxyaniond/(hydr)oxycations with light colors in the lower right three-quarters. Both the 1-or-2-of-8 scheme and the 2-or-3-of-5 scheme can be implemented either as a graphic or as a template. The editor who created the graphic chose one scheme; the editor (me) who developed the templates chose another. I don't remember how hard we tried for consensus.
There are two reasons why the template is not currently used in the article:
When the list template ((List of aqueous ions)) was inserted in the article it was reverted. The primary objection was that the template made it harder to edit the underlying data. If memory serves, only one editor strongly objected to the template, but his objection was very strong and no other editor was willing to challenge his WP:OWNership.
Also, including both ((List of aqueous ions)) and ((List of aqueous ions/periodic table)) makes the article to exceed wikitext complexity limits. I tried unsuccessfully to overcome this. I still think it is possible, but I have not had the time or energy to figure out how.
Thank you YBG for that detailed answer! If indeed the data is needed for future updates, but the template itself seems to not be wanted, I think the best solution would be to move the page to a sub-page of either the project page of WP:WikiProject Elements or to your user sub-page. Both solutions would keep the data and let whatever future usages available to it. Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I think I must not have made myself clear - that’s the problem with going on and on. Without this system of templates, I’m not sure there is an easy way of keeping the list table and the periodic table display in synch. I am arguing for the retention of the data and the template system. YBG (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understood you. Moving it to a sub page of either your user page or the project page does not hinder that. But as it stands, this is an unused template so it fails at the sole purpose of what a template is (which is being trasncluded). If you just want a data source, then that's fine, but that is outside the template namespace. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
move to project space. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2023 (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:United States Football League graphical timeline
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).
Only one transclusion, so subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple pages where this could plausibly go (for example, the pages of the individual teams of the USFL in a section/sub-section on the history of the league itself), so it makes no sense to delete now. Substituting the template (and adding attribution) will render this job unnecessarily complicated when we have to re-create it, should we want to incorporate this content into multiple articles. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subst per nomination. Until there is a use on other articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete after substitution. thankfully this is only used on one page. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one current use of this is questionable at best, since the image violates MOS:COLOUR and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, which says that the team history should be described through text not images. As such, even if there were other articles where it could be added, it shouldn't be, due to the blatant MOS violations. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2023 (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).
