Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:07, 1 May 2014

April 20

Template:Tlb

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

Redirect to {{tl}} (no deletion needed). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. This formatting has no special relevance for a template linking, and it can be achieved with regular editing. tl templates should focus on links provided, not basic formatting. DePiep (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I did not know this existed. Its current use cases are very plausible, especially in template documentation area when one needs to differentiate between literal and syntactic text. The nominator's reason would be plausible in article space deletion but not in template space, where we deal with utilities. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and subst current transclusions. This is minimally used, and can be identically replaced by using {{tlg|bold=yes}}. VanIsaac_WS 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It's own documentation clearly explains what it's useful for. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used. It already uses that code; this is nothing but a routine shorthand wrapper to avoid geeky parameters; leave it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It confuses: not a self-link. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That comment confuses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you cleared &convinced all up for us. Nomination not changed. DePiep (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete per Vanisaac. |bold=yes can be omitted when used in the same tpl it links to. {{tl}} is not a substitute. — lfdder 12:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to {{tl}} and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • {{tl}} does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Then update {{tl}} or use/redirect to {{tlg}}. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • We actually have {{tlp}} but that prevents word-wrapping. (I don't know whose idea was this.) Anyway, we can merge tl and tlp too? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

        That's what I'd suggest. We don't need three templates doing basically the same. It only causes confusion by gaining close to nothing. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This !vote-thread says it all. I learn that some {{tlg}} exists and that is can solve everything (btw, the name for that is: meta-template). And there are other templates too, that do what you want but they are difficult to explain for some reason (aka: trawl & test the documentations yourself). I myself have never been able to find such a useful template from the set. I only know {{tl}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Do we really need a separate nomination for every single one of these damn things? --NYKevin 04:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May I refactor it, then? I was thinking of centralizing the discussion. I had the idea of a general discussion, with finer points in subsections. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, no refactoring. Closing admins have made a point out of grouped TfD's, and there is no super-guidance. I will not risk another "wrong place" argument by any admin. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted. Admins are less smart than you are. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxb

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

Redirect to {{tlx}} (no deletion needed). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. This pre-formatted template has little use in this set, and can be achieved in regular code. Formatting into bold does not serve a specific reason in template linking. DePiep (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I did not know this existed. Its current use cases are very plausible, especially in template documentation area when one needs to differentiate between literal and syntactic text. The nominator's reason would be plausible in article space deletion but not in template space, where we deal with utilities. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and subst current transclusions. This is minimally used, and can be identically replaced by using {{tlg|bold=yes|code=yes}}. VanIsaac_WS 00:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It's own documentation clearly explains what it's useful for. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used. It already uses that code; this is nothing but a routine shorthand wrapper to avoid geeky parameters; leave it. The fact that it would take something as geeky as {{tlg|bold=yes|code=yes}} to replicate this the functionality of {{tlxb}} is shining beacon of a reason to keep this template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It confuses. It is not a self-link. Why then? -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That comment confuses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you made this all clear to us then. Nomination kept. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete per Vanisaac. |bold=yes can be omitted when used in the same tpl it links to. {{tlx}} is not a substitute. — lfdder 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to {{tl}} and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • {{tl}} does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

    Then update {{tl}} or use/redirect to {{tlg}}. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxi

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

Redirect to {{tlx}} (no deletion). Cleanup long list of Template-linking templates. Formatting variants like this one are of little use. Italicising parameters is not meaningful format. DePiep (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete and replace. Virtually unused; all of its tranclusions except Talk:Sequoia sempervirens are a form of documentation, which become irrelevant regardless of whether it is redirected, deleted or substituted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral Whether italicizing parameters is meaningful or not depends on whether it is given any meaning, so to say that italicising parameters is not a meaningful format kind of doesn't make any sense. It is for example common for API documentation to italicize function parameters; see e.g. the fread documentation on MSDN. Other documentation on the other hand seems to use the reverse italicization, and italicizes only the function/command name, but not the parameters/arguments; see e.g. the git man pages on The Linux Kernel Archives.

Then whether it is used or not is another question. Maybe it is not used enough and could be removed or turned into a redirect template for that reason. —Kri (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

These are non-wiki examples, right? In wiki, we don't Italicise params. I never met that. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure you do, when they're variables themselves. It's for template documentation, as in: The syntax is {{Cite flyer|club name|location|date}}, and do not subst it. More detail below (e.g. about why this should really be using <var>...</var> not regular italics).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

? What are yo talking about? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I decline to explain it to you further.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete and subst current transclusions, like the others. This has only 8 transclusions, and can be identically replaced by using {{tlg|italic=yes|code=yes}}. VanIsaac_WS 00:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per the above templates with which it forms a group. Its own individual documentation could use improvement, but that's not a deletion rationale. I have no objection to its code being changed to use that noted by Vanisaac, though it would trigger an extra template call every time it's used. It already uses that code anyway. This and the others are just routing short-hand templates to get at long-winded template options of {{tlg}} without getting carpal tunnel and migraines. There is no need to hunt down and delete every template you don't personally want to use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. Actually, the use case of each formatting is different. I've never encountered a case where we meaningfully italicize all parameters wholesale but we do italicize part of them to distinguish between literal, syntactic mandatory and syntactic optional. And it isn't really part of team. We do not have a normal-text italic either, for the same reason. ({{Tli}} is used for a different purpose.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what "team" means here. Anyway, it's clear from the actual uses that it's being used to conveniently illustrate cases where we do in fact want to italicize the parameters wholesale, because they're all just example data. As I note below, this would arguably better be done with <var>...</var> or {{var}}, but that would complicate the template code. This entire series of templates are intended for use in writing template documentation. People don't need to concern themselves about how useful they could be or not be in any other context (like use in Wikipedia_talk pages, etc.). It's odd that one of them got picked up and used by a bot, but that's already old news and no longer happening, so back to business as usual, with them being used for what they were intended for. Creating convenience wrapper templates like this to avoid having to use strings of gobbledygook like {{tlg|italic=yes|code=yes}} again and again is routine and useful. There is no need for us to hunt down and terminate  ɖ∘¿¤þ  all templates that aren't popular yet but which still serve a clearly documented purpose and are used somewhat. (This template, but fixed to use <var> properly should be used much, much more than it has been, actually.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• you don't personally want to use? I wrote a different reason in the nomination. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• What does it mean when parameters are italicised? What is an author trying to convey? What is the difference with roman (upright) written parameters? I don't get that. Don't know that at WP. (That's the migraine part for me).-DePiep (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that depend on the context? Why not go look at how it's used? Personally not understanding what this is for and being confused by it for some reason, isn't a deletion rationale.  :-) To go over the reasons you specified in the nomination: Your desire to "cleanup" various templates simply because they're similar isn't a deletion rationale. There's no demonstrated need that they need to be "cleaned". Your assertion that all of these "formatting variants" are "of little use" is just an opinion, unsupported by anything. Except for one, they're not used in an overwhelmingly huge number of cases, but so what? Who cares? Your third claim, that basically it has no "meaningful" use case, is falsified by simply going and looking at how it's used. It's very, very obviously being used to italicized variable data, a common convention (and the default behavior of <var>...</var> (example) when those variable happen to coincide with unnamed template parameters, as they very often do. {{Tlxi}} should probably be re-coded to use that tag instead of purely typographic italics, but whatever. Honestly, I don't think anyone should have to spell this stuff out; you need to do the basic due diligence of spending 60 seconds or so to look and see how something is being used and how it's documented, before TfDing it on the basis that it supposedly has no use. Anyway, the gist of what I'm saying about this TfD applies to all of this short series of TfDs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Any "context" that explains examples? Does this context occur elsewhere in WP (again: I do not know of). Look at how it's used, you ask? No, it is not my job or homework to research usage to understand italicasion. I've seen templates. You still have to tell me what this means. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice attitude. No one has to do anything for you. You do not WP:OWN the template namespace and perhaps need to stop trying to delete everything you won't bother to spend a couple of minutes figuring out. The purpose and use-cases and syntax of these templates are not only well documented but have just above been personally re-explained to you, and if you still don't get it, that's a PEBKAC issue, not a problem with this or any of the related templates. So, please rethink. I don't care how many knee-jerk "deletes" there are here, not a single real reason has been given for deleting these templates. If someone wants to adjust them so their code is being pulled more efficiently from somewhere else, have at it, but the idea of replacing the efficient {{tlxi}} with a pain the <ahem> neck like {{tlg|italic=yes|code=yes}} is unworkable and amounts to a new rule against ever using italics here, since that's so much trouble no one would ever both again. I have no idea what the source is of your demanding hostility with regard to these and similar templates (and more importantly other editors, who use them), but it's not constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• What gives me migraines is the names of these templates. — lfdder 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's not a deletion argument; just create redirects like Template:Template example italic if you would like to actually use them. I'm skeptical anyone wants to type something that long; they're short for a reason, and there's no point trying to shoehorn the documentation into the template page name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Update – I tried to fix it to use <var>...</var>, but the underlying {{Tlg}} template nowikis that markup. It would have to be changed in Tlg itself. A good case can probably be made for that, since there is unlikely to be any case of Tlg outputting an italic parameter where it is not variable data being represented. Anyway, I documented Tlxi a little better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete per Vanisaac. — lfdder 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that Vanisaac provides no rationale, only a demand that something someone can actually remember and use like {{tlxi}} be replaced with a monstrosity like {{tlg|italic=yes|code=yes}} that no one will remember except him, I guess. Again, wrapper short hand templates like this are normal, routine things in template space and need not be deleted unless they present and actual problem that needs to be fixed as matter of policy or common sense, and that simply isn't the case here. All of these are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT arguments: "I don't see what this is for", "this is complexity I wouldn't use", "I don't like the name", "I like a longwinded version with multiple parameters better", "I'm mad that my rude demands are not being met", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The rationale, of course, is that all three of these are just hardcoding of parameters for another template. They literally add no functionality, and require edits to multiple templates in order to upgrade the {{tlg}} template. VanIsaac_WS 07:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to {{tl}} and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • {{tl}} does not accept parameters; this one does. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

    Then update {{tl}} or use/redirect to {{tlg}}. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting assertions, Patrick87, with nothing to back them up. They reduce ambiguity by marking up different aspects of code differently. Because they'd different, they're not redundant (pretty much by definition). Complexity is not an evil in and of itself. Tl, tlg, etc. do not need updates. These effective are redirects to tlg, except they feed it some parameters for particular effects like |italic=yes and |code=yes to get the desired effect. Simply redirecting them would strip these parameters out, yet they were called for a reason. Your position makes no sense at all, because tlg would not have these parameters if they were not intended to be used. The burden of proof is on you to explain to us why parameters in tlg must be forbidden, gain consensus at that template to remove them, then remove templates that are wrappers that call them. Using the TfD process to try to nuke templates because they use parameters of tlg that you don't like is essentially an abuse of process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

    First of all have a look at {{tlg}}'s history and check out who was involved in some major code refactoring/simplification, removal of unused/useless parameters, addition of potentially useful parameters, etc... Yeah, exactly, it was me! It was also me who made {{tlxi}} use {{tlg}} internally to improve and simplify the whole mess. So be assured: I know what I'm talking about!

    After that ask yourself one question: What's the real point of italicizing or bolding the template name? I doubt anybody ever uses it on purpose on discussion pages. There is only one style that really makes sense for templates (which is code style). Everything else is just some historical ballast someone though might get useful at some point and which resulted in the incredibly long list of Template-linking templates (wich is already a pretty well reduced listing!) we have nowadays and which nobody is longer able to remember not to speak of efficiently using them. If Tfd is the right process to get rid of the mostly redundant versions might be questioned. But it does not make my opinion on the Tfd (which I didn't start) questionable. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

    If you know so much about this, why do you think this was intended for use on discussion pages when it's clear from it's own documentation that it's intended for use in the expedient construction of template documentation? <sigh> "I worked on something to do with this once, therefore I know everything about it" isn't even valid reasoning about any subject. It's the fallacy of argument to authority.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

    Sorry, but how should anybody take your reasoning serious? You edited in the part of the documentation you're now referring to only after this Tfd was opened. And even then you state yourself that "The main reason to ever do this is in template documentation" suggesting that one normally shouldn't do it. And to begin with: Have you actually (at any point) checked transclusions of {{tlxi}}? It's virtually unused and the few transclusions which are more the questionable can be most easily replaced! What do you want to prove??? I'm done here... --Patrick87 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's entirely normal in every way to improve a page in response to an XfD; it's the most common way to moot a deletion argument. You can't seriously complain the the use of a template is poorly documented then complain that the documentation has been improved to fix that! There is no principle that a template has to be used X number of times to be kept. The fact that it was poorly documented is probably why it was not well-deployed yet. I do agree with what I take to be your conclusion that continue discussion on this is liable to be unproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tn

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

Redirect to {{tl}} (no deletion). Demo: compare {{tl}} and {{tl}}. See? The list of Template-linking templates is long and not completely intuitive. This one introduces an odd linking hiccup that is not needed or supported elsewhere. We do not need or use such extended link-clicks as this one provides. Even a single-letter template is clickable in regular form. (Deletion is not advisable. It has 12,000 transclusions and {{tl}} solves it nicely. Also, this is why I did not put the TfD tag in the template itself: no harm to warn for, after Redirect the existing links will be there virtually unchanged). DePiep (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect. Looks like the eccentric twin of {{tl}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Soft keep. If this were a new template, I'd have no qualms about deleting this guy. But it's been transcluded over 12,000 times. It seems like this has a pretty compelling usage scenario for some users, even if I don't necessarily see it. VanIsaac_WS 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • comment at lot of them, possibly the great majority, were added by ChzzBot_IV; posting AfC notifications with {{helpme}} in them. It hasn't posted for almost two years, so is no longer using the template and the messages are very stale, so the changes will be hardly noticed, and for that usage hardly matter (the {{helpme}} is there to be copied and pasted not clicked).--JohnBlackburne_deeds 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi. I do not feel the use case that Vanisaac says exists. It seems people have just used it instead of tl because there has been no real preferences. These two look totally similar and their similarity isn't functionally useful. If anything, tn is more useless because if someone right-click on it and issue a Copy Link Text command (provided that his browser have it) the copied result is useless without manual modification. This is not the case with tl. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You'll need to explain what you mean. In the interim, I have to observe that it is supposed to took as similar as possible to {{tl}}, and that its functional use is crystal clear from its documentation. No, people don't just use it interchangeably with {{tl}}, certainly not "because there is no real preference". {{Tn}} serves a specific WP:ACCESSIBILITY purpose, and is properly documented.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not find any advice in WP:ACCESS or in WCAG to enlarge the linktext this way. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not find a TfD rule that says a template must be deleted if it provide solutions to obvious accessibility problems, that people on the talk page of the template clearly indicate are solutions that are working for them, and refine them to work better, just because someone wants to play a WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:LAWYER game. There is no policy or principle here that solutions that have not already been explicitly demanded at WP:ACCESS or anywhere else are forbidden. It's an absurd notion. Let's just speak plainly here and get to the point: Do you actually have a valid deletion rationale at all? You haven't posted one yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "feeling" that the use case doesn't exist is flatly contradicted by the reality of 12,000 transclusions. If I just had my feelings to go on, I probably wouldn't keep this guy. The problem is that my feelings are just plain factually wrong. They are wrong many thousands of times over. Other editors use this template; they use it for a reason. I may not understand their reasoning or necessarily agree with it, but being an adult sometimes means just accepting things you don't understand and moving on. VanIsaac_WS 07:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, of course: Its rationale is quite clear, and makes sense. Not everyone has as good eyesight as you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No of course to be read nearby within a mile. Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And no of course within ten miles of WP:ACCESS. Or a hundred. What do you want to say? -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being obtuse in any way. The actual usable link portion of something lilke {{!}} is difficult to see and click on for many people. For some of it's hard to even tell that it is linked at all. This problem is totally obviated with this version: {{!}}. PS: I'm not sure what these distances are are you are mentioning or what "to be read nearby" means, etc. I think we're having some language barrier issues here. Maybe on more than one level. If you're not a regular template coder and documenter, I can perhaps see why these templates might not seem useful to you. That doesn't mean they're empirically not useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, that was put too rough by me. In my general comment below, I ask: does WP:ACCESS or W3C WCAG anywhere point to this solution? -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. If you cannot follow simple template discussions at en.wiki, I don't think en.wiki's TfD process is where you should be spending editing time (much of it not your own time, I might add). I don't mean that in mean way, it's just that your entire participation in these TfD threads has been a long string of complaints about how you don't/can't understand the templates, or their documentation, or what they are doing on the pages in which they are used, or the meaning of the careful re-explanations of them you've been given here, or how principles like accessibility might apply, or, now, even followup discussion, and you go on about what a pain all of it is for you. Well, your thrashing here is a disruption for others, too. Sorry. As for WP:ACCESS itself, I just answered that. You don't to ask the same person the same question three times in same thread in the same 24-hour period.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Designed for easier access to clickables for those who need it. – Paine Ellsworth  06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• subst and delete, same as {{tlg|braceinside=yes}}. How is this supposed to help with accessibility anyway? The difference is especially imperceptible when the link's been visited. If accessibility is your concern, why not just type out the link? Template:Some bloody template — lfdder 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: how is this access exactly? I understand that a single-character link has this issue. Still, I'd like to read through WP:ACCESS or W3C recommendations WCAG that actually advise to extend a linked text this way. I have not met this elsewhere (whithin or without WP). In references, WP uses a single character all fine (a non-spacing one even). -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Normal links have just the text being linked, including if it's just one character - not so much words but symbols, Chinese characters - especially on WP. If we expect readers to be able to use such links then a template link decorated with {{ and }} around it should cause editors no problems. So delete; I wasn't sure at first but can now see no need for it and have seen no instances of it being used where {{tl}} wouldn't work as well.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you even read the template documentation? Or this discussion?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. And before we forget: why not link both pairs of accolades. To me, that single pair is the pain for the eye. -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Every rationale you provide here keeps coming down to things you claim are a "pain" for you personally. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This new complaint also has nothing to do with this TfD discussion; see the talk page of that template for a consensus discussion that arrived at the style that template uses. If you disagree with that discussion's conclusion there, take it up there, don't try to overrule that consensus by asking the WP:OTHERPARENT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, the markup you object to is still going to be there, just as {{tlg|braceinside=yes}}. So, even if this were the place to complain about that markup, it still not a valid reason to delete this template, because there's already consensus to work that functionality into the meta-template that this one calls to perform that function! Sheesh. These are the most pointless TfDs I've seen in years, and amount to "I hate short-hand templates, and want everyone to have to type out long-form {{Templates|with=endless|blathery=parameters|no=one|can=remember}}". I'm not going to respond here any longer. If these close somehow in favor of deletion despite no actionable rationales actually being given, I'll see you at WP:DRV.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to {{tl}} and clean up later. All the fancy styling does not really add any useful functionality but only adds to unnecessary complexity, ambiguity and redundancy. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • All of these oppose rationales, from Patrick87 on up, have been addressed in the TfD immediately above this one, and are covered at WP:AADD. PS: Next time, please do this as a multi-template nomination instead of a redundant mess like this where the same arguments have to be rehashed again and again for each of the closely-related templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, in spite of validity of many of your arguments, I still think the benefit that this template offers is marginal in comparison with {{tl}}. Furthermore, I urge you not to lose temper with User:DePiep. I myself do not agree with many of his practices but why lose temper when silence has the same effect? After all, it is quite obvious how this TfD will end. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It should end as "no consensus" or "keep", since the deletion rationales are mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It all comes down to nothing but a desire to force people to write {{tlg|something=something|somethingelse=somethingelse}}, I've already forgotten what exactly, instead of something easy like {{tlxi}} or {{tn}}. (I looked it up again; it's {{tlg|braceinside=yes}} for {{tn}} and {{tlg|italic=yes|code=yes}} for {{tlxi}}.) That is not a deletion rationale. A marginal benefit is still a benefit, BTW. DePiep? Yeah, okay. I have little patience for people who disrupt process to play WP:ICANTHEARYOU games, but I guess responding to them just encourages more of the same.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

        Civility self-clarification: My "this is stupid" edit summary was in reference to me continuing to try to re-explain why IDONTLIKE it rationales aren't valid when the point has already been made and thus all I'm doing is generating more text for the closer to go through without adding to the pro/con arguments. I don't mean that any particular point by anyone else is stupid. I think some of them are confused and some misguided, but it's not a brain-power failure. Reasonable people can disagree.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Giant aircraft

Template:Giant aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is just an arbitrary list with no criteria, and is better served by a Category for large aircraft, if at all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Subjective inclusion criteria that have varied over time (whaat was 'giant' in 1914 is tiny in 2014!). No need for a navbox or a category here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete highly subjective. Arsenikk 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Rewrite to only include the very largest of each category, and rename to {{large aircraft}} per the rewriting of large aircraft that occurred recently at WT:AVIATION -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The rewriting of Large aircraft includes only historical lists of largest types for each main class of aircraft, and is not suited to templating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, only include the largest that would be "1" aircraft of each type. Quite templatable. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Steelpillow is wise. In reality there isn't a neat list of "giant aircraft", and the list juxtaposes lots of different aircraft for no reason other than that they were "big" in some sense. bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox speedway team

Template:Infobox speedway team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox british speedway team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox speedway team with Template:Infobox british speedway team.
The "British" template appears to be a fork of the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment is this about bicycling or motorcycling? Either way, the final infobox should clarify which it is, or if it covers both forms of speedway. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • These refer to motorcycle speedway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The name should probably be changed to Template:Infobox motorcycle speedway team, since there are 4 possible meanings to speedway racing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• merge Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Unnecessary fork. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete {{Infobox british speedway team}}, only merge the extra parameters if they are useful for more than a few articles.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:2012 K-League scorers

Template:2012 K-League scorers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 K-League assistors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Sawol (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Afd delete

Template:Afd delete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated; parameter of {{Afd top}} Eyesnore (pc) 02:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Linker

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

Unused, undocumented, unclear exactly what it's for but seems to be like Template:Ports (an un-needed portal box grouping template deleted in 2012) JohnBlackburne_deeds 00:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• delete, better to just generate the individual portal/project links individually. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)