Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 15 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 10 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 05:36, 10 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< September 14 September 16 >

September 15

Template:Football clubs listed by honours won

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ 20:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football clubs listed by honours won (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template, which includes a majority of redlinks and unverifiable articles that are currently PROD'ed or AfD. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
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.

Template:Strikethrough

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Transcluded content is: "<s>{{{1}}}</s>". Redundant to just using the <s> tag directly; using the {{S}} alias is one character shorter, but the value of that is doubtful anyway. — Keφr 02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - what purpose does deleting this serve? Will < s> < / s> no longer work? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Avoiding unnecessary resource drain? Decreasing chance of hitting transclusion limits? (Also, using a template entails all sorts of syntax problems you do not have to worry about when using <s> directly — how do you strike a piece of text containing an equals sign?) — Keφr 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep replaces direct HTML use with wikicoding. Shouldn't we be avoiding HTML when writing wikies? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If I go back to <table> will that solve the complexity limit and make editors happy with all the new HTML? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk)
    • No, we should be using whichever syntax is the most understandable and convenient for a given purpose. If two syntaxes are equally convenient, we use the one which consumes fewer resources. If that means HTML, we use that. — Keφr 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • indifferent. my philosophy is that a good template should implement a specific function, so that the implementation can change with the result being the same. for example, if it is decided in some future version of HTML that the strikethrough tag is deprecated, we can replace the implementation with css (e.g., this which uses <span>...</span> instead). however, I suppose we could have the backend software do that instead, and view the stikethrough tag as being wikimarkup (like the ref/gallery/... tags) if that ever happens. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The HTML committee does not seem very keen on deprecating anything, so I think you need not worry here (<s> has been un-deprecated in HTML5, actually). — Keφr 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak subst and delete as redundant, though weak because it can be changed easier than the software handling of the s tag. —PC-XT+ 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to !vote straight delete, because I don't know of an instance where template syntax is preferable to tag syntax, (there are often rather too many curly braces,) and there are already so many uses of the tag that the template could only do so much. —PC-XT+ 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. People use it. I personally use it – probably just because I find it easier to remember and easier to understand (when reading the source) than the alternative (and I wasn't aware that it was exactly equivalent). If there is some technical reason that it needs to be deleted, then OK. Otherwise, why remove something that a substantial number of people find useful? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Will this break all extant uses of the strikethrough template if we delete it? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot will substitute it, first. I'll specify that in my !vote, though. —PC-XT+ 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Additional comment: However, I do highly support substituting all current transclusions and all future uses. In fact, I would even go as far as say that the substitution requirement should be added to the doc page, as well as create an error in the syntax if the template is not substituted (after all currently existing transclusions have been substituted.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: arguments against this are unconvincing. A handful or maybe a substantial number of (current and future) users will be affected by deletion; the number of users who will be affected by keeping the shortcut is exactly zero. Don't make things difficult for no reason. Ivanvector (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good template for those who are not HTML savvy, which is probably why it was made in the first place. If anything has changed, it's that there are a growing number of contributors who are not HTML savvy, so this template may grow ever more important and useful as time goes on. – Paine Ellsworth  07:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
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.

Template:Euphemisms

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 Plastikspork ―Œ 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

No page links to it and it does not seem to have practical use in a encyclopedia. Skronie (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ 00:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I second this renaming suggestion, if kept. —PC-XT+ 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
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.