Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jackmcbarn (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 24 September 2014 (→Template:Strikethrough: subst and delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

September 15

Template:Football clubs listed by honours won

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)

• Delete as serves no useful purpose as a navigation box, being mainly redlinks and non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 15:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Strikethrough

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)

• Subst and delete Not serving any useful purpose.

Template:Euphemisms

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)

• Does not seem very popular indeed, but WP:EUPHEMISM is a part of the MOS, and a rather agreeable one. However, this is such a trivial problem that fixing the article on the spot takes less time than affixing a maintenance tag. Delete. — Keφr 04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tone}} or {{copyedit}} -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• If kept, suggest rename to something like "Cleanup-euphemisms" (or maybe "Contains euphemisms", "Too many euphemisms", etc) as "Template:Euphemisms" likely to be read as being a template about euphemisms rather than as a warning/cleanup template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this renaming suggestion, if kept. —PC-XT+ 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)