Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

April 5

Red and green table highlights

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).

The result of the discussion was merge into {{yes}} and {{no}} accordingly (and leave redirects), ensuring that any uses that have parameters are adequately dealt with. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:No (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Available (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Contained (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose redirecting Template:Bad to Template:No.

Propose redirecting (or deleting if consensus is in favor) Template:Available and Template:Contained to Template:Yes

Compare the appearances:

Template	Total transclusions	No-parameter transclusions
Bad	192	3 (user-space)
No	3981	n/a (2,648)
Available	107	1 (mainspace)
Contained	105	4 (2 mainspace, 2 userspace)
Yes	5407	n/a (3,849)

Note: The transclusions on Template:Table cell templates/doc were not included in the above transclusion counts.

The number of no-parameter transclusions is the most relevant number for this request. It shows that the proposed templates are very rarely used to display the default text, which makes them functional duplicates of the more popular highlighting templates. This also means the redirect (or deletion) can be very easily implemented, only replacing the text on a handful of pages. {{bad}} has a slightly different color than {{no}} (#faa vs. #F99), but they were the same in the template's history. This color change to {{bad}} was made by Telpardec to lighten the background for better contrast ratio with non-black foreground. With consensus, this change could be implemented to {{no}} as part of the merging.

I was in a hurry when I originally made this request, and made a few formatting mistakes which Pppery nicely corrected; the relevant discussion is collapsed below. Edit: Revised and broadened. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about fixing formatting with Pppery

@Pppery: Oh! It was my edit to {{Bad}} that caused the erroneous merge template formatting! Thanks for fixing it; I'll definitely avoid making such an error in the future, now that I'm aware of it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A large number of unrelated things went wrong there leading to the mess.

Your edit to {{bad}} broke the template by making it include the open table tag that it shouldn't.
{{bad}} and {{no}} don't work when used directly, but only when inside of tables (that's what produced the style="background: #faa; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " nonsense. )
You can't include two open curly brackets in a row in the middle of a template without escaping them (\{{2} in the regex did that). (that's what made the template not subst)
Your signature has a displayed vertical bar in it. As it says in the relevant section of your preferences, Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; it can otherwise cause templates to fail., which only didn't cause a huge wikimarkup mess because of the previous problem.
Table markup can't be used inside templates without escaping it. (You didn't try to do this, I had to tackle this issue when resolving the problem)

{{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: How do you escape curly brackets in templates? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{((}} or <nowiki>{{</nowiki>, although in my case it was easier to rewrite the regex to avoid the bad combination. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~@Pppery: I note my sig is now substed. Did you change that? Does having it substed have any benefits over transclusion? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)~~ Never mind, thanks for the policy link though. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed nothing, although there is a guideline against using templates in signatures. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: your search is specific to article space. There are three userpages using {{bad}} without parameters. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was about to correct that. I was sorting out my sig business. But those can easily be changed, and the template obviously duplicates the functionality of {{no}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Okay, just wanted to give a heads-up on reviewing the problems with my previous edits. #1 and #2 were obvious, and could have been gleaned from more closely reviewing {{bad}} and {{no}} (I especially shouldn't have deleted that <noinclude> in {{bad}}, though its not a highly-transcluded template (~200 or so transclusions), so fortunately minimal harm was done. If the template more transclusions, I would have done testcases before requesting edit.) For #3, I'll be sure to keep the {{ in mind when crafting future regex; I only use that scheme instead of \{\{ because it's slightly more efficient on some regex engines. Regarding #4, I missed that in my preferences, it has since been corrected. #5 seemed weird at first but it makes sense now (obviously, it's because of the | being interpreted as pipes.) I appreciate your help greatly. In theory, I am not this scattered normally. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only fitting that I !vote after fixing and discussing this nomination. Merge as unnecessary template forks. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looks like duplicate functionality, per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment. No vote from me, because my red-green colorblindness makes it foolish for me to vote on color issues like this. (1) {{Available}} uses 90ff90 while {{Contained}} uses 99ff99. It seems a small enough difference that it shouldn't matter. Do normal people see any differences between the two? (2) What is the hex for {{Yes}}? It includes style="background:#9F9, but I don't see any standard six-digit hexes, and I checked two invoked modules (Noinclude and Yesno) without finding any color references. (3) {{Yes}} invokes a lot of modules, but Noinclude is the only one I can find, and I don't see any template transclusions, aside from the merge. Are all those templates and modules transcluded/invoked via the merge template, or do they come somewhere else that I'm missing? Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9F9 = 99FF99 - see Web_colors#Shorthand_hexadecimal_form; available and contained look about the same; I think they probably are from the Tfd template mainly Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't know they could be abbreviated like that. I didn't ask about Bad and No, because I can see the difference between them. And thank you for the responses on the other two. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge, the colours are similar enough that a merge shouldn't be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2018 (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).