Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moscow University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is just a bare linking template at the end of the day. Izno (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I may disagree with templatecat at times this template is definitely useless without the category. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2020 (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:Moscow University Professor

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moscow University Professor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not add any value above and beyond linking these simply where appropriate. Izno (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Izno! I do not quite understand your actions. First, you remove from the template algorithm that significant part of the code that provided the necessary categorization depending on the template parameters. After deleting the most significant part of the template, you assign a template to delete, because the template does not perform any significant functions. Eraevsky (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the categorization per WP:TEMPLATECAT, having added the category to all relevant pages. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if a template is assigned for deletion, it should not be changed before this nominator. What Wikipedia rules do you rely on for such actions? Eraevsky (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:TEMPLATECAT? That was an action taken regardless of the fate of this template. Removing that part of the template makes the template much less useful. Usually at TFD, what is not allowed is removing the template entirely, not modifications which bring the template into accordance with our policies and guidelines. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I may disagree with templatecat at times this template is definitely useless without the category. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2020 (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:Click

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, I am not so sure how one discusses (un)deprecation for templates, but since the talk page has been inactive for years I figure TFD might be a way to get broader input. This template has been marked as deprecated since 2009 on the grounds that it is redundant to the File: markup (User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/sandbox6 shows a comparison of the markups). If that is the case it should probably be bot-replaced with the File: markup and then deleted as redundant. If this is not the case - say, if there are uses not covered by the File: markup - then it should probably be un-deprecated. I see there have been some no-consensus TFDs here years ago, for many of the arguments it's not clear if they could be addressed by a bot-directed replacement - to my understanding, we've done mass template replacements by bots many times in the recent past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You can choose to advertise this at VPT, I had to noinclude the deletion tag as it broke rendering across a wide variety of pages. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is really deprecated it should be deleted and that would be what TFD is for. Thanks for noincludeing the template QEDK I had forgotten to do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with image syntax and delete. Comparing the syntax of the template vs the non-template syntax:
[[File:<Name>|<Size>|link=<Link>|<Caption>]]

{{Click|image=<Name>|size=<Size>|link=<Link>|title=<Caption>}}

Template code: [[File:{{{image|No image.svg}}}{{#if: {{{size|}}} | {{!}}{{{size|}} }}|link={{{link|Main Page}}}|{{{title|{{{link}}}}}}]] (I removed from the code the parameters marked as deprecated).

From this you can see that the template does nothing extra (and not that it matters, but is even a few characters longer). Looking at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax you can see that there are more parameters that can be used in the image syntax, which isn't supported by the template (including the accessibility important |alt=). Maintaining this image wrapper seems pointless (please ping me if there is any valid reason I missed). --Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gonnym. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete After some simple modifications this should be ready for substitution. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with image syntax, subst and delete per Gonnym and Trialpears. I'd like to note that, looking through the transclusions, this is mainly only used in userpages and drafts. (please WP:PING when replying) –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 00:26, 17 January 2020 (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:Camp Lazlo

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Camp Lazlo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too little content to navigate. Note that one article is a redirect to the main article and another is a redirect with no meaningful content about that topic in a list article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:04, 12 January 2020 (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).

Module:ATA

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 Keep for now. No prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:ATA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by partial blocks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary keep until we've figured out how partial blocks will be used. There is an obvious difference between a block and this module, the module only applies to your edits and you don't need to be an admin to apply it, while partial blocks require you to be an admin. And from what I know self-requested blocks are not an entirely uncontroversial practice.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also fairly certain that partial blocks have a limit of the number of pages you can be blocked from. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: That is correct. 10 pages is the max limit. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given solely the fact that partial blocks have a fairly small limit to the number of pages the user can be blocked from, I'd say that this not the right time. Keep without prejudice to future renom if/when partial blocks changes in some meaningful fashion to allow more pages to be blocked. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside, I am also fairly certain that I've seen some chatter about "self-blocking" from pages, where a user could stop himself from contributing to certain pages, but of course that is not implemented except in various Javascript and apparently Lua community implementations. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2020 (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).