Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 5

November 5

Template:Archive top purple

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 relisted on 2020 November 16. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Archive_top_purple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Infobox Norway kommune

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 relisted on 2020 November 12. Izno (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox_Norway_kommune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Russia national football team matches

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. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Russia national football team matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox. Basically just a recreation of {{Soviet Union national football team matches}}. Plus, the only match from the post-1991 Russia national team is already in the main navbox. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep this one, delete the other one The Soviet Union navbox has no potential to be expanded, but this one does, plus this one contains all the other's content. We have lots of navboxes like these in Category:National football team matches navigational boxes. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: The USSR one came first though (and WAY long ago too). The Soviet Union's matches navbox has 8 matches, while the Russia has one. We usually only do match navboxes for national teams with four matches or more. If they have lower, we fit them into the main navbox. The Soviet Union and modern Russia are completely different national teams (just like Yugoslavia/Serbia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic & Slovakia). KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - none of these apply to the Russian team, they are Soviet. If you remove them the navbox serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 15:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per GiantSnowman. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (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).

Template:No talkback

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Template:No talkback (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With just 27 transclusions (which can be Subst:) in over eight years, some of which are for no-longer active, or blocked, editors, this has obviously not archived community take up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete completely agree - what's more there is a high risk of this template being misused by editors who don't wish to receive Twinklised warning templates. It's clear that there are other ways to deal with this problem than silent templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The template only affects talkbacks, not warning templates or other notifications. This, that and the other (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• It is regrettable that WT:TW wasn't notified of this discussion; I have done so.

  I don't agree with the nominator's rationale; the template contains complex and unintuitive wiki markup, and substitution and deletion will make it unreasonably difficult for any future editors to take advantage of this functionality. The whole raison d'etre of templates is to make it easier to insert specific chunks of wiki markup of your page. The low use is interesting, but at the same time, it is clear that some users find it useful or have done so in the past. I would have been more sympathetic to a deletion rationale centering around the fact that talkbacks are largely obsolete due to the Ping mechanism. Having said all that, I don't have a strong opinion on the fate of this template. This, that and the other (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose subst This is not a template for which substing makes sense; the fact that is produces any output at all (as opposed to being blank like {{YesAutoSign}} is an implementation detail. That said, this template, and the code in Twinkle that supports it, appears to be complexity creep not warranted by its usage, so deletion makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Beside the point, but it is invisible, no? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Likewise fairly "meh" on the template. I disagree it's complexity creep — similar to Andy's other nomination of usertalkpage templates, if folks have a preference, why should they not be able to indicate it? This does have rather low usage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep example of a template which should be discussed elsewhere, not at TfD, especially in the first instance. Its prime usage is within Twinkle, so it would logically make sense to discuss it at Twinkle's talk, with its users, before just forcing through a deletion here. No evidence of it being a problematic template, it is being used as designed, and 27 transclusions / "low usage" alone is not a valid reason for deletion. Last I checked WMF didn't say they were struggling to pay for hard drives. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This page is part of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, the correct venue for discussing the merging or deletion of templates. While that parent page lists some exceptions, no exception is made for templates used by twinkle, nor any other individual tool. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

    Note I say "should", not "must". No procedural impropriety was alleged, and the point remains. If a template is solely used for a userscript, it's logically usually appropriate to gather thoughts at the script's talk first. Not all users/maintainers of Twinkle will see this. Likewise, as you've yourself said before, WP:TFD#REASONS is not a complete list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep A low number of transclusions is not a good reason for deletion. There's no shortage of disk space as ProcrastinatingReader said. – SD0001 (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2020 (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).