Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 3

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animal anatomy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a nomination for deletion based on the result of this discussion. Epipelagic (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per linked discussion —PC-XT+ 02:25, 7 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was mark historical to preserve attribution of what could be the derivative work at {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists/row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Lua implementation of {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} could be considered a derivative work of this template. If it is, it should be kept for copyright reasons and just marked historical. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark Historical per Jackmcbarn —PC-XT+ 02:23, 7 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete and replace with other collapse templates like {{collapsible list}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List expand top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:List expand mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:List expand end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used (only 13 sets; just three articles) and overly complex; redundant to other collapse templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, generally redundant to {{collapsible list}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hide comment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used (only four transclusions) and redundant alternative to other collapse templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 3 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rewrite as a wrapper. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden section top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Relatively little used and redundant to other collapse templates; forked from {{Hidden archive top}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pigsonthewing: I take it you meant to nominate the template itself, not the /doc page? If so, merge to Template:Hidden archive top. The templates are very similar, so a merge shouldn't be difficult. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; sorry. Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This template isn't just used for archiving, in fact, I've never seen it used for archiving and most often I've seen it used (via the {{Hst}} redirect) to add a chunk of code to a discussion that may or may not be directly relevant. At best I would support merging Template:Hidden archive top into this template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is that use not redundant to, say, {{Collapse}} or {{Collapse top}}, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use case may be similar, but the formatting of the templates is different in each case. Different colors, different layout, different usage of wikitables and divs, just different. Even if they were all merged into a single meta template with an array of parameters that could be set for all of those things, templates like this would still need to exist as wrapper templates for backwards compatibility. There are currently 203 pages transcluding this template directly and 173 of them are using the redirect {{Hst}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of these templates should use tables. Formatting variation (if needed - I doubt it is) can be done through switches in a single template. 203 is a relatively trivial number of templates to SUBST: or otherwise replace; and certainly not high enough to warrant a separate template, nor a separate template design. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the slightly selfish reason that I use it extensively myself, including to hide things on my User page. It is a simple code, in contrast to many of the increasingly complex wikicodes being developed by the Wikipedia technocracy. When in doubt, keep it simple! Sionk (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sionk: It is no more complex than {{Collapse}} or {{Collapse top}}. Here is an example replacement which proves that, and demonstrates the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the default text of 'Hidden section top'. I don't understand the need to get rid of it, particularly because it isn't "little used". Sionk (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to fail the WP:ILIKEIT test. Also, {{Hidden archive top}} has 202 transclusions; {{Collapse top}} has 20,925. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I'm saying (and you must surely realise this) is that a "Hidden section" is not an "archive", it is simply something hidden from view. When anyone hides a large part of a User page or Talk page they are often doing it to ease navigation and legibility, not archiving it. To delete the "Hidden section" templates will create confusion. It fulfills a function in a straightforward and easily understandable manner. I can only speak from my own experience. Sionk (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate and convert to wrapper of {{Collapse top}}, as I think both fork and original are redundant, but these may be used as shorthands. It could be merged, deprecated or something, later. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After hearing further conversation, I have added support for deprecation to my !vote, rather than leaving it for later. —PC-XT+ 09:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not much reason to get rid of it. If anything it's a slightly borderless version of {{Collapse top}} Lor^Chat 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for removing this redundant template is the generic one, described in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation (although that's about Inofboxes, the same points apply). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or refactor to utilize a subtemplate or module with parameters. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consolidating all of these similar templates into a single template with a series of parameters and switches will inevitably break pages that use the template as they may exceed the transclusion limit size. Let's keep these types of templates that are likely to be on such pages to prevent this issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• convert to wrapper. In answer to the concern immediately above I can only imagine that happening to a handful, if any, in which case they'd be easy to find and fix. But the limit is pretty high so it seems unlikely. to be a problem.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest concern is transclusions from PERM, UAA, RFPP to the {{Admin dashboard}} which I've had to make adjustments to and fix twice for this issue upon request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these three acronymed pages appear to be using the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not directly, but I've seen them used in discussions on those pages, which means they will get transcluded in during those times. Also, since this is leaning towards merge, merging the content of this template into the other will bloat the other which is directly used. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then maybe mark it as deprecated, to discourage use. This will happen anyway to some extent as editors realise it's no longer a separate template and {{collapse top}} does everything needed. But it could be made more formal with a note in the documentation. When it's no longer being used all instances remaining can be substed and it can be turned into a redirect.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, making it into a deprecated wrapper might make more sense than merging. We don't need excess parameters. ekips39 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to {{collapse top}}, or something like that. Make it so that {{hst}} will be a redirect to {{collapse top}} and work the same way, whatever you call it. I don't see a big reason why the latter can't do everything that hst does; aside from the different colors, they look identical. It's quite different from {{hat}} because the latter has the warning of "this is an archive; do not modify", while {{hst}} is just for collapsed text. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to {{collapse top}} (or better yet, convert to wrapper [05:21 19 Dec]). I don't see why we need both of them, unless there's a good reason for different default text or colours. Both templates have relatively few parameters, so I also don't see why they would hit the transclusion limit (but would be happy to see a demonstration of how they do). ekips39 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to {{collapse top}}. There's no reason whatsoever why this should be a separate template, so far as I can tell from the discussion and the template's code. APerson (talk!) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with {{collapse top}}. The small differences in style and behind-the-scenes operation don't overcome the fact that these templates do the exact same thing and are therefore redundant:Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to wrapper for Collapse top or delete and replace with the same with roughly equal preference. I happen to think ILIKEIT (along with ITSUSEFULL) is an excellent argument for keeping a template if it can be kept as a simple wrapper. If Sionk finds it so useful they oppose deletion over it, I don't really mind keeping it for them - as long as it provides no significant maintenance overhead, which I don't believe it does as a wrapper. I'm not really fearing the max template expansion depth. It's currently up to 18, which is a lot, but not that much it's in much danger of hitting the maximum of 40. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, if someone wants to revive it in a different format, go for it! But, there is consensus to not keep this incarnation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; bad design (table for layout). I removed the only four instances; two by subst/ replacement and two which were overly-compex wrappers for simple external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but redo: I'd say that the template has a potential to be quite useful, but it should be rewritten properly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not required; <source>...</source> can be used instead. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn't have chunks of computer code in our articles that are so long they need to be collapsed. Source code examples should be kept short and to the point. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally true, but I've seen an article or two that had slightly longer code snippets in boxes collapsed by default, and they weren't out of place. Perhaps every rule has its exceptions. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but redo This template mostly saves the hassle of making a collapse box and setting the language when you want to hide a snippet of code. It might work better with some improvements though. Such as documentation. Lor^Chat 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no objection to later recreation. It is currently unused, and nobody seems to like what this template currently does. Both Dsimic and Lor seem to want to use it in the future if it were completely re-written, which should be fine, but then the re-writing should happen. Keeping this now, unchanged and unused, will not cause this template to be re-written, and someone is going to have to do it. I have no confidence someone will if it's currently unused and we just keep right now. This is the somewhat equivalent of the article speedy deletion criterion for blatant spam. If to become useful it has to be completely re-written, it should qualify for deletion. For this template to become useful, it should be completely re-written. That qualifies it for deletion to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently seen a few places in which this template would fit really nicely. Would it be helpful to put the template into use in its current state? Maybe that would motivate someone to do a rewrite. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't know. If there are very few use cases, then using a shorthand template isn't all that useful, and hiding content in an article seems like a bad idea in general - a footnote would be more fitting, but there might be exceptions I can't currently think of. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we actually have a real need for it. Sounds like <source>...</source> is good enough in almost every case, it appears that all this template does is hat the source code it would be used for. @Dsimic and Lor: could you demonstrate where this template would be useful right now, in its current or potential future state? I'd suggest just letting this go and building a new template for this purpose when actually required. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained, I've seen an article where this template would fit perfectly. However, on second thought, the fact I can't recall which article is that one, and the fact I haven't seen another similar article in over a month, really shows that this template might not deserve to be kept. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:43, 30 January 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused (I removed the only instance, from 7.5×54mm French). Content is </div></div> Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, already userfied. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, already userfied. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden multi-line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used wrapper for {{Hidden}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now. may be possible to add this feature directly to {{Hidden}}, but that will take some additional time and discussion. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical advice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used fork of {{collapse top}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? hmmm.. don't think so. I say keep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think what? That it's little-used (it has just 9 transclusions), or that it's a fork? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree keep Thanks for letting me know about its existence. Will now use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this appears to be more of a useful wrapper than a useless fork —PC-XT+ 10:08, 7 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsed2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used Unused variant of {{collapse}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, replaced it in Template:Countrymap and Joseph F. Smith. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparent duplicate of article Meghdad Mostafaei. No reason for it to be a template. Nick Number (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maxmostaf, I am responding to your question on my Talk page here. Unless I am missing something, the Meghdad Mostafaei article does not make any use of the MEGHDAD template, so it will not be affected if the template is deleted. Why did you create this template? Nick Number (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article content in template space, possibly speedily as a test —PC-XT+ 02:32, 7 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kettering Town F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to Jonesy702's workspace. He seems to be actively working on creating and improving many FC Squad pages at the moment, and userfication of this may encourage him to turn another redlink or two into blue and make the navbox useful. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is also worth noting that Kettering Town does not play in a fully professional league and as such should not have a squad template, so the current redlinks if made in to articles, would probably fail WP:NFOOTBALL and be deleted anyway. JMHamo (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not enough useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.