The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
"Current squad" template for a team that has been dissolved back in February. BRDude70 ( talk) 23:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes ( talk) 20:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by {{ adjacent stations}} with Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes ( talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The template can be deleted because it is unused – per User:Sage (Wiki Ed) – Special:Diff/1092950452. — andrybak ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line Frietjes ( talk) 15:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line and Module:Adjacent stations/Barcelona–Vallès Line Frietjes ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
unused, probably replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Delaware and Hudson Railway Frietjes ( talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Nottingham Express Transit Frietjes ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ soft redirect}} * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions. I have adjusted the parent template to take a parameter, which does the same thing that this set of subpages does, so they are no longer needed. Note: I nominated these before I had seen the nomination of the parent template below. If the parent template is kept, these subpages can still be deleted. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 June 20. ✗ plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The template alleges it is utilized to avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles. The unnecessary server load claim is unsubstantiated, and what it calls avoiding disruption really is an excuse to store article text in single-use templates to make it more difficult to edit the content, in direct contravention of WP:TG, and in a clear sign of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articlesis a perfectly legitimate reason to use templates, particularly when those do not need to be edited frequently (for example, Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these, and what other minor edits tend to happen are not really hampered by the use of a template) and even more so when they are really large (for example, Template:2012 Summer Olympics calendar comes in at nearly 40 kb (!!) of wikitext; and the 2021 election template comes it at well over 100 kb (!!!)). Also "keep" as the nominator does not present an accurate reading of the guideline (a mere guideline, on top of that) they are citing:
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.. So, beyond the fact that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia; the guideline itself makes clear that exceptions are possible. In this case, both on WP:KISS principles (since most editors will not need to edit those, such large templates being put directly in articles probably does more harm than good); and on the grounds that moving such tables out of mainspace is very likely to reduce disruption and vandalism to them (most vandalism is in article space, not in template space; and most vandals are not familiar with Wikipedia namespaces and template transclusion...). A template explaining this seems therefore perfectly appropriate. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement?1) It's article content. Article content goes in article space. This is almost a QED. 2) Most of these templates are not complicated. Long, but not complicated. 3) It disrupts the ability to find templates that actually are used correctly for their purpose. 4) It disrupts some editing tools.
only need infrequent (if any) editingIt's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can. You don't get to choose who those people are. That's why what you have said is being likened to WP:OWNership. Izno ( talk) 23:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"only need infrequent (if any) editing" It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can.so, what? Someone who is able to find the template definitively can edit the template when needed; and all the others don't have a huge amount of wikitext to parse through when they don't need to. This is consistent with the WP:KISS principle, making Wikipedia easier to edit even for those who are not aware of it's technical difficulties. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
for ease of editing[of the affected articles, not of the tables themselves, as I have been very consistently saying]. Section transclusion requires more technical know-how (it's not as simple as plopping down a
{{template}}
) and is more prone to vandalism and disruption (since disruption to the article it's transcluded from is more likely than for an equivalent template).
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist, then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands – look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions, and decide whether they should be subst'ed into the original article or whether using them as transclusions is preferable (in which case they aren't substantially different from the other pages in the Template: namespace, so we may as well remove this template from them). So what we'd logically want to do is to delete the template, then put a cleanup tag on every page that used it. We could save a lot of trouble by just editing the template into the cleanup tag, though – it should contain a summary of the relevant policy and an explanation of when these fragments should be in template namespace and when they should be WP:substed into the article. The main problem with this is that it's unclear what the relevant guidelines for this actually should be – this might need wider community input to come to a consensus on, rather than being confined to a single TfD.
Even if we decide that all the pages tagged with the template should exist, though, the template itself has serious wording issues; even though the policy is unclear, the current wording of the template definitely seems to be misrepresenting it (the "server load" argument seems specious, "lightweight transclusion" isn't defined and is probably misleading, and the only instruction is a WP:BOLD violation). The pages it's tagged with don't seem significantly different from everything else in the Template: namespace in terms of, e.g., what considerations are needed when editing them, so if we do keep them all, we should probably just remove this template from them and delete it. So either way, it makes sense to delete the template eventually; it's simply a matter of whether we want to do something about the pages tagged with it (and/or with subst'ed versions of it) first. -- ais523 15:21, 15 June 2022 ( U T C)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions, no main article, only one link in the navbox body. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
"Current squad" template for a team that has been dissolved back in February. BRDude70 ( talk) 23:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes ( talk) 20:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by {{ adjacent stations}} with Module:Adjacent stations/Oslo Metro Frietjes ( talk) 20:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The template can be deleted because it is unused – per User:Sage (Wiki Ed) – Special:Diff/1092950452. — andrybak ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line Frietjes ( talk) 15:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Llobregat–Anoia Line and Module:Adjacent stations/Barcelona–Vallès Line Frietjes ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
unused, probably replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Delaware and Hudson Railway Frietjes ( talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Nottingham Express Transit Frietjes ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ soft redirect}} * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions. I have adjusted the parent template to take a parameter, which does the same thing that this set of subpages does, so they are no longer needed. Note: I nominated these before I had seen the nomination of the parent template below. If the parent template is kept, these subpages can still be deleted. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 June 20. ✗ plicit 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The template alleges it is utilized to avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articles. The unnecessary server load claim is unsubstantiated, and what it calls avoiding disruption really is an excuse to store article text in single-use templates to make it more difficult to edit the content, in direct contravention of WP:TG, and in a clear sign of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
avoid disruption and unnecessary server load while editing heavy articlesis a perfectly legitimate reason to use templates, particularly when those do not need to be edited frequently (for example, Template:2021 Canadian federal election synopsis documents the final results of an election - it is extremely unlikely there is any good-faith reason to go substantially messing with these, and what other minor edits tend to happen are not really hampered by the use of a template) and even more so when they are really large (for example, Template:2012 Summer Olympics calendar comes in at nearly 40 kb (!!) of wikitext; and the 2021 election template comes it at well over 100 kb (!!!)). Also "keep" as the nominator does not present an accurate reading of the guideline (a mere guideline, on top of that) they are citing:
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.. So, beyond the fact that there are no firm rules on Wikipedia; the guideline itself makes clear that exceptions are possible. In this case, both on WP:KISS principles (since most editors will not need to edit those, such large templates being put directly in articles probably does more harm than good); and on the grounds that moving such tables out of mainspace is very likely to reduce disruption and vandalism to them (most vandalism is in article space, not in template space; and most vandals are not familiar with Wikipedia namespaces and template transclusion...). A template explaining this seems therefore perfectly appropriate. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
How would sticking a 100+ kb template which doesn't need to be edited in an article be an improvement?1) It's article content. Article content goes in article space. This is almost a QED. 2) Most of these templates are not complicated. Long, but not complicated. 3) It disrupts the ability to find templates that actually are used correctly for their purpose. 4) It disrupts some editing tools.
only need infrequent (if any) editingIt's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can. You don't get to choose who those people are. That's why what you have said is being likened to WP:OWNership. Izno ( talk) 23:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"only need infrequent (if any) editing" It's not about whether it's needed, it's about whether someone who is able, can.so, what? Someone who is able to find the template definitively can edit the template when needed; and all the others don't have a huge amount of wikitext to parse through when they don't need to. This is consistent with the WP:KISS principle, making Wikipedia easier to edit even for those who are not aware of it's technical difficulties. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
for ease of editing[of the affected articles, not of the tables themselves, as I have been very consistently saying]. Section transclusion requires more technical know-how (it's not as simple as plopping down a
{{template}}
) and is more prone to vandalism and disruption (since disruption to the article it's transcluded from is more likely than for an equivalent template).
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
06:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
If consensus agrees with me that many of the pages with which this template is correctly tagged shouldn't exist, then we effectively have a cleanup/maintenance task on our hands – look at all the page fragments tagged with this template or its substed versions, and decide whether they should be subst'ed into the original article or whether using them as transclusions is preferable (in which case they aren't substantially different from the other pages in the Template: namespace, so we may as well remove this template from them). So what we'd logically want to do is to delete the template, then put a cleanup tag on every page that used it. We could save a lot of trouble by just editing the template into the cleanup tag, though – it should contain a summary of the relevant policy and an explanation of when these fragments should be in template namespace and when they should be WP:substed into the article. The main problem with this is that it's unclear what the relevant guidelines for this actually should be – this might need wider community input to come to a consensus on, rather than being confined to a single TfD.
Even if we decide that all the pages tagged with the template should exist, though, the template itself has serious wording issues; even though the policy is unclear, the current wording of the template definitely seems to be misrepresenting it (the "server load" argument seems specious, "lightweight transclusion" isn't defined and is probably misleading, and the only instruction is a WP:BOLD violation). The pages it's tagged with don't seem significantly different from everything else in the Template: namespace in terms of, e.g., what considerations are needed when editing them, so if we do keep them all, we should probably just remove this template from them and delete it. So either way, it makes sense to delete the template eventually; it's simply a matter of whether we want to do something about the pages tagged with it (and/or with subst'ed versions of it) first. -- ais523 15:21, 15 June 2022 ( U T C)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions, no main article, only one link in the navbox body. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)