Template talk:Deprecated template

Category
Why is this template in Category:Redirect templates? It's not for use on a redirect page, is it? –RHolton ≡ – 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's a "soft" redirect. → A z a  Toth 18:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I suppose that makes sense. Thanks. –RHolton ≡ – 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions about the new Tdeprecated format
What is the advantage of categorizing deprecated templates by month? We'll just be left with a lot of monthly categories, possibly many only holding one or two templates.

How does one use the new format for templates that are replaced with non-template solutions? For example,. The old version allowed free text to describe replacements.  Pagra shtak  17:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Link the word deprecated, for those not familiar with it
Any objections to linking the word deprecated in this template? It would be helpful for those not familiar with the term. -- Zyxw 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've linked it to the category page (where I'll add a description in a moment), which should make it clear to inexperienced users what the term means, while also providing an explanation of the whole process – Gurch 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple replacements
I found this idiom somewhere that can be used when there are multiple candidates for replacing an old template:


 * , for when the arg is argled
 * , for when the bar is bargled


 * , for when the arg is argled
 * , for when the bar is bargled

— Ksero 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Modified above to show code and remove cat. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

vs. "old" parameter
Why is it necessary to have to type in the name of the template for the old parameter? I think that adding should be fine because the template will not be used anywhere but the template's page itself. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This template is used on the template page and (once orphaned) every page transcluding it. This shows users a message notifying them that the template is deprecated when they use it somewhere. If we only use, the user will get a message like "The template is deprecated" when they add it to George W. Bush. — {admin} Pathoschild 03:16:52, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambox look
The Tdeprecated/sandbox has an Ambox implementation: Conrad T. Pino 10:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

However the div structure in the implementation is buggy and fails with Ambox use. See Tdeprecated/testcases for failure examples. NOT READY FOR PRODUCTION! Conrad T. Pino 11:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that Ambox is for article message boxes, not for template message boxes :) —Ms2ger (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish link
could you please add the turkish link? --> tr:Şablon:Geçersizş --78.180.58.116 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Convert to ambox
Rather than using a hand-hacked table, use an ambox directly. New code:



Just drop the lot in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ambox is supposed to be used in articles, not elsewhere. The current version is fine and shouldn't be amboxed. Nihiltres { t .l } 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do'h. I meant messagebox. Still, removing request until there's been more input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just gave this template a major overhaul. I upgraded it to use the new mbox that automatically changes style depending on what kind of page it is shown on. And I fixed lots and lots of other things in the code. And I of course tested it in the /sandbox before I deployed it, since this was a tricky update.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
I just spent about ten minutes trying to determine if this template is deprecated or not, and I'm still not sure. Could we add a bit at the very top of the page, saying Below is an example of this template; this page is not really deprecated or Yes, this deprecation template is itself deprecated? JamesLucas (" " / +) 16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe. This template itself is not deprecated. But using it without the second parameter is deprecated. Thus at the top of the page it shows a warning about that, which is confusing. And you are right, we should clarify that at the top of its documentation. I'll fix that.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks David. JamesLucas (" " / +) 20:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed image
I changed the stylized exclamation point image to one that, IMHO, is more in keeping with current trends. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this template really appear in the main name space
The documentation for this template says that the box style changes depending on which type of page the template appears. I'm flabbergasted. The casual reader doesn't need to see our dirty laundry. Washing dirty laundry in public reflect an imperfect strategic approach. IMHO, it would be better to place the article in a hidden category. Then the problem could be addressed in a more systematic way. Thanks of reading this. Seems I just spreading joy all over today.10:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, every reader is a potential editor. In addition, it helps drawing attention. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Or put it in documentation?
Could the documentation describe whether this template should or should not be put in the /doc-page? My first guess: if the template is still in used, it should be in the /doc (which is in the ) -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, Tdeprecated should not be put on the documentation page, but right in front of the template it is used upon. If that template is still in use on more than a few pages, it is advisable to add noinclude tags. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please put this in this templates doc. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why am I getting the impression, from the beginning in fact, that you never had a good look at the documentation page for this template? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you got that impression. Maybe something in your browser.
 * I do know that I have read & used this template, and that further on the process got mixed up with the TfD-process, unannounced. For example, if I apply this template, in which Categories will be the template? Why do I see dropable templates in other, similar-named Categories, but not my template? And if I have found out (after a subst: probably), why a diff with TfD-deletion? Why no reference to the TfD-merge, which is quite parallel to deprecation?
 * Then please re-read my initial question: why not put it in /doc?
 * Just don't suggest I'm stupid. It could be that the /doc is not clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which categories this template sorts in is specified in the documentation. What are "dropable" templates, and which is "your" template? Why no reference to Tfd-merge? Because merging is relevant with templates that are in use, while this template is to be used when a template is being deprecated.

Process missing parallels with TfD
I used this template ([|eg here]), but it is very confusing. I do not even know in which category the templates ends up. Why is the template not in Category:Templates for deletion (which has dozens of pages)? Also, there is no connection with the grand WP:TfD (Templates for Discussion)-policy, which includes merging. I would like the process of deprecation to be merged with the TfD-process, both by technics and by documentation. -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Make work with parameters
This template did not work correctly with the parameters 1, 2, 4, and 5, or alternatively parameters old and new. To my surprise. To make it work with them correctly, took some thinking and some trial and error, see these edits. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Parameters 4, and 5 have been removed from the code. Use old and new. Documentation updated. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this template really need an icon?
Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 18:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It would keep it to aware about icon if you would without it would be confusing. ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  18:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The icon we had a week ago was fine, and the new one is fine also. WP:NOTBROKEN applies. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Dated maintenance categories
Dated maintenance categories really don't make sense here as can be seen at Category:Deprecated templates with most of the categories only having a single member. If no one has any objections I will remove this function and only have one category for them all. Also posting a message at WT:WPT considering the low traffic nature of this page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem here. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Trialpears (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
recently move this template from "Deprecated template" to just "Deprecated". While I don't have any real issues with this I really think it should be done properly or not at all. We should update redirect links in the documentation, Deprecated inline, all the categorize and probably some other links. I also don't think this template should be used on things other than templates (and modules) making the rename quite pointless. --Trialpears (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should be moved back. for stuff in other namespaces we have Template:Historical, and in response the suggested other uses that they added to the documentation: We do not keep depreciated modules around as they are not called directly in articles so editors will not be running across them, and I have no idea what the suggested use on files is supposed to accomplish. The template is coded so that it only works properly on template pages (e.g. it automatically adds a "Template:" prefix onto any names inputted to it) so that would also need fixing, but the usage on other namespaces seems pointless at best. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the mover didn't come to discuss I have now reverted. --Trialpears (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)