Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 11



Template:Leamington F.C. squad

 * 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) 03:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Leamington F.C. squad

Not enough blue-link players to justify a navigational template... JMHamo (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NENAN. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Templates in Category:Consonant templates

 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)



I would like to merge all templates in the aforementioned category to Module:Features. I will merge them myself when a consensus is reached. Help is of course appreciated. (Can somebody find a way to collapse the list because it is too long?) Kc kennylau (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Keep as individual templates There's no reason to merge all of these. All that would do is make a lot more work for the servers whenever one has to be updated, for no benefit. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete (no transfer to Module) - Violates the template namespace policy as it is article content and belongs in the articles. Same applies to module space which is for back-end programming, not article content either. Both templates and the module make this extremely difficult for future editors to maintain and update. Also, "Features" is too unspecific a name to give this module anyway. Lots of things have "Features", why do consonants get to claim that Module name? --Netoholic @ 06:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete per Netoholic; and delete or rename Module:Features per the inappropriateness of the name per Netoholic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've suggested that TfD be formally expanded to cover deletion of modules at WT:TFD -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete per Netoholic. There is no reason why this article content should be locked into this list format as opposed to organic individualized text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note This is being relisted since the templates were never tagged, nor were the templates' authors notified of the discussion :) Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Template namespace: "The Template: namespace on Wikipedia contains templates that duplicate the same content across more than one page for consistent formatting, maintenance, and navigation." The content of these templates is duplicated across multiple articles. For example, Affricate is transcluded on 22 articles. No reason to subst and delete. Hyacinth (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the same guideline WP:TMPG says that "Templates should not be used to store article content. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." This is precisely the kind of usage that the guideline was meant to discourage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Navigation templates could be substituted and deleted, and most contain far more content then Template:Affricate. Presumably the guideline was precisely meant to discourage the entire content of an article being stored in a template, thereby making it less accessible and increasing server workload. Hyacinth (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that guideline meant to stop templates being used just to brake up articles and that have no wider usage? I would view this guideline to mean when the template content has only very limited use (in one or two articles) and has limited or no likely use in other articles. If you consider 'article content' in the broader sense then all templates with static content could be deleted for the same reason. KylieTastic (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought the sentence in the guideline was meant to discourage exactly this sort of thing. I seem to remember something similar was once done with lead paragraphs of alphabetic letter articles, and it was again with reference to this guideline when this was ultimately changed (see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 18). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline means exactly that. Article content (the words that we want people to be able to easily access and edit) should not be in template space because it makes it prohibitive to work with, especially for very new editors. It also makes it so one change that works on one article doesn't have to worry about other places its used. Templates for navigation and formatting are not something we want easy access too, and are things we want to ensure are the same across several articles. --Netoholic @ 05:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as individual templates as they are 'definitions' more than 'article content' - As templates they maintain a consistency in the articles that aids the overall clarity to the set of articles as a group. KylieTastic (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging into articles as text. That would be ridiculous.  I don't know anything about modules, so can't comment on that.  If it's centralized and transcluded into the articles, what difference would it make?  Would it be more or less accessible to editors?  — kwami (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * support merging into a single module and oppose merging into the articles as text. Frietjes (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The templates could be merged into one template (Template:Consonant), using the current titles as variables. Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be bad for performance, since whenever one was updated, any page that used any of them would have to be updated, and I don't see a benefit to it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: one question to consider, aside from the general matter of conformance to the guideline, is this: how important is it to keep these bits of wording synchronized across all these articles? Are they ever subject to much editing? Take Dental: its wording has not been changed ever since it was created in 2010, so the likelihood that merging it into the ten or so articles now would cause significant amounts of extra future work (i.e. editors having to update the ten articles rather than the central template, if they ever wanted to change it) is low. At the same time, is it really important, or even always beneficial, for the texts to be kept in sync across all articles? Again, take Dental: it points out that "dental" may actually mean a range of different things when applied to different sounds ("dental" fricatives are usully interdental, while "dental" plosives are usually denti-alveolar). So, is it really good that each of the articles in question has the same text describing it vaguely as "articulated with the tongue at either the upper or lower teeth, or both"; wouldn't it be better if each article described specifically what that individual sound is pronounced like? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and independently: strongly oppose change into module, and oppose merger into a single template with parameters. Each of these templates represents a single, static chunk of text. There is nothing about them that requires any calculations or conditional distinctions, so no work to do for a module, and there is no significant overlap of text shared between them, so no advantage about a parametrized template. Either of these would be nothing more than arbitrary useless technical complications of something that is perfectly simple. Classic case of a solution in search of a problem. Also, a parametrized template is much harder to edit than a plain one, and a module would essentially mean making editing for a normal user impossible, which is something that can't be justified in any way here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason no one ever really changes these is exactly because they are stuck in template-land. That is why we have a guideline against article content, because few editors can ever manage to take the step to even find where the text is, and they are nervous about changing it as a template. I'll also add that these templates are all in violation of Citing sources policy, as they have no citations to back them up. --Netoholic @  05:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Several of these have very poor or very bad template names. Your example of dental is just that, a very bad name. It has absolutely no descriptiveness to the average user, since it has nothing to do with teeth. It is not a dentistry or dentition template. All of these should be renamed to add a prefix if they are kept (such as vocative-dental ) For the same reason that "feature" is a very bad module name, these are in several instances bad names. implosive has nothing to do with implosions. oral is not about the medical/anatomical "oral". palatal is not related to gastronomy. nasal is not a pharyngeal medical/anatomical template. voiceless is not about laryngitis. Etc.  -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't quite agree with you there. "dental" consonants have exactly as much to do with teeth as, say, dental surgery: both are things that are physically done at and involving the teeth. Same for all the others you cite. The physical fact may not be quite as easy to see for the non-expert, but it's certainly not misleading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On consideration, I'll clarify my position into an unambiguous subst and delete, as per the guideline. Don't see any real advantage that would justify overriding the guideline here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 15 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.