Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 7



Template:Politics of Swiss cantons

 * 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 2018 May 15. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Politics_of_Swiss_cantons
 * 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:Style-nt

 * 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. Near-unanimous consensus.Other similar templates and/or modules may be discussed at new TFD(s). (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Inhibits consistent formatting. Template namespace states "Templates help maintain consistent formatting and aid navigation between articles." Creating a template that alters heading format makes articles that use it have formatting that is inconsistent with other articles. Also, although "Template namespace" only refers to navigation between articles, navigation within an article is equally important. Nonstandard heading format makes it impossible for readers to use their familiarity with Wikipedia heading formats to determine whether or not a heading is a subheading of another heading, or not. This makes the context of statements harder to determine and can change the meaning of statements. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Style-nt
 * Style-nt

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Use of the word inhibits is clearly a deliberate choice to negatively impact on this discussion. The template inhibits nothing; on the contrary, it enhances. This nomination is completely nonsensical. It is perfectly clear what is a heading/subheading and what is not, and, I would argue, even more clear when using this template than the default. Eric   Corbett  12:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Replace the opening wording with "Gloriously makes uniquely special heading formats amazingly simple and easy for everyone", and see if the !votes change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The template has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clear delete. We don't make templates to skirt the site-wide styles. It is inconsistent with user expectation and in that regard poor user interface design. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's arrant nonsense, as you ought to know. Articles using this style have been passing FA and GA for at least the last nine years. Eric   Corbett  14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One might equally argue that it is using the default site-wide css styles that results in poor user interface design. Eric   Corbett  14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That topic could be brought up at the village pump. clpo13(talk) 18:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there's supposedly something wrong with the site-wide styles (and there sometimes has been) that's something for the community to decide to rectify, though these discussions more often happen at Mediawiki talk:Common.css and (if likely to impact many articles) at WP:VPTECH. Also, FA and GA do not our writing and coding standards. They exist to assess whether an article's coverage of a topic rises to pre-existing overall quality expectations tied closely to the core content policies, i.e. whether they  with them.  FAs and GAs  quality, they don't  it.  And most of them are only very slowly updated to comply with site-wide changes, due to general (and sometimes particular editor) resistance to editing an FA at all for fear of it ending up at WP:FAR. Years-old FAs are never an excuse to do something sub-par, because they are snapshots of an assessment that happened long ago under different standards, not exemplars of current standards (except perhaps with regard to overall quality of English-language writing to present information). HTML and CSS coding is not assessed as part of FA or GA, and neither assess MoS compliance at all except for some key matters.  I'm hard-pressed to find any FA anywhere that doesn't have at least some MoS problems, because no one checks them for full MoS compliance in the course of WP:FAC.  But this isn't really an MoS matter, anyway.  What's at issue here is a broader consensus on how WP is structured and how that structure is coded (the consensus of how we've been doing it for over a decade and a half, not a set of line-item rules trying to cover every possible eventuality). There is no MoS line-item about using CSS wrappers to change the output of HTML headings (or any of 100+ other HTML elements); rather, there's the fact that we have millions of articles and they do not do this, except for ones where a single editor is doing something divergent to suit his personal preferences.
 * delete, no need to purposely create inconsistency. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not the template that creates what you call inconsistency, whether purposely or not. Eric   Corbett  14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to be necessary to provide a demonstration that deleting this template will achieve absolutely nothing, as can be seen at the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine article. All this template does is to simplify what would otherwise be some rather tedious HTML. Eric   Corbett  14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One might reasonably construe a consensus to delete this template as a consensus to remove that style at such articles. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The rationale for deleting the template is that divergent heading markup is undesirable, so just replacing the template with equivalent HTML and CSS (or another template) would be WP:GAMING. Simple example: If I create a template to use CSS to change the background of Batman-related articles to a faded &gt;POW!&lt; graphic in imitation of comic books and the original TV series, and TFD deletes this because our articles shouldn't look like that, it's not going to go over well if I just manually make the same or a similar change with non-templated code.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and discourage Eric Corbett from making similar idiosyncratic style edits in other ways, as he says above he is willing and able to do; see his pointy edit. The template is used only in fewer than 100 articles, where Eric swapped it in for his previous hack in the last two days, including by over 50 edits (like this one) using AWB!  This is an irresponsible use of AWB that he should be responsible for helping to undo these; and his previous Template:H3 similarly needs to be expunged.  In the short term, both templates should be changed to do nothing, so that the articles will go back to normal default and consistent styling. Dicklyon (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And just how would you suggest "discouraging" me? Eric   Corbett  14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe words will work? Maybe not... Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Removal of AWB permissions is the usual result when editors using the automated tool ignore the objections of others to what they're doing, and react with "you can't stop me"-style defiance. But maybe Eric's just asking for clarification, in wording that accidentally reads like that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * weak delete I'm uncertain which way to go on this, but so far I'm inclined, if not to delete it, to at least deprecate its use in general.
 * Firstly there's the question of what it does. The name is cryptic (h3 at least indicated this) and there's no case for it made at Talk:, a link to where a need for it was recognised, and although there has now been some on-page documentation written for it, that's still not really explaining why it's needed.
 * This is a wiki. Default formatting should be achieved through the default wikitext, not through additional markup ("wiki" is from the Hawaiian for "quickly" and that's still a good principle to keep in mind). If the default behaviour isn't doing what's needed, then fix that, don't require each and every page editor to tag it with a magic shibboleth.
 * Finally, any formatting that tries to justify itself with an example like this, reliant on wrapping block-level items in a and applying pixel-units font sizing, is just doing HTML design wrongly. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not even valid markup, and we have no internal or user-facing reason to provide tools that encourage it and make it easy to insert in a zillion articles. And using pixel-based sizing is "user-hateful" in the modern Web.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without substitution, and remove the manually inserted version of the markup anywhere it's been used (since that's the equivalent of substitution), for all of the above reasons, and others. Another is that it's going to interfere with the ability of bots and other parsing tools to extract the article structure.  This follows in a long line of deleting similar templates for personal-preference CSS twiddling (I'm reminded in particular of templates that re-formatted block quotations as colored boxes with a darker line down the side, in imitation of the default style of a particular blog package, for example). WP:User CSS exists for a reason. Also, we already have simpler tools for suppressing level-3 and lower headings when it makes sense to do so for ToC length reasons. If there's some germ of a general interface improvement idea in this, that is severable from the "mess with headings in any way you can imagine" implementation at issue here, then it can be raised at Village Pump to see if people want it implemented, and how.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Module:Style-nt, the module this template uses, added to discussion. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The module should be deleted too. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete without substitution, and restore everything to the long lasting standard. Don't mess with automated parsing. Don't use the article space as some playground. Pldx1 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete without substitution and delete already existing substitutions as absurd and horrible idea. What next, pink text on black background in articles written by people that like this style? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Also Template:Hr-nt and Module:Hr are less-used and less-documented (perhaps obsolete) parts of his odd formatting scheme. Delete those, too. Also same with Template:H4 and Module:H4. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And Module:H3 &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2018 (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:Routes of navigable company Alien

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Advertisement, not a proper use of navbox. Renata (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Routes of navigable company Alien

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not a well-defined, cohesive scope for a navbox. Additionally, these topics are probably correctly mentioned on the company's page already, which is sufficient for navigation. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a suitable topic for a navbox.  -- wooden  superman  14:32, 9 May 2018 (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:End

 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:End with Template:!).
 * end

We don't need two distinct "end of table" templates. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or shim Template:!) so that imported tables from e.g. German Wikipedia still work. Otherwise they'll be a mess and editors won't necessarily know how to fix them. In a similar way, Template:End duplicates Template:s-end for technical reasons. Bermicourt (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - we probably don't need two but we have more than that, way more, S-end, Rail end, and I recall seeing more when responding to an edit request last year. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment end and s-end should properly fulfil different purposes.  This is because the various succession box templates are considered navigational content and thus are excluded from print in the PDFs and printed books. However, end can be used to end any table, thus that template cannot be excluded from print. However, s-end can be excluded without any negative repercussions. Greenshed (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I am not nominating s-end, which you seem to have done a good job at explaining the need for, but rather !), which can also be used to end any table, and thus is functionally identical. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. While we're mentioning other similar or identical templates, there is also end box. Greenshed (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A redirect to s-end, thus not meriting a separate mention. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * keep or possibly redirect. but, I hesitate to say redirect, because then some wiki-gnomes will start going through all the transclusions and change them to avoid perfectly harmless redirects. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (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).

Module:U.S. States

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Entirely redundant to Module:Data (note: Module:U.S. States/data is not nominated) &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * U.S. States
 * Delete as author. Module:Data did not exist at the time the nominated module was written. Now that it does, this module can go. It no longer has any significant uses anyway. -happy5214 03:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Module:Data isn't named too great. Module:Keyed values might be more descriptive of its intent. --Izno (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2018 (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:BibISBN

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) This is functionally equivalent to Cite doi/Cite pmid (which were deprecated following a massive RfC), except using a different kind of identifier. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BibISBN
 * delete per [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_7#Template:Cite_isbn/978012397825], we should really find a home for the deleted discussion at 'Template talk:cite isbn' which led to the deletion of all the cite isbn subpages [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_19#Orphaned_ISBN_templates]. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * keep. I find this very useful and time-saving when I'm creating articles by translation from German Wikipedia. And since neither Cite doi nor Cite pmid have been deleted, despite not having this extra advantage, it is not logical to delete this one. Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The two templates you're commenting on are entirely deleted save in name-only. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the clear precedent. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2018 (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).

Nation's Great Leaders Plot, Mount Herzl and associated nav template

 * 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. Template:Nation's Great Leaders Plot, Mount Herzl may be refunded shall the editors contacted by Izno show any interest. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  10:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC) This is basically a guide/map to individual graves in the Mt. Herzl cemetary. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The 'Navigation' template is just a container for the first template. Pepper Beast   (talk)  01:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nation's Great Leaders Plot, Mount Herzl
 * Navigation Nation's Great Leaders Plot, Mount Herzl


 * Delete the navbox. The other one strikes me as fine material for an appropriate article, presumably the article on the mount, if editors at that article think so. I'd drop a note on that talk page to see if anyone shows regarding that one. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2018 (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).