Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 27



Template:All-rounder's Test triple

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Reasonable nom, no opposition. Soft delete; WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Fails navbox purpose. No accompanying article establishes that the threshold set is standard. Störm  (talk)  15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All-rounder's Test triple
 * 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:9TeamBracket-PBA-wc

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC) No longer used. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 9TeamBracket-PBA-wc
 * 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:Sortfrac

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Only used 60 times since its creation a decade ago. There might be some use for this, but clearly people haven't preferred it, perhaps instead using sort, and frac, separately, where fractions have been required in a table setting. Izno (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sortfrac
 * Comment: Sort is not supposed to be used; can transclusions of this template be converted to data-sort-value? An example of such a conversion would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Sort is using the recommend method under the hood these days, so I do not know if the documentation correctly reflects its current deprecated status. See also the talk page on that point.
 * Like with Template:Sort, uses of this template could be converted if the underlying structure of the page could be guaranteed. There may be other attributes assigned to the cells in which this template is placed that would stop a trivial subst but which a bot could probably make work out (seeing as there are so few uses, it may be preferable to hand compute all the uses of sort and then make the 'substitution' without the use of a bot).
 * For a page with, the replacement would probably be  ; for   it would be  . I anticipate most would be the former sort, but not all. (Fundamentally this is why sort is so long in the tooth for removal; no-one has sorted out (er) a bot to do something like this.) --Izno (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lastly, it could potentially be coded similar to the yes family of templates, but that is rough on cases where you want to include other attributes for the table cell (for whatever reason; that particular family is inhibiting the use of just this particular case where I'd like to add a custom sort value, for example). --Izno (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm buying 's detailed reasoning on this, as it's clearly based on some investigation. But I'm not certain whether Izno is advising a particular approach or just laying out options. I think the manual, selective replacement course is the best option I see thus far, as only 60 pages are involved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My response is a discussion of options. I prefer indeed deletion. :) --Izno (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2020 (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:Text-shadow

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Consensus is that the markup is sufficiently complex to warrant keeping the template. There was also a suggestion that these templates be consolidated into a single "Template:Text effects" -- this may be a useful path to try for editors interested in consolidation. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC) I am not a fan of text shadow as it can tend toward unusable and think it should be removed on Wikipedia. That said, this template does nothing the simple CSS can not do where necessary and should accordingly be deleted. I would prefer pure deletion, but I'll leave subst and delete on the table. Izno (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Text-shadow
 * Keep: I came to see this deletion discussion because of the fact that I was looking for page and border color templates. this could be useful on Wikisource projects. So instead of deleting these templates, we can migrate them to Wikisource? thanks Queer Eco feminist [they/them/their] 17:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikisource can do as it pleases. The point being made is that this template does nothing the simple CSS related to text-shadow cannot do; and where it is needed in template form, you should use WP:TemplateStyles instead. --Izno (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bah, mis-ping. --Izno (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still believe that, if nothing is controversial about these templates then having different templates that would cater to different needs shouldn't be an issue. thanks Queer Eco feminist [they/them/their] 05:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if nothing is controversial about these I would suggest text shadow is generally inaccessible, which I alluded to in my nomination. It is not a style that should be perpetuated. --Izno (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I thought this was in pretty wide use, but apparently not. I made a template that used it to outline text and make it show up better against a background, but it looks like it's been modified to use... a subpage of the template with an entire stylesheet. This doesn't seem like it'd be simpler to someone who didn't understand CSS; one of the purposes of wiki markup is that it doesn't require you to understand stylesheets. I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way. jp×g 01:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the nominator's preference for not using text shadow is not a valid reason for removing the template. In addition, new users may have trouble using a CSS, so this would be a great solution for someone to use if they don't know the programming language. It seems the low amount of transclusions does not really matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My preference is not just my preference. Text-shadow is inevitably inaccessible except in certain cases (and I can guarantee the average user is not going to be able to assess where it is accessible). We should accordingly not encourage use of this via template. You need to know about as much bare CSS as you do to use this template, so that seems like a non-rationale. Low transclusion count is regularly used to assess whether the template is generally desirable, so yes, it does matter (though less than the other considerations). --Izno (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like it's in use on about 50 pages. Also provides a useful simplification and documentation for editors that don't know HTML and CSS. The HTML code for text shadow is not particularly intuitive or easy to memorize.  – Novem Linguae  (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclined to keep, since it's a simple wrapper for complex markup, and it provides text effects in standardized, valid code instead of encouraging individuals to use deprecated elements and iffy vendor-specific CSS extensions. However, I would rather see this and some other effects put into a "Template:Text effects" with parameter options, and (importantly!) a namespace test that prevents it doing anything in mainspace, as we did with to stop it generating "giant quotation marks" decoration in articles.  I would see this text effects templates as similar to Template:Box, in being a place to centralize a bunch of effects that users who are not CSS experts are apt to get wrong if they try to do it manually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:50, 31 December 2020 (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).

Victoria s-line left templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 - F ASTILY   00:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 30 deprecated templates in Melbourne/Victoria replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Melbourne and Module:Adjacent stations/V/Line. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * S-line/Victoria left/Alamein
 * S-line/Victoria left/Albury
 * S-line/Victoria left/Bairnsdale
 * S-line/Victoria left/Belgrave
 * S-line/Victoria left/Bendigo
 * S-line/Victoria left/Craigieburn
 * S-line/Victoria left/Cranbourne
 * S-line/Victoria left/Flemington
 * S-line/Victoria left/Frankston
 * S-line/Victoria left/Gippsland
 * S-line/Victoria left/Glen Waverley
 * S-line/Victoria left/Hurstbridge
 * S-line/Victoria left/Lilydale
 * S-line/Victoria left/Maryborough
 * S-line/Victoria left/Mernda
 * S-line/Victoria left/Metro Trains Melbourne
 * S-line/Victoria left/Pakenham
 * S-line/Victoria left/Sandringham
 * S-line/Victoria left/Serviceton
 * S-line/Victoria left/Shepparton
 * S-line/Victoria left/South Morang
 * S-line/Victoria left/Stony Point
 * S-line/Victoria left/Sunbury
 * S-line/Victoria left/Sunshine–Dandenong
 * S-line/Victoria left/Swan Hill
 * S-line/Victoria left/Traralgon
 * S-line/Victoria left/Upfield
 * S-line/Victoria left/Warrnambool
 * S-line/Victoria left/Werribee
 * S-line/Victoria left/Williamstown
 * Delete, per nom. Techie3 (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 31 December 2020 (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).