Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 21

 &lt; July 20 July 22 &gt;

Template:Olympic article/doc

 * 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) 12:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Unused; unnecessary Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Olympic article/doc
 * Comment the documentation subpage certainly is used, by the template it is documenting. Do you mean to nominate ? That template is also in use by several articles. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This /doc page is used by its parent template page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Being used by main template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am referring to the part. Is that necessary? Probably not. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sportsfan 1234 Are you trying to nominate the entire template for deletion, or just the instructions on how to use it? At the moment you've nominated the /doc subpage for deletion, instead of the template itself. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, it wasn't being used but this edit fixes it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the main template. Template:Olympic article looks to be completely useless to me, it's just an overly complex way of making wikilinks that adds no useful functionality. Using the template markup  has no real advantage over using   and in fact has a number of disadvantages - the templated version is more complex, looks like a mess in the wikitext, saves no typing compared to the plain wikilink, and means things like visual editor can't edit the link as a link. The template also has the really nasty feature that if you try to link to a non existent article it makes a fake link - it colours the text blue to look like a wikilink but it doesn't actually link anywhere, e.g.   produces High jump - this is a violation of the manual of style, the policy that red links should be included in articles and all manner of web accessibility guidelines. The edits that introduced this into articles (which were made by a sock) should be reverted and this template should be deleted. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the main template I concur entirely with 192.76.8.89 - this complexifies things for no apparent benefit. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * delete and delete the main template, unnecessary complexity. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2023 (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:Unstructured infobox

 * 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) 12:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) This is a bad idea. We should encourage the use of standardized infoboxes, not each article doing its own special thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unstructured infobox
 * We already encourage that. But it does not mean it is always possible, or even desirable. How would having a standardized infobox help the Module:Params/doc page, where this infobox is used? And moreover, which standardized infobox should be used? In that case each function can have peculiar needs, and creating an infobox specifically for that documentation will be more specific (and unmanageable) than having a flexible and configurable Unstructured infobox template. --Grufo (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * delete, as much as I like the idea of making it easier to create infoboxes without having to get all the label/data numbering right, the syntax used in this one is fragile/suboptimal. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is used 24 times in Module:Params/doc, where it prevents a very long page from becoming even longer (that page will become unmanageable without this template). It uses a robust and well tested syntax (the same syntax used by tj), and as other editors have pointed out, it answers a need often encountered in Wikipedia, that of creating generic infoboxes easily and on the fly. --Grufo (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. A raw infobox is sufficient for the use case of the specific /doc identified. Izno (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that  the Module:Params/doc in order to switch from Unstructured infobox to Infobox. I am genuinely curious; could you explain how doing so for you will improve
 * The readability and mental-rendering of the wikitext manuscript
 * The ease whereby the wikitext will be able from now on to make room for future changes in the module documentation
 * The page concerning any other aspect
 * We could take the documentation of as an example. And so this is how it was before:

| Num. of arguments: 0 | Repeatable: No	| Conflicts with: | Has no effects on:,  ,  , | ; See also | : }} }}
 * And this is how it looks after:
 * label1 = Num. of arguments | data1 = 0
 * label2 = Repeatable | data2 = No
 * label3 = Conflicts with | data3 =
 * label4 = Has no effects on | data4 =,  ,  ,
 * header5 = See also
 * data6 =
 * data6 =
 * --Grufo (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I, and many other editors, are familiar with the syntax of infobox, so the version is more readable.  the syntax for  is more fragile, as evidenced by the  |style=display&#58; block; text-align&#58; center;}} in the unstructured version.  the additional styles in the  version aren't really needed and could be easily fixed by adding a class and .  of course, both versions would even more readable, in my opinion, if they were replaced by a simple table with templatestyles. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2023 (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:GL members of the Senate of the Netherlands

 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) The template is outdated. Given that there is currently no GL parliamentary group in the Senate (there is a combined group with PvdA), there is no reason to keep this template Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * GL members of the Senate of the Netherlands
 * Delete, per nom. Template:Members of the Senate of the Netherlands, 2023–2027 can be used instead. — Ætoms  [talk] 09:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the 3 blue link members listed are current members of the Senate of that party. Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2023 (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).