Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 17

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 17

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 July 25. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).
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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No articles are linked in the template. Looks like all previous ETV Network channels were sold and renamed by the Network18 Group. No point of having this template anymore. Gotitbro (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).
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 for now. There seem to be some accessibility issues, which can be dealt with outside of this discussion. NPASR if this family of templates is still legitimately unused in two months. Bad faith removals in order to claim it is "unused" will result in administrative sanctions. If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held at a centralized location (WikiProject, VP, etc) before they get brought back here. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Will be put into use soon. This suite of templates are still under construction. I suppose I simply forgot about this project a while back or something like that. Thanks for the reminder, although you could’ve probably given me a nudge on my talk page or something, just to make things a lot less drastic... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no support for these changes on WP:OLYMPICS. There is no point. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note - So I've just been made aware that the nominator has been going aroud reverting what uses of these templates have been made, and then threw up the templates for deletion under the guise that they were "unused". The nominator has not acted in good faith and is trying to delete templates they don't agree with through malicious ways. Here's three examples of what they've been doing: Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Per this discussion there was no consensus for change. Perhaps deleting them is not the best option, but converting templates without consensus is malicious. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: You never once brought me into any of these discussions. I certainly wasn't aware of them, and I would've thought replacing a borderline broken series of sidebars that were too long, had too many separate templates, and intruded on article elements with a {{#switch}}-based series of sidebars that had collapsed lists and conformed with the design of {{Infobox Olympic event}} and kept the size and numbers to a minimum would've been somewhat protected under WP:BOLD. It's less a matter of consensus and more actually updating articles and templates to modern standards and not neglecting them by leaving them in a bad shape. If you legitimately want to bring up a discussion, how about don't do it behind my back and don't try to delete the templates by outright misleading TfD by saying the templates weren't being used without mentioning that you're the one that put them out of use. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: So you're telling me to literally copy the actual rendered template and paste it? You're really gonna need to clarify. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bad
Year Result
1990
1991
1992
First
Third
Second

Result of copy and paste: 1990 1991 1992 First Third Second

Good
Year Result
1990 First
1991 Third
1992 Second

Result of copy and paste: 1990 First 1991 Third 1992 Second

in the first case, the information is not aligned. in the second case, the information is aligned. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Okay... you still haven't explained how you managed to get that result out of a simple copy + paste procedure as you described it. You even used a wikitable to produce the examples you depicted. Even this table does not work within the confines of a collapsible list with {{#switch}} parser functions. Here's how it renders in those circumstances. In fact, this is how any wikitable renders in these circumstances out of all the attempts and tests and dead ends I've encountered thus far, a single, solitary curly bracket. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipTerryGraham (1) a technical discussion of how to program using wikicode seems beyond the scope of this discussion, but to include wikitables inside of parser functions, you need to replace the vertical bars with {{!}}. (2) from the documentation for {{dot}}: This template's use for dotted lists is now deprecated. Use {{Flatlist}} or class="hlist" instead; see WP:HLIST. (3) if you would like me to explain the steps for copy-and-pasting text, I can do so, but it would seem beyond the scope of this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Many thanks for the suggestion to use pipe magic words to build the wikitables! It finally works! You can see a positive result on one of the templates I'm reformatting, {{Archery at the Olympics}}. The example shown on the right is that for the 1920 input. I've also incorporated {{Hlist}} formatting per your suggestion, too. Hopefully this adequately addresses the accessibility concerns you had! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: 'Support' as in keep or delete the templates? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, clarified. GiantSnowman 07:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. Template navigates between a loose collection of firearm cartridges that have no clearly defined linkages. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).