Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28
March 30 >

March 29[edit]

Template:Open water swimming at the 2023 Pan American Games[edit]

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) 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this separate template; will be included as part of the template "Swimming at the 2023 Pan American Games" (which doesn't exist yet, but will do so closer to the games). For ex. in 2019, was merged into one [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2023 (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).

Template:Vb cl7 team[edit]

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 02:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

similar to prior discussions, this has now been replaced by Module:Sports table/Volleyball. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2023 (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).

Women's college basketball coach templates[edit]

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 01:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A three-layered system of 30+ templates, all of which are used to create one list on one page (List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches). The page, as it is, is unnecessarily difficult to edit, and the edit history is separated in 30+ different locations. This would be much better served with everything substituted and put into one place for (much) easier editing. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete this article content used in a single article (while keeping the table row templates that are used in the subpages). – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUbst and delete I don't think the current set-up would be clear to an editor just wanting to edit this one page. The complexity offers no value. CRwikiCA talk 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is relative. It has been many years and I hope not to have to track it down unless it's necessary, but the list of coaches has been in existence for quite a few years. However in its earlier implementation it was very complicated. A new editor came along without a lot of Wikipedia expertise but had some coding skills and offered to improve the approach. This approach, while understandably cumbersome, is a marked improvement over the previous approach. I'm not opposed to further improvement but I'd like to see the improved version before eliminating this version. I have very modest coding skills and don't have the expertise to do the suggested improvement but if someone could mock it up, or simply create it, I'd be on board in favor of improvement. That said I'd be concerned about something that looks like an improvement but is actually more complicated. I do update many of these templates but I'm far from the only one, and can't possibly keep up with all of the changes going on. If the others involved are not comfortable with the replacement then it will be a step backwards.
It's also less than ideal timing unless the replacement is close to seamless. As a guesstimate, 90% of all changes in a year occur in a 30 to 60 day window we are in the middle of. If the proposed replacement is trivial to understand, then it would actually be beneficial to do it now, but if there's a chance of a glitch, or a learning curve, it would be better to do the replacement a month or two down the road when activity is light. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out a two year history of page views for evidence that this is the busiest time of year for edits. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, I realize I just conflated page views and edits but the general point is that this is the busiest time of the year for both, which is a positive if the proposed replacement is seamless but a major negative if there are problems) S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried editing one of the templates to reflect the appointment of Jeff Cammon as head coach at St. Mary's. We didn't work. I've occasionally had a problem when I mangle one of the entries, but a not sure that's the case think it's objecting because of the notification. I tried editing a different template and simply adding a space, which should have worked but it ran into the same problem, which leads me to think that it has something to do with the notification. Can you help check this out to see if I'm missing something? S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The likely issue you had relates to refreshing cached data - given the layers of templates involved in building that list, you can make the edit in one place, but it doesn't immediately register in the final page.
And in any case, the templates are currently working as intended while this discussion is ongoing. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick, in my mind having it as a plain wikitable will make it a lot easier to edit, as you basically would just swap out one name for the new name. The benefit with editing would be that interested editors would only need to follow the 1 page, rather than 20+ separate templates. This also makes it easier to detect vandalism. CRwikiCA talk 13:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick, I fixed the {{Wbb coaches/West Coast Conference}} one all of them with a line break. Too many "no includes". Wyliepedia @ 08:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst/Delete Subst per nom. Overly complex. Single use. Per WP:TMP templates are ".. for inclusion on multiple pages" and also "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." No reason for these to be exceptions. Nigej (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Fuzzy510: You broke most templates' formatting with the TfD note. Wyliepedia @ 08:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, and thank you for cleaning that up. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the fix. I realized they were working, but the intermediate result looked different, which initially threw me. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still causes line breaks in the table on the coaches list page, making for an even longer page, so hopefully this discussion is resolved quickly. Wyliepedia @ 05:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a frequent editor of the coaches page and the templates (from either updating fires/hires and vacancies), as well as fixing editor errors, I say leave it until a test page with a satisfactory editable table can be added. Despite above "voters" citing guidelines that templates should help multiple pages, it is, in my opinion, much easier to edit each conference template than scrolling down a list of over 100 names in a table to find and change. Wyliepedia @ 05:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the only reason that it's harder to find an individual school or name in the list as it is formatted is because of the decision to group every entry by conference, which only makes sense when trying to find a way to piecemeal break up the entire list into 30+ bite-sized templates. The corresponding men's list at List of current NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches is perfectly easy to edit and suffers from none of the issues that you're worried about, both because it is sorted alphabetically by team name, and because using the "find" function on a browser really should not be considered onerous.
    I have created the list at my sandbox - User:Fuzzy510/sandbox - save for the backend alphabetization, which will have to be done manually because of the way this table was created. I am happy to do that alphabetization (as well as the entire substitution, as a note to whoever ends up closing this discussion), but I do not care to put the effort in for a "test page" to help sway your opinion of WP:ILIKEIT. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the Ashley character from Mass Effect: "Why is it whenever someone says 'with all due respect', they really mean 'kiss my ass'?" All you had to do was point me to the men's page as an example of what I wanted to see. As for linking, "I like it" as a talking point, isn’t the obverse what this discussion is about? Granted, Sphilbrick (for parity) created the women's page six years after you created the men's, but this all could've been resolved ten years ago, with all due respect. (And finding schools or women coaches is currently easy for me, despite being sorted conference first.) My keep vote remains until the women's list matches the men's, then the templates can vanish, because the women's table is currently jacked by the TfD headers on each. Wyliepedia @ 03:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've subst'd all of the templates and organized everything alphabetically. It can all be edited on the one page now. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They no longer serve a purpose, as the women coaches list page has now been sorted out and was the only page using their syntax. Wyliepedia @ 10:30, 4 April 2023 (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).

Template:Blackpink solo[edit]

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 relisted on 2023 April 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (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).

Template:Common Security and Defence Policy[edit]

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 split. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This fails nearly all of the five guidelines listed at WP:NAVBOX. It's not a single coherent subject, the subject is not mentioned in all of these articles, they don't all refer to each other, and many would not be included in see also sections. (The last point is that a Wikipedia article exists about the main topic, which in this case is true.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or split Wow, that is one massive navbox, too big to be useful. CRwikiCA talk 13:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I'd say split these into separate navbox pages. We already have the CSDP navbox on the main template page it was created for. The rest do serve navigational value. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per WikiCleanerMan. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2023 (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).

Template:NHK Broadcast History[edit]

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 02:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what is the purpose of this template when adding a simple link to the site seems enough. Not sure if the amount of archived entries on the site warrants its own template. Xexerss (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even though this was just created not sure if a template is needed just to link a TV network's broadcast history. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2023 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_29&oldid=1148594693"