Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 23
October 25 >

October 24

[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic in Africa

[edit]

These editnotices have been blanked by ProcrastinatingReader, following what I assume to be proper procedure based on some consensus. I asked about blank editnotices at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice, but I received no helpful input, so consider this a test run at TFD. There are hundreds of blank editnotice templates; this is a sample of eleven of them on the same topic; there are about 70 blank COVID editnotices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and why did ProcrastinatingReader do this instead of replacing them by {{Contentious topics/editnotice|topic=covid}}? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was in 2020!
Mmmh. Well, today they should be replaced by the code above instead of being deleted, I'd say. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if that is the consensus outcome. I can choose another set of blank editnotice pages for another nomination. The COVID editnotice pages start at about line 555 at Special:UnusedTemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; I have now added the code to the pages. The only result requiring formal consensus through this discussion would be deletion, I think, so if these are undesirable for a yet-unnamed reason, that reason can be specified and discussed here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For-multi

[edit]

Been bothering me for a bit: This template is redundant to {{About}} since all transclusions of {{For-multi}} could be replaced with {{About}} while shifting all their parameters down a value ("1=" becomes "2=", "2=" becomes "3=", etc.) and it will return the same hatnote. In other words, if literally {{For-multi were replaced with {{About| in all instances, all would be the same. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as the documentation says:

Technically, {{About}} can be used by passing an empty first parameter, but this isn't recommended as the wikitext {{About||UseA|ArticleA|UseB}} doesn't make it clear what the output is going to be and what the purpose of the template is as, in this case, the name of the template "About" is misleading.

Considering that it's a simple wrapper around {{hatnote}} and Module:Hatnote list, it seems clearly net-positive to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the documentation clear as day admits that the template is truly unnecessary due to its redundancy, basically per what I stated in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this concern isn't new either: See Template talk:For-multi#Division of labour. The very existence of this template was question almost immediately after it was created. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is virtually no downside to having this template in addition to {{About}} as both it and {{About}} end up using Module:Hatnote and Module:Hatnote list. If anything, using this template provides a sight advantage as it avoids having to call the intermediate logic in Module:About. The upside of {{For-multi being more descriptive and far less hacky than {{About| outweighs any potential downsides. It is much more intuitive to use a template called for-multi than one designed around a different purpose with an empty argument. – BrandonXLF (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{About}}. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As per above. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:D06C:D3A7:4223:A610 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more readable and intuitive than using {{About}} with an empty first parameter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you want to simply implement it as a wrapper around {{about}}, then, is there a benefit to doing that? --Joy (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I appreciate the concern about redundant templates, the potential for such doesn't seem to rise very high or appear compelling enough to delete it. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use this frequently and is a simple replacement for the for template in a pinch. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template is used on so many articles, it helps adding more then one entry of related pages on lead & also as per:

Technically, {{About}} can be used by passing an empty first parameter, but this isn't recommended as the wikitext {{About||UseA|ArticleA|UseB}} doesn't make it clear what the output is going to be and what the purpose of the template is as, in this case, the name of the template "About" is misleading.

Considering that it's a simple wrapper around {{hatnote}}. Adharmasingh (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's be honest here - expecting editors to faff around with manually doing {{About|2=...|3=...}} (instead of a simpler and less hacky {{For-multi|...|...}}) is a bit of a silly idea. Nobody's gonna want to do it, and the two likely outcomes are either someone re-implementing {{For-multi}} to save everyone else the hassle of the {{About|2=...|3=...}} malarkey, or people just not bothering to add hatnotes in this sort of situation. Either way, the downsides of deleting {{For-multi}} far outweigh any perceived gains from deleting it. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Seems the major reason why this template has 11,000 transclusions is because an editor (not the template's creator) replaced several transclusions of {{About}} with this template after the template was created. If I recall, doing cosmetic changes like that goes against some sort of policy, but I cannot find the policy at the moment. Either way, my point is the editor performing these steps essentially fabricated the common use of this template. In retrospect, I should have attempted to nip that in the bud when I noticed it back when this template was created in 2021 (3 years ago), but I think I didn't think the editor would replace that many transclusions of {{About}}. Anyways, the "damage" has been done ("damage" in quotes because it's my opinion in the matter, and I know others will consider it "improvement" instead) and is so engrained in Wikipedia at this point, in addition to the obvious WP:SNOW in this discussion, that I withdraw this nomination. (I'd close this discussion boldly, but I cannot unless I do it out of process due to Achmad Rachmani's vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global epidemiology by condition

[edit]

This seems to be an arbitrarily constructed list of some diseases and things, in violation of WP:NAV-RELATED. I can't figure out what brings these topics together. The template creator hasn't edited in over a decade, and my query at the talk page went unanswered. Suggest deletion, as I'm not sure how this can be turned into a reasonable navbox. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin script/diacritic with all letters/overview

[edit]

Unused sub template. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Math/li

[edit]

Unused math template. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_24&oldid=1253416585"