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. This discussion boiled down to "information vs appearance". Those in favour appreciated the data included in the table, while those against had issues with layout and felt there was too much information. There was some work done on sandboxing a change, but ultimately it did not appear to sway any votes. I personally think there is likely some way of presenting this information in a clear and concise manner (more in a "summary style" as mentioned in the nomination), but after more than a month of discussion that solution has yet to be found. I am more than happy to sandbox/userfy the template (and/or sandbox) for continued work/improvement, but if that does happen the new template will need to be in a more reader- (and especially screen-reader-) friendly version. Primefac ( talk) 00:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Figure skating competition 6.0 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used less than 5 times or so. I find this misses the point of "summary style" as well, so I am pretty sure I am not in favor of keeping the template at all. Izno ( talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It presents information worthy of inclusion in competition articles, I think. But it needs work, as it has accessibility problems. -- Bsherr ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm quite skeptical of that assertion; we write for WP:SUMMARY style, and this template decidedly does not help the editor summarize the results of a competition. Do you have a suggestion that could possibly make this salvageable? -- Izno ( talk) 04:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Well, I came to my conclusion by figuring, if I took each piece of information in the table and rendered it into a sentence, would it be appropriate for summary inclusion in an article about the competition? The information contained is competitor's age, location, date, final rank, coach, choreographer, and, for each routine, the music, runtime, the various acrobatics, the judges and their scores, and the rank. That all seems reasonable to me for an article about the competition. -- Bsherr ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Most of the information in the table seem reasonable to include and I don't think it has any inherent issues with summary style that can't be worked out through normal editing. I would support removal of the individual scores from each judge and replace them with an average, but I think some effort should be made to involve some active figure skating editors before doing so. I've placed a note at WT:FIGURE. -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unsalvageable. Wow, what a horrible table. How is presenting this information in this table even remotely acceptable? This table, while set as "presentation" is clearly also a data table. It's confusing layout does not only violate MOS:ACCESS but is confusing also me to me, a person that can actually view it. This is one of the worse designs possible. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete too much information and presented in a completely unhelpful and frankly, overwhelming format. Aza24 ( talk) 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Aza24, Do you believe there is any information that should be retained? If so how should it be presented if this template gets deleted? -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Trialpears the main issue I see is the top two rows (I was looking at the template's use in Chen Lu). It's very hard to read because these "items" (age, location, date) are separated such that it's not immediately clear what term is referring to what (not to mention the for each item is arbituary to the point that it makes it seem like the divisions are referencing the sections below, when they aren't). If a table is going to have its inditifers throughout the first column then that should be consistent and at the moment there are 3 headers in the first two rows (admittedly the format here is so silly I'm having trouble explaining the issue, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from). As far as the information itself, I'm by no means a figure skating expert, but the inclusion of "Required Elements or Technical Merit", "Presentation" and "Ordinal" seems unnecessary, but either way the first issue is more outstanding. Aza24 ( talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Aza24, thank you for explaining. The first two rows are quite confusing indeed. I think this could be easily resolved by improving the template though I think it can be easily improved by using a more standard format as can be seen at Template:Figure skating competition 6.0/testcases. The other issue is how much detail is given for the scores ("Required Elements or Technical Merit", "Presentation" and "Ordinal") which would be better treated as just the overall score and not the individual scores given by each judge. This wouldn't require deletion to fix though. -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough Trialpears but I would be hesitant to see it removed from the deletion queue until changes are made, otherwise I have a feeling it would just show up here again. Aza24 ( talk) 23:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Aza24 we have the holding cell for a reason. -- Trialpears ( talk) 05:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• I've made an updated version that can be seen at Template:Figure skating competition 6.0/testcases. It has an easily understandable header and just one score instead of one for each judge. I hope this alleviates the concerns raised and is acceptable to everyone. Pinging opposing editors @ Izno, Gonnym, and Aza24:. -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm sorry, I still don't understand the table. A table should be easy to understand, not something you need to waste minutes understanding how the cels relate to one another. This is just incorrect usage of tables. This is still a data table, and using "presentation" does not change it. -- Gonnym ( talk) 06:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  It really needs to be two separate tables, or nested tables, or a list followed by a table. The mixed columns is the accessibility problem. -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The edited version proposed by Trialpears does look better, but it still seems like two tables squashed into one. The vertical key, for example, blends in with the rest of the date and doesn't appear as headings but as data. Having a vertical table under a horizontal one just seems unnecessarily hard to understand, when it shouldn't be at all. Aza24 ( talk) 01:33, 10 August 2020 (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. Izno ( talk) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:@u ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only its creator adopted use of this shortcut for calling user subpages. Substitute. Bsherr ( talk) 13:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. We have enough ways to do things around here, no need for duplicates.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• This isn't really something you can "substitute", it would defeat the point. What are the other templates that do the same functionality? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  (whoops, smiley isn't what I was after, trying again:) @ Tom (LT): ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for the ping, but not sure what your question here is :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

    Tom (LT), what I mean: you mentioned that it's a duplicate. Do you mean that there's another template doing something like this, or that this method of linking is redundant and useless? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Indeed it would. I proposed substitution only as a mitigation before deletion. -- Bsherr ( talk) 03:19, 19 August 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 August 23. Primefac ( talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Singaporean_name ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 no consensus at the moment. There is a discussion about whether to keep such redirects, and if consensus determines to eliminate this grouping, then there is no prejudice against revisiting this discussion. Primefac ( talk) 23:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:R from how-to name ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary micromanagement. It claims "It does not go against the Wikipedia is not a how-to guide policy, since the policy only applies on articles," but there's no policy or consensus that says so ( WP:NOT as a whole definitely applies to the entire site). Nardog ( talk) 00:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#How to pronounce English. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

An RfD discussion cannot decide to what extent a policy applies. That's a precedent, sure, but it didn't issue a blanket green light on all "how to" redirects. Nardog ( talk) 09:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Wait – There is a discussion about WP:NOTHOWTO policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Deleting the template doesn't fix the problem. Actually, it makes to problem worse by making it more difficult to track these redirects. Delete the redirects in the category first, then we can delete this template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Bsherr: What problem? The rationale for the nomination isn't that such redirects shouldn't exist (I'm indifferent), but that the template misrepresents policy/consensus and, more importantly, that it's redundant. Even if we decided to delete all "How to..." redirects we would have to rely not on this template but on a SQL query or something because these {{R from/to ...}} templates are so sporadically used; and even if we decided to keep the redirects, the template would still be overkill because there aren't that many such redirects. Overall it's too much to maintain for not much gain. Nardog ( talk) 05:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  If the redirects are all deleted, the category is deleted automatically. So long as the redirect still exist, the category is useful, because it tracks the redirects. That there may be other means of identifying the redirects is irrelevant. Need an example? Vandalism is against policy. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as vandalism is not against policy. Make sense? -- Bsherr ( talk) 20:46, 10 August 2020 (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).