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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Used in one/two articles; test subst shows that table renders properly; solution without a problem Gadget850talk 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template apparently is used to prevent future errors in one row from affecting other rows, but I don't really see much need for it. —PC-XT+ 02:04, 7 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete (and salt) as unused, redundant and unneeded. —PC-XT+ 02:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this were to exist, it should be a general TD entity, and not just a special use instance. If we keep this, it should be expanded, so that the default case is how it works now, but the general case allows entry of different stylings and different cell contents, to serve as a template wrapper to an HTML entity. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikis should use Wikimarkup for tables, not HTML markup, even when enclosed in a template. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
(keep.) (see below.) Although I use the normal markup extensively, there are some circumstances where I find it vastly superior to use the compact {{table}} syntax. Is it more complex? Well, you have to specify a row number and you have to use {{!!}}, but other than those two points, I find it much simpler because it lacks all the fancy features of the standard wikimarkup. In particular, when the rows are short, it is really nice to avoid having to include the |- lines. I remember there is a way of using some HTML code to avoid this, but when I discovered {{table}}, I thought I'd hit upon the approved way to avoid the extra vertical gap in the source text. Incidentally, I suspect the low counts are at least in part due to Frietjes doing a lot of edits in February. One of them pretty much destroyed the purpose of using {{table}} -- which was to provide editors with a nicely lined up information both in display mode and in edit mode, to make it easy to copy-and-paste. I promptly reverted. The other one simplified a navbox in part by eliminating the use of color. The simpler code is nice, but I have yet to figure out how to restore the color without completely reverting the edit. I can't tell how extensive this was, because the same edit summary including "wikitables" was included whether or not the change involved wikitables. It is of course possible that the only two that involved wikitables were on the two pages I've watchlisted. YBG (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
for the non-psychics the two edits are this one and this one. don't really understand the objection to the first one. as far as the second one goes, it's a massive reduction in code complexity, and fixed a fundamental problem of using 'br' tags instead of table rows. the result is that the information in the far right of the template was not logically aligned in the code. I also see no reason to not use {{geographic location}} for this application, since it is the current standard for indicating spatial relationships with neighbouring localities. if it were up to me, that entire navbox would be simplified even further to reduce the over-formatting, which should be reserved for an article, and not needed in a navigational box. I have found no cases where {{table}} is actually needed. in the extreme cases where you need to pass a template to {{navbox}}or{{infobox}}, I find that {{aligned table}} works. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For uses of a table inside a template where table markup breaks, the simpler method is to create the table as a sub-template and transclude it. --Gadget850talk 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Frietjes, for taking the time to explain in a bit more detail, particularly, mentioning the specific edits and {{aligned table}}. I see you used {{aligned table}} in the 2nd of the abovementioned edits. I readily admit that I allowed my frustration to keep me from examining the 2nd edit in more detail. As I said above, on that edit, I do appreciate the added simplicity (= subtracted complexity). My objection was to the removal of features I thought helpful: (a) the light green color (b) widths and (c) <br>'s, all of which allowed the 'squares' to look like squares. As for the 1st edit, now that I have seen the use of {{aligned table}}, I will endeavor to change my uses of {{table}}to{{aligned table}}. I fully expect that I will succeed, and anticipate being convinced to support this deletion. Thank you again for your patience and forebearance. YBG (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. OK, I've replaced the instances I've created. YBG (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I'm using the Template:Tableinthis chart. Since the table is used in the caption of the bar-chart wrapped into a frame, the syntax of a conventional wikitable breaks. I cannot see how it would be easier to create the table as a sub-template and transclude itasGadget850 suggested above. On the contrary. A regular editor on wikipedia wouldn't be able to update the chart. As far as I can see, I definitely need the Template:Table. Pls let me know if there is a way to keep it, or otherwise tell me a simple alternative I'm not aware of, that does not require regular editors to amend sub-templates. Thx --Rfassbind-talk 11:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be easily be converted to {{aligned table}}. I will do it; feel free to revert if you don't think it is satisfactory. YBG (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx to both, Gadget850 and YBG, for the alternative solutions. I think using a (wiki)-tbl markup instead of an image-frame requires a lot of additional CSS to keep the different parts (title, image, caption-text, caption-tbl) flexible. I therefore prefer the {{aligned table}} as it works inside a template (there might be other occasions, where the template cannot be remove to solve the problem). Again, thx for the time you guys spent on my problem. Cheers, -- Rfassbind-talk 20:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Rfassbind, glad Gadget850 and I were able to help. Just tryin' to be helpful to others as others have been helpful to me. YBG (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete - simply not needed. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary; consensus at WP:FOOTY is not to hard code short-cuts for football team names.. JMHamo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 20:27, 6 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete/replace. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to {{Infobox government agency}}, except for {{{operational_centre}}} and {{{command_structure}}}. When used in ministry articles, {{{command_structure}}} invariably contains a link to the Cabinet of Brazil, and can probably be omitted. Otherwise, it maps to {{{parent_agency}}}. {{{operational_centre}}} is not used in any article. Alakzi (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
I've replaced one transclusion, after having added {{{primary_legislation}}}to{{Infobox UK legislation}}. Would we want to add {{{date_made}}}or{{{date_laid_before_Parliament}}}? I'd suggest that we only add one of the two, preferably the latter. Alakzi (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, provided the distinction between the two is clear. —OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also another SI infobox, {{Infobox UK SI}}. Neither {{Infobox UK SI}} nor {{Infobox UK Statutory Instrument}} is used that much, but we only have about 70 articles on UK Statutory Instruments so far - see Category:Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom - and many do not have an infobox at all. Several thousand SIs are made each year, and dozens and dozens of them could be notable enough to have an article, so a separate infobox might still be a good idea. {{Infobox UK Statutory Instrument}} and {{Infobox UK SI}} may not be ideal, but they do show information relevant to SIs, whereas {{Infobox UK legislation}} seems to be used primarily for our hundreds of articles on Acts of Parliament, and its fields seem to be focussed on that role. Primary legislation and secondary legislation are not the same. For example, SIs do not have a "chapter" (despite what Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 now says) or a short title (or indeed a long title), nor do they receive Royal Assent. They do have a number, and they are usually made under powers conferred by a piece of primary legislation, and the different dates (or indeed times) when they are made, laid before Parliament, and come into effect, can be important (see for example Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008). If we were adding fields, it might also be helpful to know whether an SI is made under the affirmative resolution procedure or negative resolution procedure set out in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 - these procedures do not apply to Acts of Parliament - and also a link to the text of the SI at legislation.gov.uk and the debate (if any) in the Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons (and/or the equivalent debate (if any) in the House of Lords). Perhaps we need a new UK SI infobox, possibly based on {{Infobox UK legislation}}, to replace the two that we have already, rather than treating SIs like Acts of Parliament; or, at the very least, {{Infobox UK legislation}} needs to be modified first before a merger so it display information that is actually relevant to SIs. I don't have the technical expertise to do either of those things, so I'll leave you infobox experts to decide what is best. -- Ferma (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
