Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarl N. (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 29 June 2021 (→Quantities of computing information: keep, WP:SNOW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 25 June 27 >

June 26

Template:Infobox streamer

Doesn't work; even if it did, not necessary to have a separate template from {{Infobox person}} (for example see Ninja (gamer), where the normal infobox is sufficient). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pornstar

Not a working template - and even if it was, it should not exist independently from {{Infobox person}} (note the previous merge of {{Infobox adult biography}} at TfD). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No pass

This template has no substitutions (See: here), and only 26 transclusions (It has 446 but 420 of those are from {{Done/See also}}). The line height of the text is large resulting in strange formatting for no particularly good reason. It uses a character icon which are discouraged (MOS:ACCESS#Links). And I can't see that many uses to declare a "No Pass", and if an editor ever did, using |1= of {{Xmark}} would be more appropriate. So should be deleted Terasail[✉️] 22:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKfile

Propose merging Template:DYKfile with Template:DYK talk.
Both templates are used to mark pages that have been on DYK on the Main Page. The difference is the categories a tagged page is placed in, and the fact that for some reason dykfile is not placed on the talk page.

Since they both use the same text, and already have categorization check in place, merging them shouldn't be an issue. The placement of the template on the files should also be moved to the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not seeing a good reason to, plus there are thousands of articles that use these and we don't want to cause an issue on thousands of pages if we get this wrong. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One template has a summary format while the other provides more details. This functionality might be combined, with parameters to control the level of detail displayed but doing this in a transparent, non-disruptive way would be mainly busy work. What's the problem and what's the benefit? If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to both:
    • The C of E, why would we get this wrong? The people handling the merging of templates are editors with the template editor user right and any merge happens after testing to make sure the code is correct. However, even if a bug does go through, what's the worst that can happen? These templates have text and categorization. If the bug is in the text, then the worst is that someone viewing the page read a typo. If the error is with the categorization, then the pages are placed in the wrong category for a short while. Since the pages aren't moved by a bot, then there is no watch list spam even if the worst happens and the category has a mistake.
    • Andrew, both templates offer the same text, saying one is a summary and the other isn't is just incorrect. One template does have an optional |entry= for the text that was used, but so? A lot of templates, including this, have optional parameters for different specific usages, we don't create a template for each usage. And regarding the busy work, if you aren't the one implementing it, why do you care what work other editors do? I'll never understand that argument. Regarding the benefit, having 1 less template duplicate functionally and then having to update it when something changes - also, tags like this are placed on talk pages, not on the page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Gonnym noted, the tags are placed in different spots - {{DYKfile}} is on the file itself, {{DYK talk}} is on article talk. {{DYKfile}}'s placement matches other similar file templates, eg {{Featured picture}}, {{Featured picture set}}, {{picture of the day}}, and I'd be uncomfortable with changing DYKfile's placement while leaving the others where they are. I'm more neutral on the template merge itself, though since the placement is different between the two templates today, it may be confusing to merge the two while the placement continues to be context-dependent - therefore, keep. Shubinator (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBA 2K League Rosters

Unused and ESports rosters are not notable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic (Continent)

Unused navboxes filled with nothing but red links. Redudant to the templates with the continent name in front then topic. Example: Template:Africa topic. Topic (Americas) is nothing but a duplicate of Template:Americas topic. These templates are not used anywhere except linked to the templates through Template:Continent-based templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment they are not red links per se. These infoboxen require parameter 1 to work properly, which fills in the the "topic" the template skeleton is supposed to address. So just looking at them as is, is not the function of the templates, instead the topic must be supplied. -- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{topic (Europe)|President}} -- supplied topic of "President" -- not all redlinks Template:Topic (Europe)

  • Template:Europe topic, could do the same thing. But what doesn't make sense is why is the countries are in parenthesis. It's pointless to have regardless whether the topics should be supplied. Redudancy is the major issue here. And the two links from the example you've provided are redirects. Templates with redirects make it essentially useless. The red links issue was a major reason why Topic (South America) was deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox Canada

Propose merging Template:Navbox Canada with Template:Navbox.
This is a wrapper of Module:Navbox which changes the appearnces of the navbox. These changes have several issues such as it adding an icon next to the title which shouldn't be there per MOS:ICONDECORATION and removes the alternating background colors for groups making it more difficult to differentiate sections. The navbox header is also about 10% taller than normal navboxes which both looks weird and gives these navboxes more prominence than others. Finally from a purely esthetic point of view I find it very ugly to have two completely different navbox styles on one page, often with normal navboxes both above and below these weird ones, as can be seen at Alberta. My proposal would be to stop using {{Navbox Canada}} and instead use the normal {{Navbox}} without this problematic styling. --Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per other talks over the years. Highly developed template by the project. MOS concerns should be talked about at template and project level.....not a vaild deletion reason.--Moxy- 19:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#More_project_intruding_.....more_time_wasting are you serious? That WP:OWN and WP:Canvassing combo in a single comment. --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its another example of project killing...not even notified. Waste of editor time.--Moxy- 19:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is killing the Canada project and having a TfD discussion is not a waste of editor time. If you feel your time is wasted, no one is forcing you to comment here. Regarding the project not being notified, that isn't required but regardless, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Article_alerts, you'll see that this discussion is listed. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been good for me to notify the project and I'm sorry I didn't do it. I'll make sure to remember in the future. --Trialpears (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy I'm not sure if I'm missing something but before making this nomination I checked the talk page (including for unlinked archives and such), previous TfDs (only relevant things I found were similar templates such as {{Navbox United States}} and {{Navbox Singapore}} being deleted) and links to the template. None of these discussed the subject at hand. If I've missed some relevant discussion I would love to get a link to it. --Trialpears (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be 5th time the Canadian template been up for deletion.--Moxy- 19:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy perhaps you're thinking about some other template? I can't find these discussions and find it very difficult to evaluate a per other discussion comment without knowing where to find said discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where all the talks are located ...As seen at Template talk:Navbox Canada#Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016 they may be at the project page. I have been fighting for years for things like MOS:ICON....to no avail because of larger project talk outcomes.Moxy- 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about other functionality but as far as colour is concerned I would rather have the default colours, perhaps keeping the custom header colours like at Template:Railway stations served by Abellio Scotrail for example. The current colours make the template harder to read IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Canadian here. There is no reason why this would be an exception to MOS:ICONDECORATION, nor is there any reason why the height and colour of the navbox should be slightly different than the standard. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is one of the worst templates ever created IMHO. The heavy use of white colour makes it difficult on the eye and honestly the template just looks awful. No reason for Canada to have a wholly different style of template compared to other countries. Elshad (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I really don't understand the rational behind this template. Even if the template was created before the general navbox, why would there be a reason for it to still exist? If it offers better features or a more elegant codebase, then that should be merged into the general template, not kept for only a small group of templates. On a personal note, I agree with Elshad that the color theme chosen by it is awful and uncomfortable to read. --Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Undelete

Has barely ever been used, is formatted very strangely, and is not what I expected when I searched for this. Subst and redirect to Template:DRV links. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019–20 Kategoria Superiore table

Mainspaces uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantities of computing information

Both templates contain WP:NPOV violations, and depending on the revision (as there are currently edit warriors pushing a non-consensus revision over the objection of other editors), WP:OR and WP:V violations. The encyclopedia would be better off without these tables if they continually contain inaccuracies, original research and use Wikipedia's voice to suggest that what the real world is doing is not what it is doing.

  • Delete all as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in a version prior to edit warring. Possibly replace JEDEC with Memory for binary K, M, G. JEDEC are WP:RS but no defining body for units and prefixes. --Zac67 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in a prior stable version, possibly with added "deprecated" remark in recently deleted column. −Woodstone (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution. Why has no one opened an RfC yet? (For others, the discussion is all at Template talk:Quantities of bytes.) JBL (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a no-brainer. The templates are both used and useful so there is no rational argument for deleting them. Anyone wishing to suggest an improvement can do so on the 'bytes' talk page, as pointed out by JayBeeEll. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with JBL; nomination for deletion is completely inappropriate. An RfC and constructive engagement in discussion would be appropriate. I note that Template:Quantities of bits at time of nomination (and now) contains no content that is not reliably sourced or that is not fully endorsed and standardized by the relevant defining bodies; it is also linked to the relevant WP articles that give the relevant citations, invalidating the cited reasons for deletion. The remaining two templates can be similarly adjusted (by removing the Memory/JEDEC column), removing such concerns altogether. —Quondum 15:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The request is simply absurd, per the already cited reasons. It is an attempt to force a POV by the nominator, who has a personal bias against any of the binary prefixes and wishes to eradicate them where ever (s)he can, as demonstrated by countless reversions of valid material by many editors and constant edit warring about the issue. The content of these tables is unambiguously supported by reliable references, such as standards definitions, from US and world standards bodies. kbrose (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, Dondervogel 2, Quondum and kbrose are the three edit warriors pushing their edits without consensus on two of the three templates. Currently two of the three disagree with objective reality, our sources, and all three are giving undue weight to units that are neither widely adopted or endorsed by a significant amount of the technology industry. Reality doesn't work for these edit warriors though, because goddamnit some standards group that apparently is very serious said something and by golly even if nobody listens to them, Wikipedia will. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping confirm my earlier view. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the confirmation, you've definitely helped the situation a lot by referring to this nomination as "childish" and I'm sure that alone means we can ignore content policies and guidelines and just put whatever the fuck we want in articles without regard for accuracy or verifiability. But do prattle on, you've brought so much to this conversation so far, don't stop now. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it should be clear to all that real edit warrior is the proposer of these deletions.−Woodstone (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, die hard edit warrior here, insisting we use consensus instead of what three editors randomly decide after the other three stop participating in the discussion. But sure, edit warring was the issue here on my side, not the lack of consensus on theirs (but the repeated reversions even after having this brought to their attention). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – contrary to Locke's unexplained and unjustified assertions above, I do not see any evidence that these tables "continually contain inaccuracies [or] original research". They state uncontroversial and trivially verifiable definitions. I have not personally seen any evidence at all that they have caused problems in article-space, of the sort a reader might actually be inconvenienced by, which would be my criterion of interest here – not whether editors with a strong POV dislike these tables for ideological reasons. This TfD discussion would appear to be an unnecessary continuation of a pointless dispute at MOSNUM, which was a non-starter and has produced, as could have been predicted, no consensus. That poor overly flogged and mangled equine corpse has long since been reduced to dust, and all the physical information contained in it, whether measured in decimal or binary units, has been dissipated by the wind. My tuppence is that the status quo broadly works, and that editors with a strong ideological opposition to binary units in any circumstances seem to be the predominant source of disruption and extended talk-page essays here – not any actual problems caused by templates that do not display any incorrect information. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – the templates just use units that are well documented in standards. Whether a particualr usage of a parameter in the template in a particular article is appropriate is a case for MOS.  Stepho  talk  00:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - when I saw one of these being nominated for deletion, my first action was to click on "what links here". Dozens of articles, with no attempt to address whatever issues in each of those articles. This should be a speedy close under WP:SNOW. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020–21 Ghana Premier League table

Unused and mainspace uses a different table with accurate information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020–21 Azerbaijan Premier League table

Unused and hasn't been updated as the mainspace uses a different table with the information filled out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League

2020–21 Persian Gulf Pro League uses a different table with accurate information whereas this one isn't used and hasn't been updated since December 2020. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Western Conference Standings Templates

All unused. On the respective team seasons articles, what's used is the division standings templates not the specific conference. And there is no place for the Wild Card template to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Eastern Conference Standings Templates

All unused. On the respective team seasons articles, what's used is the division standings templates not the specific conference. And if these templates are used on one page or two, they should be substited by the respective Metropoltain standings template. And for the Wild Card template there is no place for it to be used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 USA Team Handball Club Templates

No mainspace article exists for these templates to be used and I could find nothing that a league or championship of this kind exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stared to create this templates. But I forgot them. Sorry. But you could delete them. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1999 FIFA Confederations Cup group tables

Unused and there already exists a table for both Group A and B on their respective pages and the mainspace also uses a different table. This template is unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_26&oldid=1030976842"