Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

[edit]

Template:Top 10 Best Upcoming Games In 2023

[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; deleted as G11 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a proper CSD criterion for spammy templates, hence the tagging for a regular TfD. Template just includes a blog link. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:58, 20 February 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).

2008 Summer Olympics volleyball group standings 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 20 February 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).

2008 Summer Olympics volleyball game reference 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 20 February 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:Maxs

[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. Izno (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail station template other than in one sandbox, which is an outdated version of Template:MAX Light Rail RDT which was deleted. If a station link needs to be generated, it should use the data that comes from Module:Adjacent stations/TriMet (via {{stl|TriMet|station name}}). Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 20 February 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:Featured portal

[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) 14:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a {{topicon}} displayed on the main page (not talk page) of all formerly Featured portals. It shows up as a hollow star () in the upper right corner and when hovered over it displays the text Before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal.

The template has been nominated for deletion before during what is colloquially known as the "Portal wars". Why they are called that will probably become quite clear just by reading that nomination with a lot of feelings by both side of the discussion and this template was kept by a landslide. I do however believe much of the discussion on the merits of this proposal got lost among a lot of shouting, personal attacks and bad arguments from both sides.

The main issue with this template is that the associated process was marked historical per a RfC in 2017, with the last actual featured portal candidates being from 2016. While I think keeping the template the first few years after the process died made quite a lot of sense there have now been 7 years since the last assessment and a lot has changed since.

The main argument raised in the last discussion was that it was long since the last assessment and there is no way to remove the potentially misleading mark about its quality. Given that 20% of formerly featured portals have since been deleted at MfD at least that many featured portal marks are likely to have been not up to current expectations of portals. While I agree with this I don't believe that is the best argument for deletion.

Rather it's just that this symbol which was kept to keep help readers identify which portals were likely to be better than others even if it wasn't necessarily maintained anymore doesn't perform that task anymore. This can be illustrated by looking at some randomly selected featured portals and non-featured portals. Special:RandomInCategory gave me Sports, Fungi, Portal:Cuba, Geology, Portal:Lakes and Portal:Kentucky, half of which are featured and half not. Looking at these portals I have no idea which is which.

All of them has an introduction which all but Fungi uses {{Transclude lead excerpt}} to create. Then we get either a selected or recognized (or both) article box using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} or {{Transclude random excerpt}}. Sometimes this is repeated ones or twice more with another more specific list such as Selected athletes, Selected team, Selected species, Selected biographies and Vital articles. Then we go to the pictures where the same method is used to create one or two image boxes. Sometimes there's something a bit more creative such as the panorama at Lakes which looks quite nice if the image fits on screen and the gallery at Geology. We then get one or two DYK boxes. The rest of the portal is filled up with a category tree, a whole bunch of navboxes, links to related portals, links to a bunch of big portals, links to other Wikimedia projects, some WikiProject stuff like a list of related WikiProjects or a WikiProject todo list. This leaves a small handful of boxes that are not basically universal for some of the portals, like a selected quote for Sports and Cuba, an in this month box for Sports, a complete list of recognized content for Cuba, a list of the WikiProjects 10 most viewed articles for Geology, a link to the reference desk and some external links at Lakes and finally a list of the largest cities in Kentucky and a list of new Kentucky related articles.

Given this description do you think you can guess which ones are the featured ones? All portals have now become so homogenous that basically all of them have the same level of quality with the poor ones having been either deleted or improved to the point that they too are at the same quality as all other portals. Why then should we have special stars for some of them and not for others? --Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but update the process. The concept is a good one and incentivises editors to improve portals. What is needed is an updated working process including, if necessary, revised criteria. Of course, we may need to remove the featured portal tag while putting portals through the new process. That could start by reviewing the ones that were featured before. Bermicourt (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bermicourt A revived featured portal process could indeed be a good thing and breath some life into portals, but I'm unsure if there's enough interest to manage a succesful revival. What are your thoughts on making this a no output template? That would make it super easy to re-add the icon if we want to in the future but avoid the issues for now. I feel like this is better than the status quo, but given that adding back this template to all the affected portals wouldn't take more than 15 minutes with AWB I don't believe that is much different than deletion in practice. --Trialpears (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could rename it to {{Good portal}} and leave its current usage alone. The assumption that all surviving portals which were once featured pass some undefined threshold of goodness and all others do not is probably not too far from the truth. The template can then be awarded or withdrawn for individual portals in future without making an erroneous claim about whether it was once featured. Certes (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Kentucky and Lakes postdate the Featured Portal (FP) system, so haven't been considered for a star. As there's no longer anywhere to feature a portal, we might sensibly replace FP by something like "good portal". We could ease the standard slightly, still insisting on adequate coverage with nothing significant missing or broken but not requiring the portal to be outstanding (like GA vs FA). We should probably grandfather in the existing FPs unless someone finds a serious problem specific to that portal. Certes (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I'd actually be happy with either of the alternative ideas suggested above - a revival of the FP process or a replacement GP process. But if neither of those happens - and they probably need to be suggested elsewhere to make them happen - then I would advocate deleting this template. as it is outdated and potentially misleading. WaggersTALK 15:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that this template adds value to the portal namespace and I think that keeping the template improves Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk Do you want to explain how it improves Wikipedia? I would personally have agreed a couple years ago, but as I explained above I believe the utility of this template has drastically decreased over the years and now doesn't improve Wikipedia anymore. --Trialpears (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The deletion of this template will not make the revival of a portal quality assessment process any harder - infrastructure follows people rather than vice versa. I also fail to see how keeping often-decade old relics of the past improves the Wikipedia of 2023 rather than painting a misleading assessment. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I maintain the opinion I defended on this occasion. And I add … This template is from a period when was an incentive to make portals more complex, today portals are homogeneous. Many templates inherited this "rococo" style, becoming decorations that generate more difficulties than usefulness. An example, the {{Portals browsebar}}. What's your use? If not an aesthetic rococo? Being that it redirects the reader out as soon as it arrives. I don't see importance in keeping the FP history related to this template. And I do not contemplate the resurgence of this FP process in the current scenario.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Izno (talk) 22:34, 27 February 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:AMD x86 CPU features

[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table template which on my screen is extremely too large to even fit. Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The incoming links that treat this is as an article are bad. Either this should be added to an article, be converted to one, or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think it should be kept and converted to an article.
It could use a redesign; probably splitting it up to a handful of vertical tables by topic rather than the horizontal mess that it is. 97.126.82.158 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current design is awful. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The design is what it is given the amount of data. If you want to make additional split-up articles be my guest, but the original should be kept for people with a display capable of showing everything at once. I must say a 55" 4K TV is now barely enough given the font size. Maybe a 55" 8K TV would improve readability, as I think beyond that it is too big to be used as a desk monitor, but they are not cheap yet and not 3D. I would agree to convert the page to an article, as the table is too big to be included in others. It was made as a template following the corresponding APU content. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we are at the point where computer displays should start to be replaced with eye-wear. Apple has likely realized mobile devices have hit their limits. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table does contain useful data, which I believe we should keep. This is why I visited it in the first place. On the other hand, I do agree that usability is subpar and it should be reworked. Deletion would mean that the source is not available and it can't be reworked.
@Trigenibinion: You worked on this template. Would you be willing to rework it? --94.78.151.137 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table is optimized for proper 4K displays, as there is a lot of data. 4K TVs can be quite affordable now. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't optimize Wikipedia for only people who can afford 4k displays. There are parts of the world where they can barely afford a public computer or have low-quality mobile phones. I'm really shocked by your comment. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that not everybody can afford such a display, but such limitations are imposed by the data. I am not against an alternative presentation for small screens, this is voluntary work based on what I wanted to be able to see. Otherwise, this data would not be shown at all now. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This template is hilariously large, I'm not sure if I hate it or love it though. What I am sure about though is that this shouldn't be featured in articles in it's current form. It is both so large that it's essentially impossible to use on mobile and very difficult on a large screen, but it also seems like some information in it is at least somewhat dubious or approximate. For instance weren't any "Champlain" processors released in June 2009, the amount of L2 is for most of them something other than 2 per core and the given clockspeed is way off from even the highest in that series. Ironically it seems like even this template over simplify things and I believe our readers would be better served by our actual articles on the subject. If someone want to rework this template to something usable, be my guest and put this in you userspace, but otherwise I believe this should be deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This template is so big because of the amount of data it contains. Instead of deleting it, Wikipedia should implement some technical solution for better browsing large tables on small screens. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Care was taken to minimize the wasted space on a 4K screen (zoomed out). Trigenibinion (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a tech manual. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not a manual. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:45, 21 February 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:List of Gay and Transgender Animals footers

[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) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is... not really what templates are for? It's transcluded onto three articles, and kind of makes a mess of all of them: a shared see-also section (in the case of Old revision of List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, a second see-also section) and a very long list of links which seem at a glance to be reliable sources but aren't used as sources for anything (because templates can't insert ref tags into the text above them) which form a shared source list across three articles. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 07:56, 20 February 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:Attractions near Munnar

[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) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No real content inside the tag. Kiran_891 (TALK) 02:26, 20 February 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_February_20&oldid=1142398499"