Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 31

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Size by population Bar Chart MX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I orphaned this template from the only page it was used on using a standard wikitable. We have a standard template that already exists (that goes up to only 30) which can be extended if additional items are necessary. I don't think this template is; there isn't a reason to have bar charts for a census that I can see. Izno (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Cumberland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1930 Canadian federal election/Cumberland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I was unable to find sources to verify this information. Boleyn (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Cardigan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Cardigan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long-termed unreferenced. I couldn't find reliable sources to confirm results. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Saipan International

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saipan International (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for a tournament that started in 2023. This will not be useful for at least two years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Holds actual value, as eventually it will expand, it doesn't matter that right now there isn't enough for you, it's just the fact that someday, it will. We can wait for that time. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've changed my mind, and deletion of the template should happen. It's too small. Wheatley2 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both links are to the same article. Does not navigate between anything. Useless. WP:NENAN; WP:WTAF, etc, etc. --wooden superman 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cedric Nicolas-Troyan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cedric Nicolas-Troyan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template links to only two films; does not meet guidelines at MOS:FILM#Navigation. DoubleCross (‡) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NENAN. --wooden superman 07:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Daum movie

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daum movie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An external link template that was used for easy linking to Daum Movie while the service was still available. However, it has been discontinued since January 2024, rendering this template unnecessary. --ted (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Blink

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. There seems to be a reasonable argument being made to remove the template from the article space, but not enough of a consensus to formally do so as a result of this TFD; discussion is encouraged at the affected articles' talk pages as to whether image-based replacements are preferred. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been deleted multiple times. The creator removed a speedy deletion tag, so rather than get in a dispute, here's a TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous, unrelated version of this template was deleted because it didn't work (it used the actual blink tag, which has been deprecated for around twenty years). There was not a consensus to forbid any template from ever existing on the English Wikipedia with the pagename blink, although if it would make you happy, I could rename this to {{blink2}} so that it isn't a "recreation". jp×g 🗯️ 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, what do you want this gross thing for? Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article about the blink element, whose primary illustration is rendered with this template, which makes text blink. There is also a section about the deprecated blink and marquee tags at HTML element. It's obvious that the template is not appropriate to randomly be used for emphasis in article text, which is why there's a bold exclamation-pointed sentence on the /doc page telling you not to use it this way. Indeed, we have lots of content that would be inappropriate to put in random articles, like File:Communist Hammer and Sickle Star Flag.svg or File:Flag of the Ku Klux Klan.svg (which are illegal to display in some countries). The <blink> tag was quite bad, but hopefully we can agree it was less bad than the Khmer Rouge, whose insigna we display in their article; I think we can similarly depict a <blink> tag in the articles about <blink> tags, or deprecated HTML tags more broadly.

It's true that it would be in theory possible to delete the template, and replace its invocations entirely with inline formatting on the two articles where it's in use -- but that inline formatting would still require TemplateStyles, so it would still require a stylesheet to be located somewhere. The idea of attaching a /styles.css subpage to a mainspace article, and then invoking that stylesheet from a different mainspace article (or having two identical .css pages on two different mainspace pages) seems quite obtuse and unorthodox to me, especially if a template for doing this already exists and works fine.

In general, my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia templates is that they're supposed to allow code to be used on multiple pages, rather than forcing people to manually copypasta large complicated blocks of 100% identical code (in this case, <templatestyles src="Blink/styles.css" /><span class="blink-css">{{{1}}}</span> and blink, .blink-css { animation: blink 1s step-end infinite; } *::@keyframes blink { *:: 67% { opacity: 0 } *::}, and additionally a content-model change to enable the second to be loaded from a separate page because it can't be styled inline with MediaWiki). jp×g 🗯️ 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like with Template:Marquee, you build it and people use it and we end up with horrible (User:Alpine0x37 User:One cookie) GeoCities like pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable for us to try to completely prevent people from making silly userpages, that doing so should be an objective of our template system, or that it should take a higher priority than using said system to write articles. jp×g 🗯️ 06:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, if it is really earnestly demanded with gusto and urgency, I can write something that makes it physically impossible to use this in userspace, or perhaps on any article other than HTML element or Blink element, but this seems unneceessary to me. jp×g 🗯️ 04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so is indeed trivial, but I don't think the benefits of this template outweigh the detriments even after doing so. Izno (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My user page is extremely good. one🍪cookie 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find neither argument convincing here. Deleting {{blink}} won't stop people from building GeoCities-style pages if they want to, and I'm not even convinced we should care if they do. But I also don't see the value in a fake (because it doesn't actually use the blink HTML tag) self-demonstrating example in pages like blink element - it seems to me that people can understand what an element blinking means without it being shown to them. And I agree G4 doesn't apply. Since the burden is normally on the nominator in deletion discussions weak keep I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the 2007 discussion covers all the same ground that I probably would have processed this as a G4. If you really want to demonstrate in article space blinking without encouraging all the things a template encourages (or for that matter, marqueeing), consider creating an SVG (which can accept the same CSS). Izno (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To whit, the fundamental reason neither of these templates should exist is WP:Accessibility. There's a reason the actual elements were nuked off the planet and that it took another decade before CSS finally added a way to fuck around with the same visibility "properties". Izno (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely no more offensive than a guy having his head cut off with a giant sword, which we have a great many illustrations of at decapitation. jp×g 🗯️ 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that was definitely a great comparison. Either answer the core of it or move on. Izno (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: in the 2007 TfD there are eight comments and a nom, two to keep and the rest to delete.

I do not think any of the arguments made there apply to deleting this template here.
N Nom says that it can "easily be written in HTML" (this is no longer true -- the <blink> tag is now deprecated and must be done with CSS i.e. TemplateStyles) and is untranscluded (the current template is transcluded in several articles). It also says it's "incredibly annoying" -- this was a concern with being used to stylize arbitrary text (there was no actual article to use the template in, so this was not a rationale).

N First delete says "we ought to avoid unnecessary blinking flashing objects" -- this template is being used exclusively in articles about blinking flashing objects, and the proposal here is to delete the template and put a flashing GIF in its place.

N Second delete is "per nom".

N First keep argues to keep.

N Second keep (weak keep) also argues to keep.

N Third delete says that it's "unused and completely unnecessary". Well, this one is used.

N Fourth delete says that it's unnecessary (it was unused then, it has active transclusions now) and says that "Should blinking text actually be necessary anywhere anytime (though it's tough to imagine such a situation, however far-fetched) it can be made to blink using HTML" -- again, this was true seventeen years ago in 2007, whereas it is now physically impossible to do this on MediaWiki.

N Fifth delete says "unnecessary", again this is no longer true.

N Sixth delete says it's bad interface design and that "such formatting is not really consistent with general accessibility guidelines" -- again referring to it being used outside of articles. This is not true in the current situation.

Every argument made against the existence of the template was made against its use to stylize random text, and on the basis that <blink> tags were a working part of web browsers; at no point did anybody even try to claim that articles specifically mentioning blink tags should not be allowed to use them. jp×g 🗯️ 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be straight: accessibility applies everywhere. It's not an article only thing. You're not the one dis-included when someone can't function because they're blinking text or the colors aren't color-blind friendly or have a bad contrast or the text size is too small. Discarding arguments like "it's not consistent with general accessibility guidelines" because we're not talking about the main space is not a nice thing to advocate for.

this was a concern with being used to stylize arbitrary text is your (incorrect) interpretation of nom's comment. Several comments made in this vein (some in support, weirdly).

You elided first delete's where the concern was raised that excess blinking, flashing, and movement could cause seizures in some people.

And in all, they all talk about things that are true about this template, hence commentary about G4.

That said, my argument doesn't make a G4 argument. My original comment makes a comment about G4. My argument is a "it's not accessible" argument. And no, we shouldn't encourage users (as yet another comment made clear then) to use this or puzzle it out ever. We don't need it now and in fact we didn't need it then. If you need to demonstrate something on an article, you can do the exact same thing in an SVG and embedded CSS. Izno (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Izno's accessibility argument and because this template is not the blink property which makes it incorrect to use in HTML element. As a personal opinion, we should also make life as hard as possible for any user wanting to use these very annoying effects and not create for them easy to use templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the caption for it at HTML element and Blink element say explicitly that it's a simulation of the effect using CSS. I submit here that the article pipe is illustrated, not with a pipe, but a digital representations of a photograph depicting a pipe. jp×g 🗯️ 04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's a particularly valid criticism to say this isn't the actual element. Izno (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment couldn't uses at blink element be replaced with animated gifs? (same with marquee) -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A gif also works in addition to an SVG. One of those is probably easier to manufacture. Izno (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JPxG. It's got a real use (illustrating old HTML capabilities), and it does it succinctly. Whether or not people could maybe use it to make their user page look a bit ugly is irrelevant. Arguments for deletion seem weak to me (no examples of it actually being misused in a user page has been shown; accessiblity issues would be exacerbated if blink demos were replaced with SVG/GIF files or bespoke inline CSS). Blinking html was ugly but this template is helpful to convey that historical ugliness. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JPxG and Bugghost. Userpages can work around it anyway if they really want to, but this template is convenient for pages such as Blink element. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Birth year and age2

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 August 9. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth_year_and_age2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Railways to Dinorwic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep , with NPASR if a different rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railways to Dinorwic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused other than in a very old talk page discussion from 2016. Subst to user's talk page. Gonnym (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:DavidAHull/Railways to Dinorwic. Useddenim (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jackdude101. Why was it even relisted instead of closed? Useddenim (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added to Dinorwic Railway article. This was a beyond simple solution and required the same amount of effort (if not less) than starting this TfD. I suggest implementing similar solutions when issues like these are found so no one else's time is wasted. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 05:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Election results-STV

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep with NPASR if down the line the issues are not resolved and/or the template remains unused. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election results-STV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I am in the process of developing this and just need to resolve one outstanding issue (the 'Total' row not appearing in the first testcase) before rolling it out. If anyone with Lua knowledge can solve that mystery, it can start being used. Number 5 7 18:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look and see if I can help. Gonnym (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Spouses of Honolulu Mayors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spouses of Honolulu Mayors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Largely unhelpful for navigation, having only 3 bluelinks, and equally rarely used. Readers looking for term dates can find them at Spouses of the mayors of Honolulu (which probably also needs some cleanup, but that's a different discussion). Quadrantal (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsuitable topic for a navbox. --wooden superman 08:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic suitability does not seem to be a requirement for navboxes. [[1]] "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles", which is what this does. Note that the article this template is for, is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, The article itself is the full work, which is in progress. Like a lot of Wikipedia. This has long been a pattern/style of all the lists (works in progress) for global articles on first ladies (spouses) and gentlemen who are married to heads of state. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't enough blue links to warrant a navbox. See WP:NENAN. They can be navigated through the categories and list article, which is more suitable. --wooden superman 08:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your view of this, in the last few days, I have scoured through lists of all subject matters, all kinds, all topics, all geographic areas. Generally, lists with navboxes are mostly done as this one has been done. Whether there is a specific Wikipedia rule on this, the editors around the globe seem to like this way. There are possibility some exceptions out there, but didn't find any. So, that's how it's being done out there on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet any exception. NEAN has been a long standing rule of thumb that continues to be executed even if not official policy. Articles first, navboxes second. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a massive useless and niche subject to have it's own template. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.