Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 10 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. ✗plicit 00:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed at Tennis Project, these templates are pretty much useless as they simply show what's already in the article. The Samantha Stoser article was deleted for these reasons. And now one for Aslan Karatzev? These all really need to go... we don't create them just to navigate... they need to have a vital purpose to exist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one and only purpose of a navbox is to aid navigation. These decorative templates fail that completely. We have infoboxes "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." Navboxes mustn't be used for that purpose. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't mind these, but they should only be created for the top top players. WP:Tennis needs to set a clear threshold for their creation so good editors don't have their time wasted creating them. I would suggest 5+ men's/women's top-level singles titles, which would limit the field down to 19 men and 26 women since 1990. Sod25m (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's quite clear that they shouldn't be created for any tennis players. See WP:NAVBOX "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." that's their only purpose. Decorative summaries like this are contrary to that principle. Top tennis players are not an exception. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed, but that will be up to a larger delete discussion after this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply You quote "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia", but provide no evidence/argument that these templates don't fit that definition/purpose. But let's wait for the future Tfd Fyunck(click) has foreshadowed to discuss this further. Sod25m (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The problem I have is that this template has clearly been designed to be largely decorative, rather than being designed with navigation as its sole purpose. How does the rainbow color aspect aid navigation? How do sections like "Australian Open Nil French Open Nil Wimbledon Nil US Open Nil" aid navigation? How does a picture of the man aid navigation? Clearly they don't. If they're to be kept they need to focus 100% on how they can be optimally designed to help readers navigate between articles, with no other thought in mind. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I agree the decorative aspects (which were added recently) should be removed, and the number of players with them severely cut down, but Template:Roger Federer for example is in my view clearly useful and fits into a longstanding category of templates for top athletes, which is why I disagree with your sweeping statement that they shouldn't be created for any tennis players. Sod25m (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Agree with much of that. I was referring to These decorative templates which are essentially Decorative summaries like this. Navboxes (focused on navigation) for individuals are perfectly acceptable and indeed quite common. It's the decorative/career summary style I'm objecting to. Even the Federer example you give is excessively long and is more along the lines of a career summary. See eg {{Kobe Bryant}} which is a much more suitable length. Nigej (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2022 (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(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. ✗plicit 00:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Article content. Could be added to Scottish Premier League or List of Scottish Premier League clubs, if anyone is interested. The colors for the various cities are unexplained, which is not a deletion reason, but it would need some explanation, per MOS. I have posted a note to the talk pages of both articles linked above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2022 (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).

Youth Olympics ice hockey champion navboxes

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) 18:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Only substantive edit was in 2013, marked as "preliminary". Creator was indef blocked in 2017, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2022 (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(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) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template which produces the current Hebrew month in Hebrew. Seeing as how this is the English wiki, I don't see a usecase for this. The month itself is a parser function so does not need a template. Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 10 January 2022 (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(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. ✗plicit 12:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, documentation, or categories. Article content living in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Difficult to know what else we can do with it. Clearly article content, perhaps for List of sultans of Brunei, and has been edited a bit over the years, but in 8 years no one's got round to adding it to an article. Nigej (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I got a notice for this, and through exploring the history I created the template many years ago. I can't remember exactly why, or see where its used now. I suspect it was that the history of the Sultans of Brunei was such a mess, and that I had a template on many people's pages, rather than cut and paste and maintain 20 pages information in sync. Surprising as it worked then, but wouldn't be a standard way to structure a WP page now. I'm not massively au fait with the original pages now, but might just merge the text into the main article. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - I moved the template text to the main List of sultans of Brunei page. On looking at it the template seemed to be used in a fair number of pages, but obviously over time with changes it was removed, and has become orphaned. I'd probably recommend deleting the template, but as an interested party will leave it to an admin. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathanielcwm (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2022 (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(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. ✗plicit 12:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Rail template no longer needed after relevant articles were converted to {{Adjacent stations}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JackPotte (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unused. I've added a few more that were also unused. --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zr2d2 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (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(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) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox created in 2020 with no transclusions, no documentation, no categories. Without documentation, it is unclear why there are so few links in this template, when Category:Dedicated deck card games has hundreds of articles. This navbox seems like it would be impossible to keep maintained. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2022 (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(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. ✗plicit 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Only four links in this navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2022 (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(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 relisted on 2022 January 17. ✗plicit 03:55, 17 January 2022 (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(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 keep. ✗plicit 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons why I tagged that template for discussion:

Therefore, it should be deleted. This is according to the deletion policy.

The Page Maker II (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After I added this "keep", I found that the nominator had hijacked the {{scrapped}} template and redirected it to the nominator's new {{NE}} template without discussion. I suspect this was done because it's easier to change a template name in the documentation than it is to figure out how to actually add a new template. I think I have repaired that damage, but there is still damage in the documentation related to {{Intentionally destroyed}}. I also found that the nominator is engaged in what is effectively an edit war on SpaceX Starship development, which is apparently where all this originated. -Arch dude (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NE is likely able to take the place of Intentionally destroyed. Intentionally destroyed is only specialized for SpaceX test tanks destroyed on purpose, but NE specializes for rockets/test tanks in any slightly negative condition. The Page Maker II (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. "Intentionally destroyed" is for any prototype of any product that is intentionally tested to destruction. This happens in many industries, and it is distinct from "scrapped" and from accidental destruction. NE does not have a meaning unless the user adds replacement text, which defeats much of the purpose of this entire class of templates. You also ended up changing the colors, which had been fairly carefully selected by other editors prior to your change. Please discuss on the articles talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I consider Template:Intentionally destroyed being merged with Template:NE or otherwise deleted is because scrapping a rocket is just as bad as intentionally destroying it. So, I created NE, because it could fit both scrapping and intentionally destroying it. Also, in the future, if a rocket was not found, it is also as bad as scrapping it or destroying it on purpose. NE is not for something like accidental destruction, because that is worse. Thanks for understanding. The Page Maker II (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep alternate templates suggested are not adequate replacements. I believe the nominee did this in bad faith based on action/behavior with the scrapped template.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:29, 11 January 2022 (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(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 merge to Template:Small. ✗plicit 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Smaller with Template:Small.
I'm nominating this template for merge with {{small}} because the name is confusing, the distinction is probably unnecessary, and having fewer font variations should make Wikipedia typography look more professional.

In English, the general sequence from biggest to smallest is "small, smaller, smallest". But confusingly, {{small}} (resizing to 85%) produces text that is bigger than {{smaller}} (resizing to 90%). I'd argue that in nearly all cases, 100%-size text would be just fine, but in any case where editors think smaller text is needed, switching from 90% to 85% should be acceptable and will probably go unnoticed. Any page that really, really needs 90%-size text can still use {{resize}}. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, is there a way to remove the "See TFD" that appears next to every instance where this template is used? It's breaking it. —El Millo (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: I've changed the TFD notice to "disabled" for transcluding pages; hopefully that fixes the breakage you were seeing? -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beland, That did it. Thank you! —El Millo (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2022 (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).