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]
- Template:Aslan Karatsev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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 essentiallyDecorative 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]
- Reply Agree with much of that. I was referring to
- 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
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Template:SPL map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- This is hardly critical, and is obviously out of date, but there's nothing wrong with it as such. Suppose it's up to the groupthink of the relevant article maintainers. Analogues like {{MLS labeled map}} are likewise little-used, though in the case of annotated maps they can have utility even with only a couple of transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2021–22 Scottish Premiership has a perfectly good map showing the location of the clubs this season. Given that it covers "the current Premiership teams in Scotland" I'm struggling to see where else this map could usefully go. As noted, the three-coloured aspect is baffling. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not used & not needed. GiantSnowman 17:48, 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).
Youth Olympics ice hockey champion navboxes
- 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]
- Template:IfCommons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- Delete as useless since this the English Wikipedia, not Commons. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this a Transwiki aid for moving files and their file pages to Commons? Or the reverse, for copying a file to local Wikipedias and their file pages, when media becomes high profile in the local Wikipedia (such as featured image, or in a highly viewed use) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:07, 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) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Hebrewmonth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Templates.Wikia. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if kept, it should be rewritten to display a couplet of Latin and Hebrew or Yiddish with an option, and be able to covert both ways, not just from Latin to Hebrew -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:18, 4 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]
- Template:UTA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bangkok MRT stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bangkok MRT style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bangkok Rapid Transit style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CapMetroRail style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CATS lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CATS stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CATS style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/Bangkok MRT left/MRT Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/Bangkok MRT left/MRT Purple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/Bangkok MRT right/MRT Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/Bangkok MRT right/MRT Purple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/Bangkok MRT right/MRT Yellow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/BTC right/Donghae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS left/Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS left/Green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS right/Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS right/Green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR left/branches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR left/City Atlantic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR left/City Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR left/Port Washington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/Atlantic Far Rockaway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/Main Hempstead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/Main Port Jefferson Oyster Bay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/Montauk West Hempstead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/LIRR right/Port Washington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RB-BW left/53 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RB-BW left/92 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RB-BW left/96 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RB-BW right/53 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RB-BW right/92 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RE-BW left/72 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/RE-BW right/72 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/TCDD right/Konya-Karaman Regional (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/TrainOSE right/Cogwheel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/FrontRunner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA Streetcar S Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX Blue Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX former Green Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX Green Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX Red Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX Sandy University Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA left/UTA TRAX University Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/FrontRunner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA Streetcar S Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX Blue Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX former Green Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX Green Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX Red Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX Sandy University Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/UTA right/UTA TRAX University Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/VMR left/Valley Metro Rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/VMR right/Valley Metro Rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UTA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UTA style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR black style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WPRR stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CATS color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS left/Gold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:S-line/CATS right/Gold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:CMTA color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:VMR color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UTA color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- Comment: Although I don't object to the migration of {{S-line}} to Module:Adjacent stations, the accompanying {{documentation}} never seems to be created for the replacement modules. Useddenim (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Useddenim, I sympathize, but commenting here will not fix that problem. Please address your concern on an appropriate talk page, either for the Trains project or individual editors who are creating pages without documentation. You could also add {{Improve documentation}} to the page's doc page or inside
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags on the template page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Useddenim, I sympathize, but commenting here will not fix that problem. Please address your concern on an appropriate talk page, either for the Trains project or individual editors who are creating pages without documentation. You could also add {{Improve documentation}} to the page's doc page or inside
- 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]
- Comment I created this with the aim of doing exactly that, but got diverted. The templates for traditional card games are pretty full and new proprietary games are produced all the time, so they probably justify their own template, unless we think the category's enough. If we elect to keep this, I'm happy to populate it. Bermicourt (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how this would work with hundreds of card games being listed, it would not seem better than the category or a list article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hundreds of proposed links makes it a list article instead of a template. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:50, 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 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Only four links in this navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - template needs updating to reflect Braintree Town F.C.#Current squad and then adding to the relevant articles. GiantSnowman 19:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A current squad template for a team in the National League South, the sixth tier of English football. Hardly surprisingly no one's too interested and it rarely gets updated, the parent article Braintree Town F.C. being the suitable place for such material. Also not many of the players have articles, so it's not useful for navigation (even if it was in some). Not encyclopedia content either. I can see that we need to cover current events in some detail but maintaining a template for such a lowly team is simply wasting effort when we should be building an encyclopedia. We have even worse examples: {{Wingate & Finchley F.C. squad}}, a team I've never even heard of, at the 7th tier of English football. The "current" squad listed there is 5 years out of date. We need to set a line somewhere and teams at the 6th and 7th tiers, and probably those at the 5th too, are below that line IMO. Nigej (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No navigational benefit. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:42, 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 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:
- Meets one of the criteria for deletion: Extra template. Templates NE and Maybe2 are sufficient.
- The template duplicates Template:Scrapped, and therefore, it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Therefore, it should be deleted. This is according to the deletion policy.
The Page Maker II (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This template does not duplicate the other two templates listed. They display different text and different colors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added this template and {{scrapped}}, specifically because another editor had grown confused and had complained about the use of {{Incorrect}} together with overriding text ("intentionally destroyed" or "scrapped") in a table. See Talk:SpaceX_Starship_development/Archive_3#Incorrect_templates. The problem is that table source code is already very messy and complicated, so anything that can make it simpler will reduce the chance of error. Yes, these two templates are highly specialized, but so are many of the templates in this class. The documentation (Template:Table cell templates/doc) makes it clear that such specialized templates are acceptable and even encouraged, and templates are cheap. -Arch dude (talk) 16:03, 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]
- Template:Smaller (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- @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]
- Support Merge, as an acceptable second choice to fixing the obvious bug of "smaller" being larger than "small". Has anyone tested all the other variations to see if, say "large" is larger than "larger"? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- {{large}} is "font-size: large". {{larger}} is "font-size:110%". {{large}} does in fact appear larger on my screen. I haven't tested any other combinations. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a problem. IIRC, "font-size: large" is browser dependent. "font-size:110%" is not. In my opinion, we should take a look at all the font size templates, redirect any that are basically duplicates, and convert all of the rest to percentages. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- {{large}} is "font-size: large". {{larger}} is "font-size:110%". {{large}} does in fact appear larger on my screen. I haven't tested any other combinations. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The current situation makes no sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - perposal makes sense. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:13, 15 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).