Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 03:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. There is a full library of actual graphics, meaning this template isn't needed to create signs anymore. Imzadi 1979  22:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note—if deleted, File:Trunk 0.png, File:Trunk 1.png, File:Trunk 2.png, File:Trunk 4.png, File:Trunk 5.png, File:Trunk 6.png, File:Trunk 7.png, File:Trunk 8.png, File:Trunk 9.png, File:Trunk A.png, File:Trunk B.png, File:Trunk C.png, File:Trunk Left.png, File:Trunk Right.png, File:Trunk Single Spacer.png, and File:Trunk Double Spacer.png should all be deleted as those files are only used by this template. Imzadi 1979  23:04, 27 May 2019 (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 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 after replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

Regierungsbezirk-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

77.13.28.41 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (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 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) 03:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple issues with this template. For one, orange/yellow text on a white background is hard to read (officially fails WCAG 2.0 AA contrast, but even as a sighted person it's indistinct). Beyond that, the presentation bears no resemblance to actual Dallas Area Rapid Transit station signage. Per the Design Criteria Manual (scroll down to Appendix E, page 307 or so) the station font is some variation of ITC Avant Garde. You can see it in File:DART Parker Road Station 2009-11-25.jpg; black text on a silver-gray background. The default text in {{Infobox station}} is a good deal closer to that presentation than this template. If there's a need for custom styling it can be achieved through the existing {{DART style}}. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2019 (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 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 2019 June 5. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (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 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 Do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Papacy with Template:Holy See.
Not sure myself, but perhaps arguments could be evaluated. There's arguably a significant content overlapping. The thing is, part of what's confined to the Papacy template might as well be included in the Holy See template, and the other way around to some extent. If merged, indeed a section "Papacy" with subsections pretty much (merged) retained from the previously merged Papacy template would probably be needed. Again, not sure, though. PPEMES (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The boundaries between the temporal and spiritual aspects of the papacy can be unclear to non-experts, so a merged navbox would probably muddy the waters even further.
The overlap isn't that great. I just checked using AWB's list- comparison tool. I found 98 links on Template:Papacy and 80 links on Template:Holy See, including 25 links common to each page. so
I also just spotted Portal talk:Popes#Requested_move_12_May_2019, which was proposed by @PPEMES and rejected. After reading both proposals, I very much doubt that this topic is PPEMES's greatest area of expertise. I suggest that it would be wiser to leave these matters to those who do have some specialist knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are two different things; one is a sovereign entity under international law, the other is not. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2019 (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 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. No prejudice against recreation if more reasonable bluelinks are added. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAVBOX, this is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked, and you can already navigate between the two albums by the infoboxes on the articles. There is no place for an album in a navbox on which she made a guest appearance on one song, which is why that was removed. --woodensuperman 08:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote the passages of WP:NAVBOX that you are referring to when you say that the article is "unnecessary" and there's "no place" in the navbox for the link in question? I have read the page, and I am seeing nothing supporting what you are saying. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the two statements. Per WP:NAVBOX, this navbox is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked. Appearing on one song does not mean that the album forms part of someone's primary discography, which are the only links which are acceptable here. Honestly, this navbox is a waste of space. See WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 12:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to communicate with you when you refuse to make direct reference to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, whether we're talking about a "waste of space" or not. I am going to ask some direct questions; if you refuse to answer them, I will disengage. If I do disengage,I ask the administrator closing this discussion to take into account my good-faith effort to engage with you. Please quote the part of WP:NAVBOX that says that "this navbox is unnecessary, as the articles are already well linked". I cannot see it. And please quote the part of WP:NAVBOX (or any other relevant guideline or policy) that says that "someone's primary discography" makes up "the only links which are acceptable here". If you do not know where Wikipedia guidelines or policies say these things, please retract your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2019 (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 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) 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template was deprecated unilaterally last year, and is used on about 100 articles. Functionally, the template currently just adds <br> to the start of the input, and could easily be replaced through substitution in a few minutes. I would support keeping the template and possibly improving it with TemplateStyles so that it can use <p>...</p> without causing a large gap between lines, but (as suggested by SMcCandlish) I am procedurally nominating it for deletion to assess whether there would be consensus for improving the template instead of replacing the template through substitution. (If the template is kept in its current state then I would support deletion.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning delete, absent a showing that we need to keep and refine it. I'm not opposed to it being kept if the need can be established and the coding for this gets done. I'm not sure what the use case(s) is/are for such a version, or I might just go do it myself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: If it's perfectly acceptable to use the plain br tag for the specific purpose then I would probably lean towards deleting as well. On the other hand, in other situations (especially discussions) it would be nice to have a line break which inserts a <p> with less paragraph spacing. Jc86035 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, well, this doesn't really seem to be a discussion-page-oriented template, but intended for mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Template:Template for discussion is effecting its usage in articles. Is there a way we solve this while this discussion is taking place?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Already resolved (someone <noinclude>'ed the TfD tag.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The template is useful in organizing cast lists and was working fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: While on a functional level the template make the wikitext slightly more readable by allowing for line breaks in the code, it is also possible to use a generic template like {{break}}, and it's even possible to insert a line break character within a <br> tag (although using the former would probably be better since AWB genfixes and similar tools may perform <br> tag autofixes). Alternatively, a hidden comment could be used. Since the vast majority of film articles don't use this template, there's not much point in keeping it just because the template has this easily replicable functionality. Jc86035 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This template is not the same as <br>, that is my whole point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamstom.97: On a functional level, the only thing the template actually adds is the <br> tag, so the only purpose the template really serves is to make wikitext more readable. A replacement will not make the wikitext any less readable, because line breaks can be inserted with other templates which are more widely used. Jc86035 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if kept in this original form per the discussion at Template talk:Cast list break#Deprecation as using the br tag is better in this situation than this template. --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template was introduced after significant discussion because it was the best option for making detailed cast lists more readable. None of the opposition here appears to have addressed this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per TriiipleThreat and adamstom97. - Brojam (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, just use <br />. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No one voting keep has explained why cast lists should use this specific template instead of more general options like {{break}} or <br />. Jc86035 has suggested that this could be used to create thinner paragraphs, but I don't see any problem with the current paragraph layout. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Brojam: Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be arguing to keep the template because the status quo works fine. But those voting delete are not disputing that this template works; they're simply suggesting it be replaced by more general markup like <br /> or {{break}} because as currently implemented, all {{cast list break}} does is insert a <br /> between lines. To make a convincing case for keeping {{cast list break}}, you have to argue what specific purpose this template could serve that other markup or templates don't. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have found the original discussion that led to this template's creation, which is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 65#Cast list gaps. As you can see, other options, including <br>...</br>, were considered but either caused accessibility concerns or major visual concerns such as not allowing images to be included in the cast section. Having a simple and clearly defined template was also considered to be a bonus. As I said in my original comment above, no one opposing the template has addressed the concerns laid out in the orginal discussion, so for now I stand by my vote to keep. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This image is being used in a list item which contains a line break.
    @Adamstom.97: {{break}} was not considered at all in the discussion. I haven't reviewed it thoroughly, but regardless, that discussion can't override a consensus from this discussion.
    As far as I can tell, there are no accessibility concerns (it is semantically valid to split a bullet point using a <br> tag) and a line break tag does not prevent the use of images within list items. Having a clearly defined template may help, but the template is not very widely used to begin with and a redirect from a meaningful title to a less specialized template would be able to serve roughly the same function. Jc86035 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2019 (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 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template (outside of two talk page notices from years ago); the function of this template can be handled better by {{jct}}, which will display graphics that use the actual typefaces from British roadsigns. There is a graphics library already in place, so text-based recreations such as this are not necessary. Imzadi 1979  02:20, 27 May 2019 (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).