Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26

edit

Template:Whisperback

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 merge to Template:Talkback. Functionality should be preserved, along the lines of SMcCandlish. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Whisperback with Template:Talkback.

Functionally equivalent, we don't need two versions of this. Talkback appears to be preferred by a ratio of ~35:1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, but actually merge (i.e., preserve functionality, perhaps with a |small=yes parameter, and replace or substitute extant uses). They are not functionally equivalent; this one was specifically designed to be compact and unobtrusive. In retrospect, that would have been better done with a parameter. As it is, though, both of these templates verge on obsolete since introduction of the ping feature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete with second best option being Merge. These templates are very similar functionally and would benefit from merging. It is much easier as an editor to be able to know the actual name of a template instead of finding lots and lots of alternate names that are used on different pages, hence my preference to replace and delete instead of merging.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's self-contradictory, and I think it resolves for practical purposes to something like "merge then redirect to Template:Talkback". If they "would benefit from merging" then there is not a rationale for deletion. And neither TfD nor RfD accept "easier as an editor to be able to know the actual name of a [page] instead of finding [redirects] that are used on different pages" as a rationale for deleting redirects. No one is rendered not "able" to know the actual name of the page; all they have to do is follow the redirects, which exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or replace/delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Shooting at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Shooting at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Fencing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Diving at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Diving at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Archery at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused as content has now been merged with Archery at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Autocat

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to be a failed proposal as, despite its creation being widely advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 184#New template: autocat and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Template:Autocat, it only ever had four uses, all of which were added by it's creator and then reverted by BrownHairedGirl one week later, rendering it unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:German Wiki

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. Consensus that this should not be used on articles. Technically, moving to userspace per creator's request, as courtesy & to save having an admin copy it into a sandbox. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have articles written in German here. Also unused. --Trialpears (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Archive top red

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 Wrapperify. Worth nothing that all except {{Archive top purple}} already were wrappers before this proposal. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting or merging the above colour-forms into Template:Archive top.

It's highly unlikely that we need different coloured versions of this template (consider readers with colour-blindness), but if we do, we should have one template with a |colour= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deletion would break over 500 uses of those templates. Also, the different colors are used to denote different outcomes (and color-blind users can just read the explanation of the outcome). pbp 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The other color variants are often used to denote specific outcomes - I've seen red used to denote when discussion failed, for instance. They don't hurt anything, they are occassionally useful, and any sort of action is liable to break over 500 transclusions. I can't see what messing with this would accomplish. Hog Farm Bacon 16:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an accessibility fail; colour should not be used to impart information in this manner. Besides which, most people would not understand such intent, since no key is provided. And in most cases the scheme you describe is not used: a total of 584 transclusions (especially vs. over 18K for the main template) does not support the claim "often". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
      • What's an accessibility fail would be if colors were the only way to impart that information. But they're not; because there's text generated by the template that says what's going on. And while 584 isn't 18,000; it's not zero either. pbp 19:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm assuming that this is meant ot be a sort of traffic-light system. However we shouldn't be using different coloured boxes for this purpose. If there is a genuine requirement for different colours, then this is best done through a parameter, not by replicating the main template. Why not "Archive top purple" ad infinitum. Nigej (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have a few points I would like to make.
    It's easy to talk about colour-blind individuals in the abstract, but as the re-designer of {{Archive top yellow}} I did ensure this was less of a barrier for folks than one would've thought. When designing things with colors, I use a website called Color Hexa which provides an inexact sample of how colour-blind users would see a given color.
    I also don't feel the transclusion count tells a whole-enough story. Excluding deletion archival templates, the nominated archive top colour templates are all within the top ten most transcluded archive discussion templates. However, these numbers can be very wacky since discussion templates are often substituted. Further still, the archive top colour templates were generally made by Purplebackpack back in 2013 while {{Archive top}} has a history that goes back double as much! Can anyone reasonably be surprised that such a template has more transclusions?
    The nomination statement also disregards the fact that Archive top is pretty much one of the default used templates. If an editor makes a decision to transclude one of the other colour templates, it's usually a conscience decision on their part. We should not be overriding their decision to transclude or substitute this template in the manner they so choose in order to maintain the integrity of previously closed discussions.
Extended transclusion statistics
Those are my thoughts on this matter. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear why we can't have a "colour=parameter" in the main one, rather than having more and more copies of it with minor variations. Nigej (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej and Pigsonthewing: In general, users don't always transclude these templates directly; Sometimes people use {{atopy}} or another similar shortcut. Then you have the pretty glaring fact that some users spell it "colour" while others would rather die than spell it "color". Many users, myself included, would probably resent the choice being made for us after the fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another non issue. Variants of paramter names can be and regularly are handled in template ccde. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Mabbett: Okay, maybe I didn't understand your proposal. After you delete {{Atopy}} are you going to use |color= or |colour= to replace this transclusion? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Then what if, instead of deleting all the colour templates, we replace all their content with a wrapper around {{Archive top}} per I and Sdkb below? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDragonFire300: That would be fine with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, a template can accept more than one template parameter, so you can have something like {{{color|{{{colour|purple}}}}}}, which will default to purple but accept either spelling. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts with the yellow template. I'm not clear though, how this help people with red/green colourblindness - the commonest form - to distinguish between red and green versions of the template.
I agree - and would never disregard - that "Archive top is pretty much one of the default used templates" - and it is admirably suited to the job. So why do we need the others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. thanks also for including {{Afc top}} in your list of templates; note that it was created by the merger of various single-colour templates,analogous to those in this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IPNAselectedart

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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Apple Inc. SA

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; deleted as G8 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article nomination template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:USMCportal

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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article template for a deleted portal. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Transcription factor and coregulator deficiencies

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This giant template does not, I think, provide useful navigational value. It should be converted to a list. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Borat

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 redirect to Template:Sacha Baron Cohen. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually identical to {{Sacha Baron Cohen}}, minus a couple of links (e.g. Tutar Sagdiyev). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_26&oldid=1145970974"