Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

edit

Template:Gradient

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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template pointing to template currently being deleted as its replacement. Recommend subst and delete. Izno (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2021 (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).
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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can be speedy deleted per G7. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 1 January 2021 (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:Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district

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 relisted on 2021 January 14. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2021 (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:Rounded

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 keep following the redesign. However, NPASR if there is a new rationale for deletion. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a hack of a hack for rounded corners. It should be replaced categorically with Template:Border-radius. Izno (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And should probably keep this with the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the rather significant change to this template mid-discussion, a relist seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2021 (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:Check mark

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 redirect to Template:Tick. No rationale has been provided why the 3-pixel difference should be preserved. I suspect the vast majority of users were unaware of it, anyway.

Personal opinion: agree with having a follow-up discussion on standardizing icon sizes for accessibility reasons, and that we probably don't need a separate {{X mark big}} (checking its uses, {{Xmark}} would work just fine, and there is a size parameter if it really matters). That said, I'm sure there are more important things we could all be working on. — The Earwig talk 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Tick - seems to be directly compatible and a duplicate. 1900 transclusions to {{Tick}}'s 69,000. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a broader discussion on standardizing icon sizes (for accessibility) would be a good idea, but it's probably not going to get consistent results discussing them one-by-one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we did keep, we should probably rename it to {{Big tick}} or something, along the line of your examples. Because "check" does not convey any difference compared to "tick", they're synonyms. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and if you rename it to {{Big tick}}, you can redirect {{Big hants}} to it as well. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed we should have a larger discussion on icon sizes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per nominator. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 02:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per other keep !votes. Also, rename the templates to {{Tick mark}} and {{Tick mark big}} respectively, consistent with {{Xmark}} vs {{x mark big}}. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect 3 pixels is hardly any difference ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 03:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really no reason to get rid of it. Heavily used, very intuitively named. If nothing else, make it a redirect. DS (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The TfD tag on transclusions is a bit misleading. Deletion was never proposed, only a redirect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I would also redirect {{x mark big}} to {{Xmark}} for the same reason as the rationale above. Why have duplicates of the X mark but not the tick mark? Techie3 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as first choice; the pixel size difference is too small to matter. This would also obviate all the blather about ENGVAR (if they both go to the same place, the "issue" just disappears). It's confusing to have two templates for exactly the same thing produce very faintly different output. Second choice: keep, but only as a wrapper for {{Tick}}, that just encodes the size difference, and otherwise passes on all variables. But I think that result would verge on pointless. I'm strongly toward redirect. PS: The "keep per ENGVAR" !votes are actually invalid (except where they raise some other rationale); MOS doesn't technically apply to template names, and the names of the templates are not the TfD issue in the first place; the redundancy of the templates is. They could be moved to "Template:Tick-check 1" and "Template:Tick-check 2", and we'd still TfD/TfM them for the same reason. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF; the existence of some other barely-different templates that also need to be nominated for merge/redirect is not a good argument to fail to act in this case. Also, the examples given of barely-different templates include some false comparisons (e.g. {{Helped}} and {{Done}} are templates with different purposes/meanings/wording, and the icon size difference in them is accidental or at least incidental, and meaningless). Those that are literally just minor variations, in size only, should be nominated next, however. That clearly does include {{X mark big}} and {{Resolved mark large}} which, like {{Check mark}}, have barely-discernible differences from the original templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There is clearly no substantial difference between these two templates that warrants keeping even a wrapper. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless someone can show an example of where existing check marks suddenly becoming three pixels smaller would cause any kind of problem or breakage. It seems less disruptive than having this ‹See Tfd› link on it for almost a month... The words are synonymous; a "check mark" is not bigger than a "tick". If it's deemed necessary to have a "big tick" version instead of {{tick|23}} (I doubt it), that could be done, with "big check mark" also as a redirect. --IamNotU (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2021 (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/2021_January_1&oldid=1144966992"