Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ProcrastinatingReader (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 30 October 2020 (→‎Template:Loc: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 21 October 23 >

October 22

Template:Composer sidebar

As well as the ~70 templates which are based on it (see search).

Recent nominations of tens of such templates, on three dates (September 28, October 5, October 8) resulted, without exception, in deletion.

They were nominated for:

  • (in some cases) failing WP:NENAN (i.e. for containing too few links to justify their existence)
  • for being redundant to and less useful than footer navboxes
  • for hiding their image - often an article's lead image - from mobile users, who (on latest figures) make up 57% of our users.

(Some were also unused.)

The remaining templates, and the parent, are nominated on the same basis.

Arguments for keeping them which were not upheld in the previous discussions included that they were "deliberately narrower in scope to the one to which it is claimed to be redundant", that they "serve a useful navigational purpose for this set of articles", "NENAN is an essay", and "these are sidebars, not navboxes".

In each case, the image should be moved into respective articles before the template is removed.

There have previously been objections both to nominating templates of this type in batches; and to doing so individually; see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Sidebar batch nominations for discussion on that point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for proposing this set Andy, and for your thoughtful nomination. I think these templates should be kept as I think they are useful for navigation and, if it is just a problem with the images, the sidebars can be edited rather than removed. On the other hand I'm aware this is not likely to be the community consensus. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with the footer template option and delete sidebar version. Sidebar templates take precious real-estate at the top of the screen. Unlike an infobox which provides users with summary of key points, this sidebars are purely for navigation purposes. This is highlighted by the fact that the code they use is not supported by mobile and unseen by those readers. For navigation templates, their place is at the bottom of the page where our readers are used to finding them. As Andy pointed out, any image should be kept and used in the article, and as the previous batch has shown, often it would be an even better image which is about the specific piece and not the general image of the individual who composed it. Additionally, many of the pages have received {{Infobox opera}} as a replacement, which is even more useful. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There aren't any horizontal navigation bars for many of the composers that use this template. The argument about visibility for mobile users is flawed because they don't see horizontal navigation bars either. There's no benefit in deleting this and more than 60 other templates, and considerable disadvantage. If opera sidebars are to be deleted, concentrating on those composers who have a horizontal a navigation bar would be more fruitful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MB and LT. People who feel that only bottom navboxes should be used are welcome to propose that at a central venue, but at the moment there are thousands of articles using sidebars, not limited to this set. Concerns around image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note template works in mobile view unlike nav footers--Moxy 🍁 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked using my Android mobile phone (on Die Fledermaus), and the template does not display, in either the native bowser or the WMF's Wikipedia app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no way for what you said to be correct Moxy. {{Composer sidebar}} uses {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, which has a message stating his template does not display in the mobile view of Wikipedia; it is desktop only.. I've also tested a random page using {{Composer sidebar}} and indeed it did not show. --Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen the template showing how to make a sidebar, because there seems to be no wish to create new ones. As for the individual ones left, how about asking for objections to deleting specific ones? I don't use any of them, so would have no objections to deleting them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the search shows some templates we decided already to delete. An example for what I think is useless you can see at Das Mädchen aus Domrémy: a template which is much longer than the article, showing the image of the composer when old but he composed mostly when young, and mobile users wouldn't even see that image. Generally: I believe what serves composers such as Verdi well (see Aida), should also be good for Sacchini, see Dardanus (Sacchini) where I'd much prefer to see the singer on top than the bust of the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's useful to have a summary of composer stuff near the top, with the page overview. TreeReader (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/rules

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⚡ 08:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used after Special:Diff/799049703 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 22 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:Sclass

Propose merging Template:Sclass with Template:Sclass- and Template:Sclass2 with Template:Sclass2-
Templates for linking to X-class Y such as Template:Sclass-. The difference between them is that one hyphenates the link and the others doesn't. {{Sclass}} is deprecated since 2018 and a simple redirect to {{Sclass-}} should be enough for the links to be preserved. This can be verified using a simple quarry and if any are missed several good redirects will be created in the process. Exact same thing applies for non-italicized sclass2 templates. --Trialpears (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended that {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} live short lives; that once all of the ship-class article titles had been properly hyphenated, {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} should be updated to link to hyphenated article titles and {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} redirected to {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}}. Further, it was intended that the {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} redirect transclusions should be replaced with {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} through normal maintenance until the redirects were no longer needed at which point the redirects would be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sclass and Sclass2 only have 1 mainspace usages, which seems to mean that all ship-class article titles have been hyphenated. Per Trappist the monk's response that the intent was for the Sclass- and Sclass2- to be temporarily, I support a two step solution: Change Sclass and Sclass2 code to match the hyphenated versions then replace all usages of the hyphenated versions with the non-hyphenated template name. --Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now thousands of articles are rendered unreadable by this proposal - these templates are designed to be used inline so you are breaking the articles - please fix this.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFARcasenav

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 keep. Arbitration template that has been referred to the clerk team for consideration. Thank you for raising the issue. (non-admin closure) CThomas3 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and with the exact same purpose as {{Casenav}}. A simple redirect should preserve everything and add more features. --Trialpears (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was alerted to this as the person who deprecated the template in the first place. First, arbitration-related templates are administered by the committee (because changes to them create more arb and clerk work). Take this up with them. Second, this template has been transcluded up to 1,000 times. What if even one parameter is missing or behaves differently in {{Casenav}} (the two templates are years apart now)? I don't think the time spent pre-diagnosing this issue, or cleaning up the mess afterwards, is a good use of anybody's time, particularly as the site will look no different before and afterwards. AGK ■ 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AGK Alright, forgot that clerks do all the work here which means that everyone here knows what they're doing. That removes the biggest reason for mergers such as this that it makes the templates simpler and more accessible for users unfamiliar with them. I've looked through all the parameters in RFARcasenav and ensured that they are availible in casenav and tested replacements in preview for 3 different uses making quite certain everything is fine. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per Trialpears research into the template parameters. I don't find comments like I don't think the time spent pre-diagnosing this issue, or cleaning up the mess afterwards, is a good use of anybody's time, considering no one forces anyone to do it and this TfD cleanup is done voluntarily. Don't worry about how other people want to spend their time. As to the actual issue, as Trialpears pointed out, both templates are the same, with one being deprecated in favor of the other. In 2020, instead of slapping that awful deprecation template, a template would have been brought to TfD and if consensus was found, it would have been cleaned up afterwards. There is no reason this can't be done now. --Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 22 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:Loc

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 replacing usages with {{Country study}}, or an alternate template as appropriate. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that text from a Library of Congress Country Study is used in an article, which is deprecated in favor of {{Country study}}. While replacement will take significant manual work, the template should be placed in the holding cell so it won't be forgotten and there is a clear consensus in favor for the replacement. --Trialpears (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete per nom. If one should be replaced by the other, this is the place to place them. A a general note, deprecated templates should be abandoned as they don't actually get the result intended and should instead just brought to TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think deprecating is by far the more helpful option: it leaves a pointer to the new template to be used, it preserves the history, it doesn't mess up transclusions in old revisions of pages, and it doesn't require massive amounts of labour to substitute uses. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and it leaves duplicate templates which go out of sync; makes it harder for new editors to figure out which template to use; makes it harder for template and module creators to work around various templates, styles and redirects; adds unnecessary noise to the search results; and still requires additional editorial time spent at TfD since the deprecation usually either does not have a discussion or the discussion is lost in the archives. Yes, I'm sure it's the more helpful option. --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah, cluttering the search results is a drawback. Otherwise: deprecating certainly does not require TfD red tape, and new users will hardly have a hard time figuring out whether to use a template that says on its page in big red letters "Do not use". As for keeping in sync, or integrating with other templates or modules, why would anyone want to make such improvements to deprecated templates? – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because when the templates are "deprecated" but still in use, sometimes in over 1k+ of mainspace articles, those templates still need to keep up-to-date with new HTML specifications, MoS updates and other consensus changes. As an example from our /holding cell section see Template:Aircraft specifications which was deprecated with another similar template for a newer version which was almost the same, but with updates. It was left to rot as deprecated because no one wanted to deal with fixing them, which Trialpears was slowly doing. Also, to answer your question why would anyone use a template that is marked as deprecated? Most just copy/paste from one article to the next and others don't care. Template:Wikify is still being used in mainspace every now and then. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the principle of keeping templates around as deprecated indefinitely. If a template should not be used, and is not used, then there's no point in having a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar We should be replacing this with footnotes that tie the specific text copied to the reference. See, for example, Forestry in Chad. I agree that {{Loc}} is a terrible, but {{country study}} is only marginally better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calliopejen1, proper usage of templates in Category:Attribution templates is to use them for copyright attribution, but to also include inline referencing. This is however often missed and should probably be clearer from documentation and possibly preview only text as well. --Trialpears (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this approach, but that is a topic for broader discussion. Putting copyright attribution in places other than footnotes is not legally required and simply results in cluttery attribution templates that are never removed, even when the underlying content is. No need to respond here; I'll address this somewhere better than this deletion discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I looked at how {{country study}} was actually being used, and it's almost always just used in a footnote like a normal citation, even though it was kind of oddly formatted for that. I changed its formatting so that it's in line with other citation templates, with {{PD-notice}} at the end. I still think it's a kludgy way to cite (the parameters the template accepts aren't great, and {{cite encyclopedia}} is better than {{cite book}}, which {{country study}} is based on, for this) but I withdraw my overall objection to {{country study}}. It's definitely a step in the right direction... Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:16, 29 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:Dispute-resolution/medcom

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⚡ 08:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and deprecated sidebar redundant to {{Dispute-resolution}}. --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 22 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:Assessed

Deprecated talk page banner informing users that the article was assessed for quality a specific week. The problem with this is that no one cares about this, especially since they were all added circa 2006. --Trialpears (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Add-desc-S

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 2020 October 30. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 30 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).

Unused version of Template:NYSE American. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 MAAC men's soccer standings

Unused in the article(s) it can be used, so either the community does not want it or it should be added. It should also be noted that since the bundled nomination a year and a half ago, it's still unused. Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Point Cook Football Club

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) 14:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't really needed as the club is notable enough. HawkAussie (talk) 07:58, 22 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:SubTable

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) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no documentation or clear purpose. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:53, 22 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_22&oldid=986195914"