Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< August 8
August 10 >

August 9

Template:Hurricane Dennis series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 20:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only article using the template now is the Meteorological history of Hurricane Dennis. Previously, there were other sub-articles, which were merged into the Dennis article. As a result, this template is no longer needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CCIlist/core

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unused. Izno (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Empty-warn-NPF

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Feel free to move the page wherever is determined to be best. NPASR if there is a good reason to do so in the future. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused but I wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (The redirect might cause confusion). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Resize

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:Resize. There is a weak consensus to merge in this direction mainly because of existing functionality at the target. If further discussion shows that "midsize" is a better final name, go for it. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Resize with Template:Midsize.
{{resize}} reduces text to 90%. {{midsize}} reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{Font size templates}}, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
this should be fixed i think TerrariaTree3852 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to fix this; see my contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that 92% or 90% does not make any difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have an opinion about this template, but this nomination has broken the heavily used template:XfD relist. See today's RfD for example. Please can you unbreak it quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts |size=, which can translate to |1= in {{resize}} (if |2= is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts |height= for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone will need to make a detailed plan - Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have removed {{midsize}} from a number of templates in which it was violating MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, this proposed merge would presumably also affect {{midsizediv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another usage is using it in a unlinked note. This should be replaced with actual note templates like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of |height= being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the |div= option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the |size= option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for we should start another merge or rename discussion, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for {{midsizediv}}, that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see |upright= when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I basically can't see any difference between what is produced by the two templates with default settings (permalink to a demonstration). (The difference in line height feels like it should be more impactful than the 1.8% difference in font size, but I can't tell the difference by looking at the template output despite trying in three different browsers.) If one template supports more functionality than the other, or if they support slightly different subsets of functionality, that's an argument in favour of merging rather than an argument against – it means that people don't need to look through a range of templates until they find the exact template (if any) that has the particular subset of functionality they need (and {{Font size templates}} doesn't really do a good job of explaining the differences) – ensuring that there's just one template that supports all the functionality of both will mean that the first template people find will be the one they need. There are sometimes reasons not to merge (e.g. merging into {{font}} may be a mistake – it supports a range of options that aren't supposed to be used in articles, such as absolute sizing, and thus increases the risk that it'll be used incorrectly), but {{resize}} and {{midsize}} are similar enough that any functionality that's useful with one will be useful with the other. --ais523 16:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Birth year and age2

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. A reasonable counter-argument has been made as to its use, but it is still unused, so for that I see NPASR if that doesn't change in the near future (year's end?). Primefac (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Template:Birth year and age with no clear indication why another version is needed. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Gonnym this template is in the same vein as {{Birth date and age2}} compared to {{Birth date and age}}. It's not a duplicate of {{Birth year and age}} because that template doesn't allow you to calculate age at a specified date, as compared to age as of today. If this is deleted, then {{Birth date and age2}} should also be deleted by the same reason. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of what it can do that the other template can't? Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, sure, here is an example:
How old was George Washington Carver in 1900? {{Birth year and age2}} can tell you:
  • 1864 (aged 35–36)
The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. {{Birth year and age}} can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Val/unitsfromconvert

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub template with only one talk page transclusion left. Subst usage and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Breaking B-Girls

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 20:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. The sport is one and done after Paris, meaning there will only be one champion per event. Can be created if the sport is held again in the future. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Sportsfan 1234. Template should only be created for more than one entry. KyleBYerrick (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about it. It would be inconvenient to recreate a page again after four years if the event is held, but that event is not played again, then it shouldn't be there. So let's just wait and see what happens in four years. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its confirmed to not be held in 2028. So the earliest is 2032, 8 years away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for context, here's a source confirming that. --SuperJew (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hamas history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 August 16. Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Palestinian leaders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 August 16. Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Futurama

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:WikiProject Animation. Izno (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Futurama with Template:WikiProject Animation.
WikiProject Futurama was turned 5 years ago into task force of animation and is found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force. {{WikiProject Animation}} should be updated to accept it as a parameter and the usages of {{Futurama}} replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ryan Reynolds

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:FILMNAV, which states: Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This navbox consists almost entirely of films starring Reynolds in which he happened to also receive writer and/or producer credit (something very common in Hollywood). He was not the primary creator, i.e. director, of any of the films listed. The few valid links that remain fail the WP:NENAN rule of five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current selection is too random and recent. Residentgrigo (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_9&oldid=1244674677"