Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
How to use this page
What not to propose for discussion here
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
Reasons to delete a template
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template
- The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
I | Tag the template. |
---|---|
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add |
|
II | List the template at Tfd. |
Follow to edit today's Tfd log.
Add this text at the top, just below the If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add Use an edit summary such as Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the |
|
III | Notify users. |
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Current discussions
June 14
- 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 Request withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Italian cruiser Pietro Micca ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Italian cruiser Tripoli ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Goito-class cruiser ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Folgore-class cruiser ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Partenope-class cruiser ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Agordat_class cruiser ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Each navbox has a section that states the previous class and a successive class, which is what {{s-start}}, {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}, ... are used for. The navboxes are sequential, and lists a number of ships that fall into each class, which are minimal. Suggesting merging these navboxes into one. If the user needs help setting up the preceeding/successive cruiser classes, I'd volunteer to help out. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To elaborate, I suggest replacing the navboxes with a cumulative one, something like Special:Permalink/725204677. The succession boxes at the bottom is not meant to be part of the template. It's a just a demo. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just a heads up for your proposal - you would have to do that for every ship class article. What Parsecboy has done is pretty much standard among ship class articles. If you wish to establish a norm, you may have to go to WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST to get more input. Llammakey (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Llammakey, this is standard practice across thousands of articles. Take a glance through Category:Military_ship_templates. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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:PD-Ethiopia-Photo
- Template:PD-Ethiopia-Photo ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, very narrow in scope (photos only?), and potentially even misleading - overly simplifies the relevant Ethiopian laws (see Commons version) FASTILY 01:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:PD-MalaysiaGov
- Template:PD-MalaysiaGov ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, potentially misleading, redundant to {{PD-Malaysia}}
. See also: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MalaysiaGov FASTILY 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:PD-GreekFolklore
- Template:PD-GreekFolklore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, does not exist on Commons, easily replaced by {{PD-simple}}
FASTILY 01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
June 13
Template:PD-banknote
- Template:PD-banknote ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, redundant to {{PD currency}}
FASTILY 10:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Roman/2
- Template:Roman/2 ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
0 transclusions. Functionality has been completely superceded by Template:Roman. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Motorola microcontrollers
- Template:Motorola microcontrollers ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Motorola processors ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Motorola microcontrollers with Template:Motorola processors.
One template can handle all the stuff currently divided between the two templates; and there already seems to be some overlap. Template talk:Motorola microcontrollers also suggest merging. DavidCary (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:CC-by-3.0-Works
- Template:CC-by-3.0-Works ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, no transclusions, redundant to {{Cc-by-3.0}}
FASTILY 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Publication officielle
- Template:Publication officielle ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused file license template, and likely based on an incorrect interpretation of copyright. See also: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Publication officielle FASTILY 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:PD-status
- Template:PD-status ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, redundant to {{Non-free fair use}}
, and overly complicated/difficult to use FASTILY 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:PD-script
- Template:PD-script ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, redundant to {{PD-simple}}
FASTILY 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
June 12
Template:Pop
- Template:Pop ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unnecessary template created for just a few listed songs, most of them redirects and do not have article. Has no benefit to the encyclopedia. —IB [ Poke ] 21:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Great Stella
- Template:Great Stella ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, redundant to {{Stella image}}
FASTILY 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Mary
- Template:Mary ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Sidebar, redundant to {{Virgin Mary}}, a navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very strongly oppose deletion Navboxes can't be used mid-article. The sidebar is a useful, even more concise summary of the most important things. This is a very, very long standing template, too, used in several articles. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 15:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Obviously redundant, as it includes the same links. In response to the above: You've provided no reason why it's desirable to have this mid-article. A navbox is just as concise while offering even more links that a reader may find useful. Age has nothing to do with merit. ~ RobTalk 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @BU Rob13: I believe other users have now provided specific reasons why it's desirable mid-article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jujutsuan: I've seen no such rationale. "Sidebars are common" doesn't dispute redundancy, nor does "to be less of a nuisance". In fact, those two rationales don't say much of anything; they're not based in our reasons for deletion or any policy or guideline. Actually, looking at the guidelines, navboxes and sidebars are so close to one another that they share a section in our relevant guideline. See WP:NAVBOX/WP:SIDEBAR. These are two navigational templates within the same area. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I believe other users have now provided specific reasons why it's desirable mid-article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete, the sidebar takes up too much space, and interferes with images and other floating content. the navbox is a better method for navigation which doesn't suffer from the same issues. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion: there is no reason why we cannot have both a navbox and a sidebar. That is a common situation. The two serve slightly different purposes; the primary article is a broad overview and different perspectives of Mary are covered in various sub-articles, which can be easily found through the sidebar. It is used on many other articles too, where it has an advantage in being more prominent than a navbox. The template should be discussed on its own merits and not whether it crowds the article. A separate argument should be made for removing the image from the lead, if crowding/aesthetic reasons are the main concern. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, sidebars are common templates. Brought the image down from 200px to 120px which makes for a leaner template and may actually look better at this image size. Randy Kryn 12:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep so as to be as little nuisance as possible to readers and efitors in this area of interest. Thincat (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as this is exactly the sort of thing that sidebar templates are made for - very closely related set of articles on a specific subject for which there is a lot of information. Unlike navboxes, sidebars strongly suggest further reading to the reader; they're a way of admitting that the constituent articles cannot individually fully explain the overarching topic. That's the case here - many articles on a single religious figure. Jhugh95 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replied to BU Rob13 and Frietjes' votes above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It adds value by selecting the most significant topics on Mary and helping our readers navigate between them. Redundancy on its own is not a problem, otherwise we won't be summarising every article into a lead section. Deryck C. 16:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:DoukkalaAbda-geo-stub
- Template:DoukkalaAbda-geo-stub ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Not in use. Since replaced with other stub categories because the region no longer exists. ~ RobTalk 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ownwork
- Template:Ownwork ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused, ambiguous/misleading, redundant to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers|migration=relicense|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}
FASTILY 09:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox economist
- Template:Infobox economist ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Infobox academic ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Infobox economist with Template:Infobox academic.
I'm a PhD student in economics. As a profession, economists have a lot of hubris, but even I recognize that we don't need our own infobox. The only advantage of this infobox that I can distinguish is that it provides the more economics-specific "field" label instead of "sub-discipline", but that's not a big enough advantage to warrant the infobox. There are even some advantages of using the academic infobox, which has fields like "notable works" and "notable ideas".
Basically, redundant. ~ RobTalk 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rob, you may aspire to be an academic, but most economists work outside academia. In fact, many of the most important economists were not academics. A few examples: Thomas Mun, William Petty, Richard Cantillon, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George, Alan Greenspan. We should keep the templates separate. But if you like some of the features of the academic infobox, why not add them to the economist infobox? Anthon.Eff (talk)
- Keep – has features like RePEc which don't pertain to academic infoboxes. And the academic infobox has a lot of stuff that is useless for economists. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0-map
- Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0-map ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused/no transclusions, completely redundant to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}
. FASTILY 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
June 11
Template:PlanetShakers
- Template:PlanetShakers ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox template with only a single entry. There were many more before my two recent edits, but they linked to redirects (back to the church/band) article, were redlinks, linked to a song not an album and it was unrelated to the subject or was a circular link because it started with a hash tag and no target could be found. With only one entry in the template, it makes no sense to keep it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- there are three links, one of which is a redirect to the main university article and this box is not in... not enough to navigate! 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 01:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- there are only two links which this navbox is in... not enough to navigate! 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
June 10
Template:Online newspaper
- Template:Online newspaper ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There is no obvious use for this template and it was created by an editor who has been adding one blog, pakistanviews.org, across numerous articles. Per the first edit at this template it looks as this is part of some potentially spammy campaign. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – While we may eventually want an infobox more specific to internet media outlets than {{Infobox website}}, this isn't it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Rugby league footballers with 325 NRL games
- Template:Rugby league footballers with 325 NRL games ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
the benchmark of 325 games is completely arbitrary. why not 300 games? 315? LibStar (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rename as Template:Rugby league footballers with 300 NRL games, which appears to be a recognized cutoff. Ibadibam (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rename It's true. The "300 club" is often mentioned and a "325 club" never is. As the author of this template, I felt that the 300 club was too large so I wanted to keep this down to a smaller size, as I'm acutely aware of the huge problem rugby league articles have with these ever-proliferating, ever-expanding (and thus ever-diluting in meaningfulness) navbox templates. But the point about sources is an important one (as we should all strive to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with sources) and it should probably be changed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:2016 Libertarian Primaries
- Template:2016 Libertarian Primaries ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Most of the links point to the same page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:2016 Green Primaries
- Template:2016 Green Primaries ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant with {{US 2016 presidential elections series}} and {{United States presidential election, 2016}}. Only two of the links in this template go to different pages. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:PD-source
- Template:PD-source ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused attribution template essentially redundant to Template:PD-old-text. Ibadibam (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
June 9
Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages
- 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 Request withdrawn I think it would be undisputed to bring this to the mainspace and turn transclusions into links. Ping of there really are any issues. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
One transclusion at Ait Irane. Template, which is really an article, should be substituted into the target and deleted, or brought into the article mainspace and linked. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Clay animation
- Template:Clay animation ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Presents an undefined set. Subjective inclusion of films and animators. Unsuitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. Better suited to category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Geronimo Stilton
- Template:Geronimo Stilton ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
All redirects to a single article. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Nations at the 2013 Asian Youth Games
- Template:Nations at the 2013 Asian Youth Games ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navbox consists solely of redirects. Any article that would spin out from these redirects would fit within the scope of Template:Asian Youth Games. czar 13:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
June 8
Template:Nelson-geo-stub
- Template:Nelson-geo-stub ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
After this CfD, this stub template no longer has enough articles to justify its own category. It's currently just populating Category:New Zealand geography stubs, so we might as well just redirect to {{NewZealand-geo-stub}} ~ RobTalk 19:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as keeping this would seem to be continuing the previous confusing categorization —PC-XT+ 22:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:CollapsedShell
- Template:CollapsedShell ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
There are a couple reasons for deletion, mostly focused around duplication of {{WikiProject banner shell}}:
- In some uses, this template is being "misused" (I use that term lightly) as it is not being used as a WPBS. It is instead being used to collapse miscellaneous items. In that usage, it can and should be replaced by {{collapse top}}, so it duplicates that template to some degree.
- Where it is used as an alternate on WPBS, the collapsing is rarely necessary (in my judgement). The single customization parameter
|text=
was recently removed from WPBS (and its actual instances) as being of low usage and generally unnecessary. The collapsing behavior can be manipulated in WPBS trivally. So in this way, it duplicates WPBS without need.
I would not support a merge of |text=
back into WPBS per #2. Izno (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support iff (and only if) current usage is adapted to utilize WPBS as indicated by the nom, and a redirect established as necessary assuming any instances remain after appropriate conversion. A template like this, used by over 100 pages, should be deleted only when existing uses are adapted when the reasoning for deletion is duplication by an existing template. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: - please, stop removing instances where this template is being used along with all the content they contain. Either you should move content into an alternative template OR wait until decision is made. As for my vote: Support if instances will be correctly replaced by WikiProjectBannerShell where appropriate. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SkywalkerPL: Easy there. I removed one use (collapsing a single entry) and then decided it would be better to TFD it than to remove 50 some-odd uses, some of which are in archives, etc. etc. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant, assuming the conversion will be handled appropriately, of course —PC-XT+ 22:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:AFL Capricornia
- Template:AFL Capricornia ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Only has redlinks so it fails as a navbox because it doesn't navigate anything. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:The Cure singles
- Template:The Cure singles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
All the group's singles are listed on the main Cure navbox; this is unnecessary duplication. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete, duplicates template:The Cure, no need to present the same information twice in a navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Molecular and Cellular Biology-category
- Template:Molecular and Cellular Biology-category ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a template for the project used on only six categories but it doesn't categorize the pages into Category:Category-Class MCB articles. This is replaceable with Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology on each page. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
June 7
Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-stub
- Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-stub ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Incorrect stub template format; also, category has been deleted per cfd. Her Pegship (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:The Story of Thor
- Template:The Story of Thor ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Navigates between only 2 articles and is unlikely to see expansion at any near or far future date. Izno (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete, standard in-article wikilinking works fine for connecting these two articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Safoora
- Template:Safoora ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Only four links. Some of these are likely non-notable, and I'll be evaluating them for potential AfD nominations. Either way, clearly not worth a sidebar. ~ RobTalk 05:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Internet-Archive-stub
- Template:Internet-Archive-stub ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
The corresponding stub category was deleted after this discussion, so the template should go as well. Currently unused. In the interests of full disclosure, I removed the single transclusion already as part of implementing the close of the linked discussion above. That transclusion was at Internet Archive's Children's Library. ~ RobTalk 04:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Old discussions
June 6
Template:RMpmc
- Template:RMpmc ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I don't see a valid need for this. Users granted the page mover right are normally highly experienced in RMs. I don't see why page movers should have to declare their status as a page mover when closing RMs. — Music1201 talk 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Since page movers are not admins, they are required to disclose this fact at the time of discussion closure. The only other alternative is {{RMnac}}, which is now reserved for non-admins who are also non-page movers. Hope this helps. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Pagemovers aren’t administrators and that should be noted when closing an RM. Sure, they’re more experienced than non-rms (hence why they have the user right), but that shouldn’t mean the fact of user rights shouldn’t be disclosed. I created this template because of these reasons. I’d like to see other people’s opinions on this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, but for a different reason to the nominator. I don't think it's correct to imply that page movers have any extra authority, which is what the layperson will infer from "page mover". Unless there's a consensus for some sort of change to the RM closing guidelines or NAC guidelines, non-admin closers should continue using the NAC template. Sorry if that's blunt, I do appreciate this was made in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's easy to understand how new users might infer that page movers have "extra authority". I certainly inferred that about admins many years ago. Then I found out that in most cases, if not all, I was wrong. Neither administrator nor page mover nor any of the user rights that an editor may receive gives them any particular authority over other editors on Wikipedia. They simply receive tools that are more sensitive than other editors have; that does not mean that they are given any superior authority over non-admins or non-page movers. To believe otherwise is to say it's okay for an administrator to "pull the 'I'm an admin' card" to try to affect consensus, etc. We all know how wrong that is. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine 18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- We are a lot more lax about NACs at RM than most other consensus finding venues and I think that's a good thing. But I think it is worth noting when users closing discussions haven't been vetted by the community; it is certainly good practice, as noted below. And I don't think we can consider page movers to be vetted by the community because if you look at the requests for permissions page you can see people being granted the right who have next to experience with RM. I think that's probably fine (although it's significant scope creep from what was proposed), but should people who have been granted this right have a template that (rightly or wrongly) implies they have been through some sort of vetting process for closing RMs? I don't think so. It always annoyed me when I was a non-admin to see admins pontificating on stuff like this so I'm sorry to do it and feel a bit hypocritical, but I feel passionately about the RM process and I believe this is in its best interests. "Authority" was the wrong word to use above. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- No no, please don't feel negative in any way about your !vote – you make good points that are vivid, valid and clear. The thing is, this template is in no way meant to mean that we page movers are anything but experienced at renaming pages and at closing discussions as nac. That's all. If what you say is true, and inexperienced editors are being granted the user right, then whoever is doing so should be taken to task. Not in this venue of course, but in another correct venue. This template when used to close a RM should only tell the discussing editors that an experienced page mover has closed the request – nothing more, nothing less. OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine 19:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Page movers would need to use {{RMnac}} then. FYI, I made an update to this after I noticed this template.
I'm kind of indifferent, to be honest.While I think the template doesn't hurt, the reasons cited by Jenks24 make sense.Actually, very weak keep per the text in the section.non-admin, non-pagemover comment :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)- @Andy M. Wang: I don't believe that text ever had consensus. It appears these closing instructions have been routinely changed without discussion. See below. ~ RobTalk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I do agree it didn't have consensus. When I found the template and addition, I softened the "must" wording and linked it to the page mover talk page for more general awareness. Struck my !vote, as I genuinely still don't have strong opinions about this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy M. Wang: I don't believe that text ever had consensus. It appears these closing instructions have been routinely changed without discussion. See below. ~ RobTalk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to {{RMnac}} or {{nac}}. I'd like to note that there is no policy or guideline that requires non-admins to self identify, although it is considered best practice to do so. There's a whole lot of "required" or "must" being thrown around, and that's entirely inaccurate. And no, the statement at WP:RM/CI doesn't qualify as consensus on this issue. See [2] [3] for the diffs where an editor gradually strengthened this statement over a period of multiple months while calling it a "minor fix" and said he was "redoing" things. ~ RobTalk 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep page movers should be allowed to choose whatever template to identify themselves with. As a page mover, I did not realize this template exists until now. SSTflyer 06:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are not alone.
OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine 15:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are not alone.
- Keep Page mover closures should be seperated from non-admin closures at RM because page movers have access to rights which normal non-admins are unable to use. A large number of closes at RM require the closer to move the page to a title which has non-trivial page history, thus disallowing anyone but an admin to move to it. However, page movers are able to indirectly do this through the use of
suppressredirect
. Non-admins have to file a technical request or use {{db-move}} to achieve the same effect. They also have the ability to usemove-subpages
. Despite this, it's also important that we separate page mover closures from admin closures, as in some messy situations, admin tools are required. Omni Flames (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Religion primary
- 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Religion primary ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Faith primary ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Religion primary with Template:Faith primary.
Per the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary that lead to the creation of {{Faith primary}} in 2013, but was never followed up on. The idea behind this nomination and that discussion is that religion is a specific case of "a faith or other belief system" (text of that template). The proposal is to redirect Religion primary to Faith primary. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging the participants of a recent discussion involving these templates to get their thoughts. @Damiens.rf and LeadSongDog: ~ RobTalk 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see no problem with redirecting {{Religion primary}} to {{Faith primary}} if done in such a way that the resultant displayed notice text remain essentially unchanged.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Merge: using {{Faith primary}} will help distinguish {{Religious text primary}} sources without critical commentaries from opinions without critical commentaries. There is conflation in many articles of what religious beliefs in religious texts are and uncritical opinions of what those religious beliefs are. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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).
Harold Ball Memorial Trophy
- 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) ~ RobTalk 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy winners ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy Winners ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This navbox fails criterion #4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Also consistency with the deletion of Harry Collier Trophy and discussions on the topic. The three templates are duplicities of each other under different names. --SuperJew (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete, horrible colour scheme for anyone who with colour blindness. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- As colour schemes can be easily changed, I don't think it's a basis for deletion. Also that's the colour scheme for all the Melbourne Football Club related templates. --SuperJew (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I've deleted the two duplicates as T3. This navbox was actually deleted around when we went through the other clubs at the links in the nomination, but because it was G7 rather than a TFD we'll have to wait the week instead of G4ing it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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).
May 28
Template:American Experience episodes
- Template:American Experience episodes ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:American Experience ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:American Experience episodes with Template:American Experience.
Navbox {{American Experience episodes}} is incredibly difficult to navigate with the hidden seasons, especially as most of the articles are redlinks. Would propose a merge to {{American Experience}}, showing only "notable" (i.e. episodes with existing articles) episodes in the result. I've already removed the narrators, directors, etc, from the target given the long standing consensus not to include cast and crew in navboxes. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
- I've restored the content to {{American Experience}} due to a failure to seek consensus for an enormous edit. And secondly, the template was nearly deleted in it's entirety by Robsinden by his edit time stamped 11:29, 19 May 2016. Posting "Longstanding consensus not to have cast and crew in navboxes" for the edit summary with no link to the "Longstanding consensus" discussion does not establish the truthfulness for this claim.
- showing only "notable" (i.e. episodes with existing articles) episodes in the result
- Red links are permitted per Wikipedia:NAVBOX and Wikipedia:EXISTING. Wikipedia:NAVBOX states,
- "Each link should clearly be identifiable as such to our readers. In general text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue; dead links should be red; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text. However, specific navbox guidelines for color of text and background other than the defaults are available."
- And Wikipedia:EXISTING states,
- "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first."
- The purpose of those templates is to link the films to the series. This template is no different than Template:The Simpsons episodes. If you are opposed to the redlinks, than please create content. I have stated the above policies Wikipedia:NAVBOX and Wikipedia:EXISTING to Robsinden recently at the following talk pages with diffs:
- 12:18, 18 May 2016 for Template talk:Sade
- 09:59, 19 May 2016 for Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial
-
- Actually, WP:NAVBOX is a guideline, and WP:EXISTING is an essay, neither are policies. You're cherry-picking though by quoting the bit which says what colour links are to be if they are included, when actually the pertinent part of WP:NAVBOX is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Although not specifically precluded, redlinks do not point to articles. A sea of redlinks hinders the reader from finding the articles they want to find. And with the switch function of this navbox, they are only finding a couple of active links each time, which is frustrating for anyone.
- As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:James Bond film crew and related discussions. The other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion. The fact is, as it stands {{American Experience episodes}} is unusable. You have to select the seasons one by one, only to find the majority of links are redlinks. This works with {{The Simpsons episodes}} where nearly every episode has a blue link, but this is not the case here. By combining the two navboxes and only including links with target articles, you help the reader navigate to existing articles, rather than a complicated navigation system that hinders the reader finding the articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Robsinden:
- You're cherry-picking though by quoting the bit
- What do you call it when you do it? Everything in that Wikipedia policy is pertinent. Not only the parts you like at the exclusion of the parts you dislike.
- As far as consensus regarding cast and crew go
- That is a link to Template:James Bond film crew. A template dedicated solely to the film crew of James Bond. That is not a comparable comparison to this template. Nor does it reflect a consensus discussion. It's a nomination you started with two supporting deletes. You're going to need something more substantial to prove this claim.
- How about I create a list article for directors and narrators? My examples are List of directors of The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons writers.
- other entries (TV network, theme song, etc) were just too tangential for inclusion
- The creator, executive producers, theme music composers, and related articles are too tangential for inclusion? Was there a discussion that appointed you to determine which articles are pertinent or redundant to a template? No editor makes that determination by themselves.
- redlinks
- I've addressed this issue numerous times as stated above. Ignoring this aspect of the policy is a personal choice.
- Mitchumch (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, by all means, create a list of directors and narrators. I don't know if they would pass notability guidelines though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, the directors are all listed at List of American Experience episodes. That's sufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- As far as the theme song goes, this would be suitable for inclusion if it was composed for the TV series, as it is intrinsically linked to the show. However, take a look at Time Has Come Today#In other media and see how many other TV series it has been used in. And it is against standard practice to link the TV network, you can look at any other TV series navbox for this (although it might be appropriate to include the show in {{PBSTV}}). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means, create a list of directors and narrators. I don't know if they would pass notability guidelines though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Red links are permitted per Wikipedia:NAVBOX and Wikipedia:EXISTING. Wikipedia:NAVBOX states,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 17:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per the nominator and his continued discussion with Mitchumch. Trim out the red links as the majority are unlikely ever to have an article and which certainly aren't being used to create new articles. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: Are you saying redlinks of films are unlikely to have articles? Mitchumch (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, not so broadly. I am saying these redlinks are unlikely ever to have articles, and I find it additionally likely that if someone were to create them, they would likely be merged to a list. I am also saying that the list in this navbox is not being used for article generation (at least not quickly). Rob's suggestion below is better, and I have some concerns with it from a readability standpoint, but it's on the right track. --Izno (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: Are you saying redlinks of films are unlikely to have articles? Mitchumch (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- THIS is something how it should look. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Paragraph break
- 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. This kept open to encourage discussion (and a pretty great one!) I think it's safe to close this now. ~3 days without further posts. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Paragraph break ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
An unhelpful template that inserts a styled HTML div rather than a paragraph break. I last saw it used in talk-page list items; not, as claimed, in footnotes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment Wow, this template has been changed a lot since I created it in 2012. I'm okay with its removal if its uses can be subst'ed with something that produces the same amount of space. — Scott • talk 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- Keep I use this all the time, it's very helpful since "p" has been deprecated. I don;t see a valid argument for deleting it. BMK (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It avoids the use of
<p>
where that tag would cause an accessibility issue, see Template:Paragraph break#Purpose, also User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 21#FGM. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- If screen readers cannot act on paragraph markup within list items, that's honestly their problem--paragraphs from an HTML specification standpoint are allowed within list elements and should consequently be expected. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing about accessibility in Template:Paragraph break#Purpose. See also below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This sounds like it could solve the accessibility issue at Supergirl (TV series)#Cast and characters and other articles following that layout. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Template:Paragraph break#Purpose says "it is not possible to introduce paragraph breaks using newlines alone. For example, within a list item...."
That's bunkum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- I assume your post is intended as a demonstration of "paragraph breaks using newlines alone" - but you have not used newlines, alone or otherwise; you have used two
<br />
tags, which are not the same thing at all. This →
- I assume your post is intended as a demonstration of "paragraph breaks using newlines alone" - but you have not used newlines, alone or otherwise; you have used two
← is a newline: observe how it breaks the list structure. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC) The W3C defines <br />
as "a line break". I take that to be synonymous with "newline". On the other hand, the HTML markup emitted by your comment is not a newline, but </dd></dl></li></ul><p>
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The
<br />
element is not necessarily synonymous in rendered effect with a newline character. See the note at [4]. MediaWiki produces different output for both, so they should be considered different in this context. — Scott • talk 15:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The W3C states (n.b. not "defines") "The
br
element represents a line break.", that is, a line break in the page as rendered by the browser. But the direction at Template:Paragraph break#Purpose is not talking about<br />
tags, but newline characters, U+000A; and moreover those that are in the Wikicode, not those in the rendered page. To demonstrate that, I put a newline U+000A into the Wikicode of my previous post, between the two arrows, in order to deliberately break the list structure. Your analysis of the emitted HTML shows that such breakage did occur: the whole list was closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC) - Keep. I use this a lot, after being told to stop using <p> for paragraph breaks in bundled references. By the way, on the Village Pump this discussion has caused my use of the template (in this post) to show up as "see TfD". Can someone fix that, please? SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed it myself. [5] SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you unable to use
<br />
in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)- It doesn't produce the same effect. I always used <p> tags in bundled refs to produce a new line that respected the structure of the reference, but I kept being told off by a small number of technical editors who persuaded me to use {{pb}} instead. The best solution would be to fix whatever problem the <p> tag apparently causes for screenreaders. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not something that we can address: we have no control over how screen reader software interprets HTML tags, nor any other aspect of how they are written. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- But it's something those who write the screenreaders can address, and they should address it. I'm sick and tired of being told we have to twist this and that backwards and upside down because some broken screenreader never gets fixed. I've been hearing such nonsense for literally years. Fix it or live with it. EEng 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Accessibility is not something that we can opt out of. This includes ensuring that the semantics of lists are appropriate. Nor can we direct screenreader aoftware vendors to "fix it". Please see MOS:ACCESS; WCAG; and these: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0; Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0; WAI-ARIA 1.0 User Agent Implementation Guide; Role Attribute 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0; User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No one's suggesting opting out of accessibility, nor "directing" anyone to do anything. I'm suggesting that if those who use screenreaders want to be able, well, use them, then they need to "direct" those who produce the software they're paying for to make it do whatever it needs to deal with the world the way it is. I don't care what esoteric coding goes inside the template, or its effect on lists and stuff -- if that needs to be fixed to achieve what you think accessibility demands, then you fix it -- just so long as I can code {{paragraph break}} and get a paragraph break. Or are you arguing that paragraph breaks are somehow impossible to create accessibly? EEng 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing of the sort: my post of 12:13, 19 May 2016 was a reply to the request "fix whatever problem the
<p>
tag apparently causes for screenreaders". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)- Right. We can't do anything to change the way screen readers are implemented. As they're what people with visual impairments rely upon, we're obliged to build things that work with them. EEng, if you have a problem with their implementations, you need to take it up with the people that make them. It's out of our hands. And frankly, we're in a position of huge privilege here compared to those with visual impairments. So we have to fiddle with our markup a bit? Big deal. Imagine being blind and trying to read Wikipedia. That's what we're working to enable. — Scott • talk 09:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- "we're obliged to build things that work with them" -- Let's see. Suppose screenreaders were only able to read words in Basic English. Would you insist that articles restrict themselves to Basic English? If we are committed to meeting certain standards, then we should meet them, and (working from the other end) screenreaders should do the same. I'm hearing that this or that about the internals of this template cause some problem; fine, change the internals of the template to do whatever's needed. Deleting the template on accessibility grounds would make sense only if there's no way to implement a paragraph break accessibly, which is a ridiculous proposition.
- Redrose64, if you don't know by now that you can't reference a post by pasting in the timestamp you happen to see on your screen (everyone else sees different timestamps, because their timezones are different) then I'm skeptical of your competence to comment on highly technical matters. EEng 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Right. We can't do anything to change the way screen readers are implemented. As they're what people with visual impairments rely upon, we're obliged to build things that work with them. EEng, if you have a problem with their implementations, you need to take it up with the people that make them. It's out of our hands. And frankly, we're in a position of huge privilege here compared to those with visual impairments. So we have to fiddle with our markup a bit? Big deal. Imagine being blind and trying to read Wikipedia. That's what we're working to enable. — Scott • talk 09:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing of the sort: my post of 12:13, 19 May 2016 was a reply to the request "fix whatever problem the
- No one's suggesting opting out of accessibility, nor "directing" anyone to do anything. I'm suggesting that if those who use screenreaders want to be able, well, use them, then they need to "direct" those who produce the software they're paying for to make it do whatever it needs to deal with the world the way it is. I don't care what esoteric coding goes inside the template, or its effect on lists and stuff -- if that needs to be fixed to achieve what you think accessibility demands, then you fix it -- just so long as I can code {{paragraph break}} and get a paragraph break. Or are you arguing that paragraph breaks are somehow impossible to create accessibly? EEng 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Accessibility is not something that we can opt out of. This includes ensuring that the semantics of lists are appropriate. Nor can we direct screenreader aoftware vendors to "fix it". Please see MOS:ACCESS; WCAG; and these: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0; Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0; WAI-ARIA 1.0 User Agent Implementation Guide; Role Attribute 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0; User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- But it's something those who write the screenreaders can address, and they should address it. I'm sick and tired of being told we have to twist this and that backwards and upside down because some broken screenreader never gets fixed. I've been hearing such nonsense for literally years. Fix it or live with it. EEng 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not something that we can address: we have no control over how screen reader software interprets HTML tags, nor any other aspect of how they are written. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't produce the same effect. I always used <p> tags in bundled refs to produce a new line that respected the structure of the reference, but I kept being told off by a small number of technical editors who persuaded me to use {{pb}} instead. The best solution would be to fix whatever problem the <p> tag apparently causes for screenreaders. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you unable to use
- "Suppose screenreaders were only able to..." They're not. "...screenreaders should do the same..." They should. Like I said, if you want that to happen, go talk to them. Until then, we work with what we've got. — Scott • talk 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the heck are you talking about? Timestamps in signatures are plain text; moreover, they have timezones, and that timezone is always UTC, because that is the server time for this project. Consider, that my most recent post here ends with "08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)"; the one before that "21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)", and so on back to "19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)". Here comes another timestamp, and don't tell me it's not in UTC when it plainly is: --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redrose64, see WP:Comments_in_Local_Time. Timestamps in signatures may be in some sense "plain text", but then so are template invocations and everything else in wikitext -- but software understands them and fiddles with them. So the post displayed to you as 12:13, 19 May 2016 is displayed to me as 8:13 am, 19 May 2016. (If you copy and paste a timestamp just right, in fact the software will convert both the original timestamp, and your reference to it, so that they match in both places it appears, but there are many ways for that to go wrong -- as it did in your attempt to refer to a timestamp -- and it's a bad idea -- the only safe way to refer to an earlier post is either via a diff or just a few keywords.) You may be unaware of this because your preferences are set for UTC, but nonetheless this shows you're willing to hold forth at length about things you really know nothing about; I'm thus skeptical of your pronouncements about standards adherence and screenreaders and so on. EEng 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're blathering at length about something completely irrelevant to this discussion and insulting Redrose64 because he didn't psychically know that you're using a nonstandard gadget. You should stop talking now. — Scott • talk 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Knowing how basic technical stuff (whether everyone uses it or not) works isn't paranormal, and is relevant to a discussion in which technical claims are being made on a "because I just keep saying it over and over" basis. EEng 08:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- That gadget does not touch the wikitext, so when editing a page (whether you have the gadget enabled or not), the timestamp is in UTC. Knowing anything at all about what I know, other than what I have already stated, is paranormal. Don't question my intelligence, otherwise it's WP:NPA time. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template expansion doesn't touch the wikitext either, so that has nothing to do with it. People wouldn't open the page for editing when reading and attempting to interpret your post, thus we're talking about what the reader sees on the rendered page. What you know is on display in this very discussion; I'm not questioning your intelligence, but you technical knowledge, which is patchy. You go ahead and have the last word now, and anyone who understands these things already sees what's going on. EEng 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Time for somebody uninvolved to hat this digression. — Scott • talk 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- That gadget does not touch the wikitext, so when editing a page (whether you have the gadget enabled or not), the timestamp is in UTC. Knowing anything at all about what I know, other than what I have already stated, is paranormal. Don't question my intelligence, otherwise it's WP:NPA time. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Knowing how basic technical stuff (whether everyone uses it or not) works isn't paranormal, and is relevant to a discussion in which technical claims are being made on a "because I just keep saying it over and over" basis. EEng 08:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're blathering at length about something completely irrelevant to this discussion and insulting Redrose64 because he didn't psychically know that you're using a nonstandard gadget. You should stop talking now. — Scott • talk 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea if the Foundation or some of the volunteer developers could contact the people who write the screenreader software and let them know about this problem. It does cause trouble on Wikipedia, yet the number of people reading references with screenreaders is likely to be very small, so it makes sense for the screenreader developers to fix the issue, rather than us trying to find ways around it. SarahSV (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redrose64, see WP:Comments_in_Local_Time. Timestamps in signatures may be in some sense "plain text", but then so are template invocations and everything else in wikitext -- but software understands them and fiddles with them. So the post displayed to you as 12:13, 19 May 2016 is displayed to me as 8:13 am, 19 May 2016. (If you copy and paste a timestamp just right, in fact the software will convert both the original timestamp, and your reference to it, so that they match in both places it appears, but there are many ways for that to go wrong -- as it did in your attempt to refer to a timestamp -- and it's a bad idea -- the only safe way to refer to an earlier post is either via a diff or just a few keywords.) You may be unaware of this because your preferences are set for UTC, but nonetheless this shows you're willing to hold forth at length about things you really know nothing about; I'm thus skeptical of your pronouncements about standards adherence and screenreaders and so on. EEng 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- What the heck are you talking about? Timestamps in signatures are plain text; moreover, they have timezones, and that timezone is always UTC, because that is the server time for this project. Consider, that my most recent post here ends with "08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)"; the one before that "21:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)", and so on back to "19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)". Here comes another timestamp, and don't tell me it's not in UTC when it plainly is: --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed it myself. [5] SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Proposed close: Kept. Per consensus. No plan offered for what to do with the 2271 transclusions. All deletion arguments have been addressed (though perhaps some are disputed), so it seems that it's not deprecated because it shouldn't be. Unnecessarily disruptive. --Elvey(t•c) 17:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Very useful in addressing accessibility problems. Moreover, will all these html changes lately changing the code in a template is easier than changing html tags. I am in favour of keeping any similar template around. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1
- @Graham87: I wonder if you could help us out here. Do actual paragraph breaks (HTML 'p' elements) inside list items pose an issue for screen readers, and does replacing paragraph breaks with HTML 'div' elements help in that respect? Izkala (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Izkala: Yes, they do; a relatively minor one, but an issue: JAWS runs the text together if it's part of a list item and it's separated by paragraph breaks. The template under discussion fixes that, but so does the solution I proposed in my comment here. Graham87 02:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Graham87:, when you are using your screen reader, what difference do you experience between these two lines of text (the first with pb the second with p)?
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.{{pb}}Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
<p>
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
SarahSV (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: I would expect not much, because you're not including the markup under discussion. Graham87, try these:
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1. Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for fixing that, Redrose, but I wrote it that way deliberately so that everyone is very clear about what difference is being discussed. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin and Redrose64: In the first set, there is indeed no real difference between the two examples; in the second one, there's an appropriate separation between the items in the first example while there is not in the second. Graham87 02:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Graham87: sorry to keep asking for clarification, but could you say what you mean by "appropriate separation between the items"? That is, what is the difference that you hear? SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: No problem. In the first example in the second set, I hear the first line, then I can arrow down to hear the second one (as is expected with two regular paragraphs). In the second example, all the text in both lines runs together. Graham87 07:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Graham87: sorry to keep asking for clarification, but could you say what you mean by "appropriate separation between the items"? That is, what is the difference that you hear? SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin and Redrose64: In the first set, there is indeed no real difference between the two examples; in the second one, there's an appropriate separation between the items in the first example while there is not in the second. Graham87 02:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing that, Redrose, but I wrote it that way deliberately so that everyone is very clear about what difference is being discussed. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Graham87: Sorry to keep badgering you Graham, but can you confirm there's no difference between the following two?
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
-
John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
Izkala (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Izkala: With the first one, the text is run together; with the second one, it isn't. However the p tags should probably be closed. Graham87 09:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Graham87: One more from me, and in this case focus both on whether the third item is noted as being numbered and whether the paragraphs are explicit:
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
-
John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
--Izno (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: Yes, the third item is numbered, and the paragraphs in the second item are explicit. Graham87 13:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Graham87: do you hear any difference between the following three?
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1.
Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1. Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
- John Smith, Book Title, Publisher, 2015, p. 1; Susan Jones, Book Title, Publisher, 2016, p. 2.
SarahSV (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Nope, the text is run together in all three of your examples. Graham87 03:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Graham87. That suggests that it works as intended. I use it to replace the semi-colon that I add between shorter references, such as "Smith 2015; Jones 2016." I add
<p>
between longer references only to provide a visual break so that the footnote doesn't look cluttered. SarahSV (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Graham87. That suggests that it works as intended. I use it to replace the semi-colon that I add between shorter references, such as "Smith 2015; Jones 2016." I add
- @SlimVirgin: A p tag only works if there is a p tag starting the list item, as in my item 2 above and Izkala's "badgering" item 2. In other words, a source of the form
<li><p>Content<p>More content
vice<li>Content<p>More content
. This is why Izkala stated "probably easier for non-technical people"--her presumable belief is that requiring editors to insert not one but two "breaks" of some sort is in some way less intuitive. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but I obviously haven't !voted either. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Izno, I'm confused about what is meant by "works". I use p tags within bundled references to create a visual break only. Note: visual. It does not signal that one paragraph has ended and another begun, because these are not paragraphs. It does not signal that one reference has ended and another begun; that is done by the full stop. The intention is only to make the references easier to see, because with long references adding them all to the same line looks crowded.
-
- If a screen reader is not affected by the p tag – if a screen reader reads out the two references on one line – that is okay, unless it is confusing for some other reason. SarahSV (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but the issue with that is that you're abusing ('abusing' in the technical sense of the word) an error in the logic of one (popular) screen reader. You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria. The 'br' element is the closest you'll get without having to fool the MediaWiki parser (e.g. by inserting a non-breaking space inside a 'span' element), methinks. Izkala (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- But it is semantically void in these examples, is it not? SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- That does appear to be the case in JAWS, the screen reader Graham is using. Izkala (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused about your point, in that case. You wrote: "You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria." But the p tag does fulfill both these criteria. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Standards-wise, it doesn't. The software Graham is using does not recognise the 'p' element in that particular context, most likely due to a bug. In fact, per the HTML standard,
<li>John Smith, ''Book Title'', Publisher, 2015, p. 1.<p>Susan Jones, ''Book Title'', Publisher, 2016, p. 2.</p></li>
contains not one, but two paragraphs. Izkala (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)- Standards-wise aside, the meaning is clear, namely "Reference one. Reference two." At some point common sense has to kick in. A lot of volunteer time has been spent on this issue in various places for a couple of years. It affects a very small number of readers who both use screen readers and who read through the references. Now we find that it makes no actual difference to those readers.
- Standards-wise, it doesn't. The software Graham is using does not recognise the 'p' element in that particular context, most likely due to a bug. In fact, per the HTML standard,
- I'm confused about your point, in that case. You wrote: "You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria." But the p tag does fulfill both these criteria. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- That does appear to be the case in JAWS, the screen reader Graham is using. Izkala (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- But it is semantically void in these examples, is it not? SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but the issue with that is that you're abusing ('abusing' in the technical sense of the word) an error in the logic of one (popular) screen reader. You wanna have a visual break and have it be semantically void, but neither the 'p' nor the 'div' element fulfil both of those criteria. The 'br' element is the closest you'll get without having to fool the MediaWiki parser (e.g. by inserting a non-breaking space inside a 'span' element), methinks. Izkala (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- If a screen reader is not affected by the p tag – if a screen reader reads out the two references on one line – that is okay, unless it is confusing for some other reason. SarahSV (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imagine if we were to spend as much time correcting people's grammar. Every time I see the simple past tense used when the present perfect or past perfect is needed, I cringe. But we would grind to a halt if we were to go around systematically correcting things like that. SarahSV (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rather, imagine if we spent so much time correcting people's grammar while we had no knowledge of language... Because I remain unconvinced most people here and in past threads have any real appreciation of the accessibility implications - and that includes me. Izkala (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Izkala, we had a similar situation with alt text. A small number of people insisted that detailed alt text be added to featured-article candidates, so for about a year several of us struggled to do that. It was horrible to have to write it after you were already exhausted from preparing the article for the other FAC criteria. Then we heard back from Wikimania that people using screen readers were complaining about the alt text being too long. What they wanted was an alt attribute (which can be "alt = "), not detailed text, so all that time, and all the arguing about it, had been wasted. SarahSV (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rather, imagine if we spent so much time correcting people's grammar while we had no knowledge of language... Because I remain unconvinced most people here and in past threads have any real appreciation of the accessibility implications - and that includes me. Izkala (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Imagine if we were to spend as much time correcting people's grammar. Every time I see the simple past tense used when the present perfect or past perfect is needed, I cringe. But we would grind to a halt if we were to go around systematically correcting things like that. SarahSV (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
There's still no plan offered for what to do with the ~2271 transclusions. SV, it seems you have a point. Are you saying/thinking we should replace them with <p>
and and say any problem is with JAWS?--Elvey(t•c) 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should keep this template but let editors choose whether to use it or the p tag. SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for as long as the problem persists. gidonb (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Not to say the template is perfect. Marking up the previous paragraph implicitly, whether it's a
<br>
,<div>
, or<p>
tag after it, but no<p>
start tag before, may validate, but good luck writing a CSS or jQuery selector for it. Today's screen readers also don't recognize implicit paragraphs, per Graham87's tests (thanks!). Still, an incomplete solution is better than no solution at all. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Matt Fitzpatrick: The first isn't actually an issue that's solved by this template. And, evidently, JAWS does recognise implicit paragraphs separated by an empty 'div'. Nobody's suggesting there be no solution, the obvious alternative being to also wrap the first paragraph inside a 'p' element. If we're dead-set on not using 'bare' HTML elements, this could equally be achieved by a set of three templates:
- {{Paragraph start}} →
<p>
- {{Paragraph break}} →
</p><p>
- {{Paragraph end}} →
</p>
Izkala (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: It's obvious this template will be kept, but this is templates for discussion and a useful discussion is ongoing, so I'm going to leave this open for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 15:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2
- Izkala, I'm still confused about what you want to achieve with the tag. I use
<p>
to create a visual break in bundled references. See my post above:
-
- "I use it to replace the semi-colon that I add between shorter references, such as 'Smith 2015; Jones 2016.' I add
<p>
between longer references only to provide a visual break so that the footnote doesn't look cluttered."
- "I use it to replace the semi-colon that I add between shorter references, such as 'Smith 2015; Jones 2016.' I add
- Someone on a screen reader doesn't need a visual break. They will hear the two citations on one line. That's not a problem. I think the claim that
<p>
creates an accessibility issue is not correct, or at least it's not correct when it comes to bundled references. SarahSV (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm talking about when paragraphs are actually needed, e.g. in lists in the main article prose. Izkala (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Can you give an example of when
<p>
would be used in "lists in the main article prose." I can't think what is meant by that. SarahSV (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Coney Island#Theme parks and attractions, Multiple citizenship#Involuntary multiple citizenship, USB#Cables and their connectors and Ellis Island#Emergency services. {{Paragraph break}} is also used in multi-paragraph footnotes, like in Battle of Berlin and Sacred Cod. Izkala (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of when
-
So, my understanding of things is as follows. I may - of course - be wide of the mark, but I think there's three separate ways to deal with things paragraph-y:
- Purely visual breaks for list-like enumerations that wouldn't benefit from being coded as HTML lists - perhaps best handled by 'br' tags?
- Paragraphs within lists in prose - these should be properly marked up as paragraphs
- Paragraphs within footnotes and references - I'm thinking some people don't want these being picked up as paragraphs by JAWS (ctrl + up/down arrow) for different reasons, which is why {{paragraph break}} has to come be used in those places
Graham87, Frietjes, do you have any thoughts? Izkala (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Iskala,
<p>
does not cause a problem when it is used to create purely visual breaks in citations, as opposed to when producing real paragraphs within prose. In citations, it is equivalent, for a screen reader, to a semi-colon, as we discovered above. I am glad we finally established that, which is why I keep repeating it in case it gets overlooked again. SarahSV (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)- Yes, but like I said, that's only by accident. A future update to JAWS (we've only established this to be the case in JAWS) could reverse this behaviour. Izkala (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin and Izkala: Not really a semicolon; more like nothing. But otherwise, this summary sounds good. Graham87 04:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per Scott. Because
<p>
is deprecated, there is still a big use for the paragraph break template. ☞Henry☜ 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)- Err, 'p' is deprecated? Perhaps somebody should let W3C know. Izkala (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Whatever issue(s) this template had seem to have been fixed. Good accessibility wise and generally convenient.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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:MonasticHouses NonChristian London England
- 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) 01:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:MonasticHouses NonChristian London England ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. The information in it is covered on the page London Buddhist Vihara. The template's creator has not replied since I asked him about it a year ago on his user page. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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).
May 25
Template:Ramón Marrero Aristy Beltré
- 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 deleted by RHaworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frietjes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Ramón Marrero Aristy Beltré ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Apparently created as a failed attempt to display "Ramón Marrero Aristy" on Rámon Marrero Aristy which I have now moved to the wanted title Ramón Marrero Aristy. The template was only used on this article where it serves no purpose and I removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Markaz
- Template:Markaz ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This template was created solely for the purpose of promoting a particular institution. I do not see any particular need for this template. It was created recently by a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafinusri) who has now been blocked. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Despite what the nom says, it actually looks like a good and useful navigation template. There are a lot of non-linked pages which should be removed, but a nav box for a university isn't unheard of. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A lot of these articles need to be taken to AfD. It appears this sock created a bit of a walled garden here. ~ RobTalk 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:The Stable of Chicago-area Character Actors and Models Known as “Sedelmaier Regulars”
- 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) ~ RobTalk 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:The Stable of Chicago-area Character Actors and Models Known as “Sedelmaier Regulars” ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Completely NN premise. The notion that there was a "stable" of actors known as "Sedelmaier Regulars" is not only completely unproven, there's no evidence for it on Google save for Wikipedia mirrors. The template itself is mostly of redlinks, and in the four that aren't, Sedelmaier isn't referenced in the articles. (As to that, the notion that he had a "stable" isn't mentioned in Sedelmaier's own article. The creation of a now-vanished SPA whose only Wikipedia activity was the creation of this template and its insertion into the four non-redlinked articles listed in it. Ravenswing 09:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Scite
- 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 carefully. @Wugapodes: Please make a note at WP:TFD/H and ping me when you've made the necessary edits at {{Ussc}}. I can go through with a bot and convert the uses of {{Scite}} in articles. In particular, do not redirect {{Scite}} to {{Ussc}} until all tranclusions are gone, since we need to add the el=no parameter to all existing tranclusions. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Scite ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Ussc ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Scite with Template:Ussc.
My proposed changes to {{ussc}} will make {{scite}} redundant, and I am seeking wider consensus before making those changes and merging the two. Merging ussc and scite was brought up here about 10 months ago and the previous discussion resulted in no consensus.
The main oppose reasons in the previous discussion were that ussc makes an external link, while scite does not. This is because scite is usually used in running prose where external links are discouraged (see WP:ELPOINTS). My proposed edits will add an option to suppress external links: el=no
.
Scite is usually used in Supreme Court articles once, in the lead sentence, and even that usage is not standard (compare Roe v. Wade against Heffernan v. City of Paterson). It is burdensome to have to remember two separate templates, considering one, ussc, has far more features, and the other, scite, is only used once. Merging them would solve that problem.
Implementation of the merge can either be a wrapper (where scite simply invokes ussc with the el=no
parameter), or current instances can be substituted and the template redirected with instructions updated to use el=no
in the lead/running prose. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Smuconlaw, MZMcBride, and Richwales: pinging participants in the previous discussion Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lately, I've been re-thinking the idea of using
{{scite}}
in the lead sentence of U.S. Supreme Court cases. I think it ultimately comes down to whether we want "U.S." or the full citation to be a link (e.g., to Case citation or to United States Reports or maybe in the future to the text of the case on Wikisource). If we want a link, we should probably stick with a template to make consistency easier. If we don't care about linking citations, maybe we should go back to plaintext in lead sentences. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)- That is definitely also an option. I think links are helpful, but they don't make or break the article. I actually already changed scite to link to the list of cases in that volume instead of the US Reports page (see Template:Scite/testcases for an example), and adding that to ussc is part of the proposal (but a less important part).Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your edits to Template:scite. I made a few follow-up edits of my own.
- Merging Template:scite to Template:ussc is fine with me. What to use in the lead sentence of U.S. Supreme Court articles is largely a separate question. Or at least I guess I can live with
{{ussc|123|456|1986|el=no}}
if I must. - In my opinion, Template:ussc seems a bit bloated, so I'm not really worried about adding yet another template parameter. That said, it would be a lot better to look at template parameters to remove from that template. We can reduce and simplify that template. Some of that info is derivable, such as the reporter name and volume number. In terms of output, we probably want more streamlined length options such as "long"/"full" vs. "short" and more streamlined formatting options such as "plaintext" (no links), "internal" and "external"/"source". --MZMcBride (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is definitely also an option. I think links are helpful, but they don't make or break the article. I actually already changed scite to link to the list of cases in that volume instead of the US Reports page (see Template:Scite/testcases for an example), and adding that to ussc is part of the proposal (but a less important part).Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding consistency between articles, we have WP:SCOTUS/SG, but it needs additional feedback and discussion. I'm not sure I buy the burdensome argument. Is
el=no
really less burdensome than having a separate template? You're talking about the same number of characters ("scite" and "el=no" are both five). :-)
Would you also want to supportel=yes
? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)- I would definitely support
el=yes
, but decided to propose the least breaking changes first. I believeel=no
is less burdensome than two templates because, especially for editors new to the topic (like me a few months ago), the two templates are confusing, and a number of editors probably don't even read the documentation explaining when to use one or the other. Further, having one template with a parameter means if someone adds ussc in prose and creates a link, instead of having to change the template and mess with parameters, we can just addel=no
and move on. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would definitely support
- Support: I would support this, as I indicated in previous discussions on the issue on the template talk page and at "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion". — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The nominator and other editors in this discussion have provided good reasons for (1) why these should be merged and (2) how the merger can be conducted with little disruption. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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).
Completed discussions
-
The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell ()
If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.
Closing discussions
The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.
To review
Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.
- 2014 December 29 – Infobox MTR station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace as indicated in the discussion
- Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox MTR station#Replacement and deletion. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- 2015 March 8 – Interlanguage link multi ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{Interlanguage link}}, {{Interlanguage link forced}}, {{Interlanguage link Wikidata}}, {{Link-interwiki}}, {{Red Wikidata link}} ... see discussion.
- Star systems within X-Y light years: move to article space, reformat as an article, replace template transclusions in transcluding articles with a see also or other appropriate link.
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 25-30 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 30–35 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 30-35 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 35–40 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 35-40 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 40–45 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 40-45 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 45–50 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 45-50 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 50–55 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 50-55 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 55–60 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 55-60 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 60–65 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 60-65 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 65–70 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 65-70 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 70–75 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Being worked on at Draft:List of star systems within 70-75 light years
- 2015 March 18 – Star systems within 25–30 light-years ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- 2015 May 2 – Infobox TransAdelaide station ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), replace with {{Infobox station}}
- 2015 June 21 – SL bottom ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), {{SL br}}, {{SL div}}, {{SL file}}, {{SL head}}, {{SL multi}}, {{SL pic}}, {{SL row}}, {{SL sep}}, {{SL size}}, {{SL text}}, {{SL top}}, replace as indicated in the discussion.
- Last diagrams in mainspace (on List of New York City Subway terminals) being replaced slowly at User:Jc86035/sandbox. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Arts
- 2015 August 31 – Doctor Who episode list ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - Merge with {{episode list}}, finding a way to avoid using rowspan but still conveying the information required.
Geography, politics and governance
- 2014 March 18 – Infobox Romanian legislature ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox legislative session}} if technically feasible
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox Ukrainian legislative office ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox officeholder}}
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox historical American political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Infobox political party}} (already a wrapper, but some alterations need to be made before substituting)
- 2015 December 9 – Geologic Ages Inline ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge into {{Period start}}
- 2016 February 26 – Infobox Romanian political party ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox political party}}
- 2016 February 26 – Scite ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Ussc}} and then convert existing uses of {{Scite}} into {{Ussc}} with
|el=no
.- Rob: The edits were made so existing transclusions of scite are ready to be processed. Thanks for your efforts! Let me know if there's any way I can help. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- See User_talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster_force#Protected_edit_request_on_6_June_2016. This is a simple enough conversion that I just made {{Scite}} a wrapper and will let AnomieBOT substitute them all. ~ RobTalk 15:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rob: The edits were made so existing transclusions of scite are ready to be processed. Thanks for your efforts! Let me know if there's any way I can help. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Religion
- 2016 February 27 – Infobox Jain deity ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox deity}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Template talk:Infobox deity on the best way to move forward with this. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- 2016 February 24 – Infobox Buddhist temple ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox religious building}} per discussion
- Pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism to confirm that User:BU Rob13/Buddhist temple merge is an appropriate way to conduct the merge. ~ RobTalk 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sports
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox non Test cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox women's national cricket team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Test team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox cricket team}}
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox national roller hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox professional inline hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox Canadian Floorball Championships ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 19 – Infobox college field hockey team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox rugby union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 February 28 – Infobox Rugby Union biography ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Mediterranean Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Country Asian Games ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 16 – Infobox Commonwealth Youth Games Country ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox country at games}} if technically feasible
- 2014 March 30 – Infobox joint Tennis Tournament ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 April 8 – Infobox FIM Motocross World Championship ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion.
- 2014 June 8 – Infobox domestic cricket season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Infobox cricket season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox rugby football league season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox football club season2 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby club season}}
- 2014 June 9 – Infobox NRL Team Season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox rugby league team season}}
- 2015 August 2 – Infobox VFA season ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge with {{Infobox Australian rules football season}}
- 2015 September 13 – Infobox Afbn team ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - replace with {{Infobox Afbn team}}
Transport
- 2014 December 15 – EuroRoute ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{YellowRoute}} and {{RedRoute}} into {{Jct}}.
- 2015 March 15 – Infobox UK Bus Corridor ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), merge with {{Infobox bus line}}
- 2015 May 9 – China line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}
- 2015 May 20 – NYCS-bull-small ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge with {{Rail-interchange}}
- 2015 April 26 – Infobox tram ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox train}}
- 2015 May 23 – Taiwan line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge as indicated in the discussion
- 2015 September 8 – Infobox Victorian rail line ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – merge into {{infobox rail line}} as indicated in the discussion
- 2016 March 25 – Infobox MTR ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Infobox station}} by converting to a wrapper than substituting
- 2016 April 10 – Honda international timeline ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - merge into {{Modern Honda vehicles}}
Other
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland header ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building header}}
- 2013 August 19 – HB Scotland row ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{HS listed building row}}
- 2014 April 21 – Infobox dava ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge with {{Infobox ancient site}}.
- Starting on a wrapper at {{Infobox dava/sandbox}}. ~ RobTalk 04:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- 2016 May 21 – Museums in Thrissur ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Merge into {{Tourist attractions in Thrissur}}
Meta
- 2015 August 30 – Find sources 3 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ), 2015 August 30 – Find sources 4 ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and 2015 August 30 – Find sources AFD ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) into {{Find sources}}
- 2016 March 15 – Split from ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) with {{Split to}} to create {{Split article}}
To convert
Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.
- 2015 November 12 – ISO 3166 name DE-HB ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Convert to Lua per the discussion
- I've started working on this in my sandbox this week, though where can the conversion be discussed? Template talk:ISO 3166 name? SiBr4 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- 2016 May 15 – Toei Animation ( links | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) – Convert to categories and/or navboxes as per the discussion. May require additional discussion to determine the best way forward.
To substitute
Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.
- None currently
To orphan
These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).
- None currently
Ready for deletion
Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.
- None currently