Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13 edit

Template:Цитата edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Will list at holding cell for consideration of each use. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template that creates a table with some Russian and some seemingly malfunctional CSS, used only on four userpages. If not deleted, should be userspaced, whatever it's for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified its creator and the four users of it, in case one wants to "claim" it. It seems to be something from ru.wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a copy of the Russian Wikipedia pull quote, only less functional. Alakzi (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-English markup template. Markup templates should be in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Italy Girls Squad 2015 edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Michig (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template made for a team of underage volleyball players who do not meet notability guidelines per wiki standards.All the players are listed at AfD for notability reasons. Similar to the ones for USA, China and Turkey. Osplace 22:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think we need template for an age group competition. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Embedmap Japan edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dependency of {{Mapplot Japan}}, which has been deleted as redundant to {{Location map}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Afbn team edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete after replacing with {{Infobox American football team}}. ~ RobTalk 04:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox American football team}}. The championships breakdown can be moved into a table. Alakzi (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:MMOs by Electronic Arts edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Placing categories for specific genres of games within a company seems to be without precedent, so a more thorough discussion should take place on that topic if Category:Massively multiplayer online games by Electronic Arts is desired. ~ RobTalk 14:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX as it not a "single, coherent subject" and the articles listed do not refer to each other at all. It's an arbitrary collection: genre by publisher. The MMO (massively multiplayer online) part only says one thing about how it is played, not about the actual gameplay. Soetermans. T / C 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by that same logic we could have first-person shooters by 2K, action-adventure games by Nintendo or role-playing games by Square-Enix. --Soetermans. T / C 09:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems to be better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ECB reference values edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete, will userfy on request if anyone wants to salvage anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stats. As I've argued at Template_talk:ECB_reference_values#What_is_the_point_of_this.3F, perhaps some content (ie a few examples for illustrative purposes of how the values are calculated) can be salvaged, or perhaps converting it into a graph of historical variations might be useful. But the creator insists on keeping 40 months of raw statistical data for reasons that escape me. In its current state it is WP:NOT in scope of the project. Note that the template only has 2 transclusions as is. TDL (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with more digestible data. I'm not sure it's truly indiscriminate, but it's WP:NOTSTATS in nature, and in the articles it's being used at, it's an overwhelming mass of financial calculation trivia. It's also being used in at least one article to generate 2013 data (or maybe that's a separate almost identical template or something) that is being collapse-boxed, in violation of WP:DONTHIDE. The overall shape of this is "not encyclopedic", but a wallowing in accounting cruft. It does not appear to help readers in any way understand the articles its transcluded in, and is akin to dumping enormous tables of gene sequencing data that no one could read but a molecular biologist, into an article about a subspecies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F27543883 edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, Template:Cite doi depreciated —Bruce1eetalk 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 06:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after migrating citations to current cite templates as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a DOI database. Unused and low use templates such as just about all cite dois should be deleted. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when disused, these should never have been created in the first place LeadSongDog come howl! 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Block quote next to floating content edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No agreement here on whether it's broken or the nature of the brokenness. No prejudice against renomination or bold redirection to one of the other quote templates if it does turn out to be obsolete and/or broken. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete and broken. This was created to work around a problem that has long since been fixed at Mediawiki:Common.css. The template as it exists now does undesirable things, like creating a very messy right side, that wraps so indiscriminately it's hard to tell this even a block quotation (see last example in it's docs). The whole point of a BQ is that it's a discrete block. Anyway, this is just a wrapper for {{Quote}} and can be replaced with it, without any other adjustments. That said, in the interim I'd recommend actually replacing this with a redir to {{Quote/to right of image}}, a variant that compensates (on both sides, despite its name) for a display glitch that happens next to images in particular; this is also slated for fixing at MW:Common.css, and that subtemplate will be ditched soon enough, also being replaced by {{Quote}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not obsolete and it's not broken; and the problem has not been fixed in Common.css. You can tell it's a block quote by the 40-pixel margins, just like with all other block quotes on Wikipedia. What is broken is the rendering of block quotes both in Webkit browsers (where the block contracts horizontally) and Firefox (where the text overflows the container) next to floating content. Ideally, block quotes should be cleared; but overflown block quotes are an abomination unto the Lord. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#CSS required to prevent layout from breaking.
    Given that there's been no uptake though - apart from the one article the template was created for - we could either merge it into {{Quote}} or nuke the offending CSS. Or, you know, we could delete it, and then the problem will simply go away. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See last example in its docs: There effectively is no 40px margin on the right, it just wraps madly all over the place. Can you produce a demo of what you're talking about? I'm looking at it in both FF and Safari right now as well as Chrome, and while they're not identical, the results are fine (except in the last example, where it looks no bueno in any of them. In Safari and FF, as in Chrome, it stays in a discrete block with a rather consistent right as well left side (there's some variability because the text is not justified, but it's "almost justified", and this is desirable; this is what block quotations are supposed to look like: laterally compressed blocks of text that are noticeably narrower than the rest of the content, squeezed in on both sides, and forming a rectangular block, not a raggedy-jagged mess. In Safari, there's some variability in the vertical spacing (between the regular lorem text and the block quotation) when this template variant is not used, but it's nothing to write home about. If there's some case where this difference becomes huge, I can see keeping the template, in which case I'd move to say, Template:Quote/to left of box or something, as a minor-variant subtemplate for workaround purposes, and document it the same way {{Quote/to right of image}} is, and only keep it around until it's needed. If it's intractable, work it in as a parameter in the main template. But I'm not seeing what the need for it is. And definitely not seeing a "text overflows the container" problem with the tests in the template's own doc (which I've added to and beat on for a while).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm about to leave, but see the screenshot in the VPT link above. Alakzi (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read that thread, and I see the screenshot, but can't reproduce those results. Same with the one before it, referred to in that thread. I even went back to the original version of Night (book) about which SlimVirgin reported this problem about a year ago, [1], and no matter how I resize that article, in Chrome, Safari, and Firefox, I cannot get it to do the overflowing content, with words overlapping images, shown in the screenshots. Looks like a browser bug that's been fixed maybe? (As for the "fixed a long time ago" bit, I was thinking of a different issue; but this seems to be fixed anyway, more recently.) I spent much of the last hour walking through around two dozen later versions, during which SV was experimenting with quote boxes based on input from Whatamdoing and others, and cannot reproduce this problem. That one specific diff did have a different problem in it (the appearance of a three-column layout briefly on the page, near the photo of the author's father, probably due to using two opposite floats near each other and squeezing the remaining content between them), but it was resolved in later edits.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't reproduce it in Firefox anymore, either; it looks like it's been fixed upstream. Paging Mandruss who reported the issue then. Alakzi (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Alakzi: I still see the problem in this rev from July before we messed with the article, Firefox 40.0.3. Section "March on Washington, 1963". Does that mean it's not fixed? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, it's still happening in Firefox. SMcC inserted a paragraph between the side boxes and the block quote, which is why the issue no longer manifests itself on the template page. Alakzi (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm, but if the test case you want is "block quote next to an infobox with no normal text before it" that's not a condition we'll have in articles. WP articles do not begin with block quotes, but with lead paragraphs. Nor do they consist of block quote after block quote after block quote, but have paragraphs of normal text in them. I can finally replicate one instance of this, in the old version of the MLK article, in one spot, in Firefox only (at the "I say to you today, my friends, so even though" quote, slightly overlapping the "30-second sample" audio file box). Will try to ID what's different about that segment of the page. We probably just need a minor update to Template:Quote#Limitations to cover whatever it is. If it's only happening to one of many right-floated items on the page, including other audio objects next to other block quotes, this suggests it's one particular minor thing. And it seems to be rare.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, that's not the condition. The condition is floating content immediately preceding a block quote. Alakzi (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm looking at it right now, rendered and source, and it's not. "SMcC inserted a paragraph between the side boxes and the block quote" can't have anything to do with it; looking at the source of the MLK page, the exact trouble spot has the {{listen}} box for the right-floated "30-second sample" clip, then normal paragraphs (several), then finally the block quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two other audio clips are not being overflowed by nearby block quotes, despite the [superficially] same conditions. Looking at the "Final 30 seconds of" transclusion of {{Listen}}, it is also followed by plain text then a block quote. This is kinda perplexing. Going to start extracting bits of that and playing with it and see if I can narrow the conditions down to something more specific.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the DOM, but when rendered on the page. The first (narrower) of the two floats must, at a minimum, border on the top edge of the block quote, so as to offset its margins. The second (wider) float has no effect on the margins of the block quote, and thus the text flows on top of it. Alakzi (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I've narrowed this down to some test code at Template:Quote/testcases2. If you reduce page width enough that the non-blockquote text "touches" the listen box, the overflow stops happening. Still only happening with the upper of the two audio box and block quote pairs. I guess I'll start stripping out content and replacing it with lorem stuff and see if it can be narrowed to a markup issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is odd. I've narrowed this down some at Template:Quote/testcases2.

  1. In this version, in Firefox, the top example will overflow text from block quote over the listen box, at certain window widths, but it does not happen in the bottom case. The only differences between the cases are a taller-but-narrower image in the top, and its code using |upright; other than that, and the wording of their headings and explanatory hatnotes, the two tests are identical.
  2. If I change the upper image to be the same as the lower one, the problem remains (though I had to stretch the window quite wide to get it to happen: text above the block quote must not be "touching" the listen box (though text below it can be).[2]
  3. If I change the lower image to be the same as the upper one, the problem does not also happen in the lower section.[3]
  4. If I move |upright from upper to lower image, the problem moves from the upper section to the lower section.[4]
  5. If I manually make the bottom image the same size the top one (sized by |upright=) the problem also appears in that section.
  6. Make of that what you will. It doesn't like small images?! Maybe it's more like when an upper floated-right object is more than x% smaller than a lower one and ..., I dunno. I'm hungry and this is giving me a headache. Heh.
  7. I've reset it back to the problem appearing in the upper test, with the same images, and the only difference being |upgright, if someone else wants to play with it. This version also directly associated the listen box and the quote box, the way we normally would. [5]

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Update: I have redirected this to Template:Quote since this is alternative template is no longer used in a single article, no longer has an extant MediaWiki bug to work around (fixed several years ago), and produces undesirable right-hand-side results if you do use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font weight edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

experiment using deleted templates, like {{bold}} (see related discussion). 98.230.192.179 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke from orbit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't actually a template. This is a template documentation page located at the template's location with no actual template. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_13&oldid=1090622162"