Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15 edit

Template:Rounded edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 January 1. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Radial-gradient edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a need for this template any longer. We no longer serve any versions of any browsers which require the prefixed versions, meaning the only statement is a pure statement of radial-gradient() (see [1] versus phab:T266866). Additionally, the way this is implemented makes it fundamentally incompatible with TemplateStyles. This can trivially be added directly into the pages using this template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist this one too that somehow was missed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with eliminating this template as it just wraps the standard CSS property. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:FuzzyMemories clips edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possibly broken Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator's comment: OK to delete. I couldn't get it to work. There was an issue with a space in the URL. Fuddle (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Bootcamp edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." since 2015, but still used on 85 user pages (mostly those of long-absent users). Keeping it for "historical reference" serves no useful purpose. If not deleted, it should be removed from those pages; or the content wrapped with noinclude Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only You can Prevent Linkrot! Keep or move, so that links on talk pages maintain their historical context. The template can be moved into my userspace, if you're worried about namespace cleanliness. – SJ + 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is yet another topical talk archive case. The template is never going to be used on more pages, since Wikipedia:Bootcamp is historical, and never going to be edited (the last edit was Andy marking the template as historical in 2015, and the previous edit was in 2008). Therefore, there is no reason to maintain this as a template, and it should be substituted and deleted. For the same reason, I oppose userfying; the premise of userfication is that the material is worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — they may just need more work, or more time, which is not the case here, as no amount of effort could possibly change the fact that Wikipedia:Bootcamp ceased to function in 2006. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Transclusion is actually quite handy. Among other things, transcluding something in 100 places rather than cutting and pasting offers meaningful sidelinks across instances, and avoids page bloat. – SJ + 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst+delete: per Pppery. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute then delete per Pppery. Transclusion is mainly for things that have the potential to need editing from time to time, so that the edits can be centered in one place and do not have to happen across potentially many pages. It is clear this template does not need any editing as it is not likely to be used anytime soon. It should be left as it was when it was rendered historical unless it can be revived with a contemporary purpose. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Linear-gradient edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete after substing and/or making sure the existing display does not change. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a need for this template any longer. We no longer serve any versions of any browsers which require the prefixed versions, meaning the only statement is a pure statement of linear-gradient() (see [2] versus phab:T266866). Additionally, the way this is implemented makes it fundamentally incompatible with TemplateStyles. This can trivially be added directly into the pages using this template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom, and per already concluded TfD of {{Radial-gradient}}, above. Consider adding this to {{Box}} as a parameter feature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Box-shadow edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete after substing and/or making sure the existing display does not change. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a need for this template any longer. We no longer serve any versions of any browsers which require the prefixed versions, meaning the only statement is a pure statement of box-shadow: shadowy settings (see [3] versus phab:T266866). Additionally, the way this is implemented makes it fundamentally incompatible with TemplateStyles. This can trivially be added directly into the pages using this template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Border-radius edit

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete after substing and/or making sure the existing display does not change. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate to the below TFD I started, I do not see a need for this template any longer. We no longer serve any versions of any browsers which require the prefixed versions, meaning the only statement is a pure statement of border-radius: radius-value (see [4] versus phab:T266866). Additionally, the way this is implemented makes it fundamentally incompatible with TemplateStyles. This can trivially be added directly into the pages using this template. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how often the default value is used? For design consistency, it might be desirable to have a standard radius. isaacl (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    30.7k have a first parameter, 21k of which match rather than rely on the default. A separate 5k use the default directly. I think this would be a micro-consistency not worth preserving generally (and even if generally it should be preserved, this template is no longer the way to do that, but the now-incompatible TemplateStyles version of the same). --Izno (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For cases where the style is coded inline directly, if I understand correctly, TemplateStyles wouldn't be an option? From a design perspective, I think in theory it would better to just have a small number of radius choices (for example, small, medium, and large values), both from a UI perspective and to make it easier on editors who are not visual design-oriented, but I imagine it's probably too late to try to bring into practice. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now this template is embedded directly into the style attribute, so it can appear in any of these four cases: style="{{border-radius}}", style="some rule appearing before; {{border-radius}}", style="{{border-radius}}; some rule appearing after", style="a rule or two before; {{border-radius}}; and a rule or two after". In all cases, the templatestyles, itself an HTML tag at the end of the day (either <style> or <link>), cannot make the jump out of the style tag. Again, fundamentally incompatible. We could convert some templates using these styles to templatestyles, but that is a whole separate endeavor that is hard or not possible to automate rationally (especially considering wikisyntax; it might be possible by round tripping stuff through Parsoid but AIUI Parsoid coughs and hacks on anything with conditional parserfunctions in it because it hasn't been coded to deal with that mess [yet]) and for which we certainly shouldn't wait on this templates removal. :^) --Izno (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is also all besides the case where {{border-radius}} is used directly in a non-template page, which indeed you would not use templatestyles for. --Izno (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand the current limitation. I was referring to the last case you mention: directly using the property on a non-template page. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per nom, and per already concluded TfD of {{Radial-gradient}}, above. Consider adding this to {{Box}} as a parameter feature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Among Us edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no items. (The articles it had were deleted.) No current prospect to have more articles. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Makes perfect sense. Squid45 (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reason to have a nav with a single link. SWinxy (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eject from Wikipedia per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sortfrac edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 December 27. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback templates edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is inactive, the templates are unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As already mentioned, the template(s) itself is still on some pages, and I am/was aware of that. Therefore I wanted to write "subst+delete" ... but I guess I forgot the "subst". So my suggestion is subst+delete --TheImaCow (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 08:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Pppery and revised nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Text-shadow edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 December 27. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Check mark edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 January 1. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Universal Classic Monsters edit

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

The result of the discussion was split. The discussion post-relist has the best thoughts on how it should be done, but there is no prejudice against further discussion if necessary. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated issue so it will require some discussion. As seen by my own Special:Contributions/Andrzejbanas edit history, I have lately been working on updating and cleaning up a lot of Universal's old horror films from the 1930s and 1940s. I wanted to try and tackle this template and main article for these features (specifically Universal Classic Monsters). Here is where the issues comes awry. None of the texts I come to call the film "The Universal Classic Monsters" or anything specific to this. My research indicates from Universal Classic Monsters#Universal Classic Monsters line was strictly a way to group the properties Universal had the rights to sell them as a series on home video. Where this becomes complicated is that several of the series are not Universal Productions from the original VHS tapes. (which can be seen here). Issues come up here as this line of films includes non-universal productions that the company had the rights to at the time, such as Island of Lost Souls and The Monster and the Girl (which are both paramount films). But as these "Universal Classic Monster" series term was not really created until the 1990s home video releases. Not to mention from other article edits I've worked on, Shout Factory has released their own Univeral Horror Collections that also include Paramount films (like Murders in the Zoo).

This has gone on way too long, but I feel this template should be split into their own categories. Frankenstein, Dracula The Invisible Man, The Phantom of the Opera, Gill-man, The Mumy have their own templates already and as there is no clear definition on what this theme is connecting these films and what films should or should not be in the series, I believe it should be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the other issue where the Universal Monsters is also vague. Is Dracula or the Invisible Man really a monster movie series? It's all interpretation. I would suggest moving each of the individual films that are long enough their own series section like The Wolf Man (franchise). Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, each film series should have its own article. But the phenomenon of "Universal Monsters" is well known and does include Dracula as a member. Again, its not a film series, its a grouping of classic horror characters that Universal has had since they started doing crossovers.★Trekker (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's a known thing but it's a phenomenon of the 1990s and nobody seems to agree what belongs to it and what isn't. As the research shown above suggests, it's only major phenomenon since the 1990s and it's mostly a marketing term for MCA/Universal to sell their properties. There is no cut and dry what is Universal Monsters and what isn't and from all my research over the year doing these articles, there is no cut and dry confirmation on what is and what isn't the series. Without that, we are applying WP:OR which is against the rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the whole collection was confirmed as 30 films when the Blu-Ray set came out 28 August 2018 by Universal Pictures, and I also have 2 points for the template. 1, I'd like to consider this franchise as more of a cultural phenomenon than a intertwining film franchise (with the exceptions of House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, & Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein). and 2, I think we should include all of the remakes & reboots because I have a feeling they have a part to play in the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You see that's the problem as it's just a brand added post-humously by a the rights owners later and its not clear what is and what isn't part of the series. We can all say "I think this" or "I feel that", but we can't just base these on our own opinion. We need some solid foundation and currently there is none. The only information is that these have been all linked together to sell home video and other merchandise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shiuldjust relay what the sources say. If the concept was invented in the 90s then it was over 20 years ago, uts well worth covering in an article.★Trekker (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however, the problem is there is no set source. It's a brand of VHS and from what I've read there is no coverage specifically what this is. If it really is just a home video brand, is that something that warrants a Navbox? We've removed other similar templates for films labeled as being part of the Criterion Collection in the past. And does this brand extend to new blu-rays relesaed that were not originally Universal films? My research has basically only brought up what has been mentioned and the occasional review that some reviewers state that it's odd that Murders in the Zoo is included in the series and other similar comments. Beyond this, there is no clarification of what is and what isn't. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Trekker said, I agree with. The name was established 20-30 years ago and my two cents it that it's a retronym, much like Star Trek: The Original Series or analog clocks among other things. that is the only way I can explain it. Minemaster1337 (talk contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against that its retrospectively named, that's not the big issue. The bigger issue is what does actually belong in the series and what doesn't. Which is not made clear. Is 1925 Phantom of the Opera part of it? If so, why isn't it on the newest compilation? Do we include things from the VHS era? What about the Scream Factory releases? Unlike the Star Trek title, which is very cut and dry, this is not clear and suggestions of "do what the source says" is not clear because there is no source that covers all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrzejbanas, Minemaster1337, and *Treker: I believe I see consensus to do something here which is at least "split the template up" and which may in fact be "split and then delete". Can you clarify in shorthand your preference? --Izno (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Izno: I think it is a good idea to give each film series their own template; downsize this one A LOT (we should make more articles like Gill-man for the main reoccurring characters from the crossovers like Frankenstein's monster (Universal), Dracula (Universal character) and Wolfman (character) to use on the template instead of individual films) and move it to Template:Universal Monsters.★Trekker (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splitting it up seems fine to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well what we should do first is give an article for the Dracula film series before we split it. Minemaster1337 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Minemaster1337: TFD doesn't generally depend on the article creation processes except where the close (particularly "listify") requires it. If you think that article should exist, feel free to work on it at your leisure and add it to some reformulate templates at a later date. Which of the two options that I presented (or in between) do you prefer? --Izno (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pallacanestro Virtus Roma current roster edit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 December 23. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_15&oldid=997538203"