Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 17

May 17Edit

Template:Austrian Imperial FamilyEdit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 25. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2020 (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).

Foreign character warning boxesEdit

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 25. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (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:NotwikiEdit

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary. A total of 56 uses since 2010. [1] [2] Anarchyte (talkwork) 12:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Per its own documentation, this is meant to be substituted. Admittedly it's still not that widely used, but the nominating rationale misunderstands its purpose and hence I'm inclined to think this is invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Thumperward: I added the substitution template. By all means ignore the use count but the "unnecessary" aspect still stands. Anarchyte (talkwork) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I'll also note that Z30 is designed to track substitution counts. Anarchyte (talkwork) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete prescriptive and literally a single sentence. Should not be a template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tom (LT). Nardog (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2020 (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:2019–20 Scottish Championship tableEdit

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) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

unneeded after moving template to 2019–20 Scottish Championship Boothy m (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2020 (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:2013–14 Scottish Premiership tableEdit

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) 00:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

unneeded after moving template to 2013–14 Scottish Premiership Boothy m (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 10:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (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:Unviable draftEdit

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No reason to use this template. If it's tagged with the AfC template there's now an option to disallow resubmission, and if it's not in AfC we shouldn't be commenting on the notability of the draft. Anarchyte (talkwork) 10:36, 17 May 2020 (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).

File namespace language templatesEdit

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 all but {{en}}. There is no consensus to delete {{en}} at this time, but there is no significant opposition to the other two. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging: These are language templates used only on the File namespace. Similar to the recent Template:Link language merge discussions, it will be better to have 1 template handle this with a language parameter, then having each language create and maintain a separate template. There might be other templates of this nature but I couldn't find them. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Template:En, since this is the English Wikipedia. No opinion on the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merging {{en}} without maintaining the current syntax would defeat the purpose of the template, which is to be the same as Commons. If it doesn't serve that purpose, then it might as well be deleted. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    In what circumstances does it need to be the same as Commons? Please give examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    It should be the same as Commons to facilitate moving files to or from Commons, similar to {{w}}. This is in the first line of the templat's usage documentation. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep at least Template:En. When a file has been uploaded to English Wikipedia, and then it's prepared for later transfer to Commons, {{en}} is often used so that it doesn't have to be guessed or missing on Commons. Obviously someone uses it: There are 4,312 pages on English Wikipedia with {{en}}, and those are just the ones that haven't yet made the move to Commons. On Commons, {{en}} and other two-letter templates have been wrappers for Commons:Template:Description since 2005, but almost nobody uses {{description|en|}} directly: That's almost triple the number of characters to type compared to {{en|}}; I suspect most Commons users don't even realize that there's an underlying {{description}}. I'm not necessarily theoretically opposed to creating a {{description}} on English Wikipedia, as long as it matches the basic behavior of Commons for the same parameters, though I think such a template may be a waste of time that stays unused except for English file descriptions: {{infa}} (Farsi/Persian) is only in current use on 1 file, and would be {{fa}} on Commons anyway, and {{ka}} (Georgian) is on no files, but it's difficult to tell how many get the template then move to Commons. Regardless, {{en}} should exist because it's easy, even if it becomes a wrapper around some other unified language template; it's short and gets typed all the time. --Closeapple (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:En as redundant, per Redrose64 (@Closeapple: FileImporter is smart enough to automatically wrap the description of files in that template when copying them to Commons). Delete Template:Ka as unused. Delete Template:Infa as simply out of scope of the English Wikipedia, which should not contain this level of non-English content. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Right now, FileImporter is not smart enough to not wrap it: It puts {{en}} around things that already have {{en}} and probably even other languages. I don't understand why it's smart enough to detect where to wrap a description yet not enough to detect that it already has the wrapper. (And I wonder what it does on other Wikipedias.) But what about the other tools, like in Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons#Tools? (I think FtCG might detect it, but I'm not sure.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no problem with delete if they are indeed not needed / unused. --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • keep {{en}} per above. the other common use-case is when images are copied from commons to this WP to allow for full protection due to main-page linking. without this, someone would need to modify the descriptions after they are copied here to make them readable. but, due to full-protection, only an admin would be able to do this, increasing the burden when copying. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (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).

Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/headerEdit

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. If and when the VE issue gets sorted, there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header with Template:WikiProject COVID-19 tabs.
We shouldn't have two headers for the same project. The newer header has some nice graphics, but also lacks the coloring and completeness of the main one (two other concerns also here). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Sdkb: can you explain what you mean by completeness? I created the second header as a way to think about what is missing from the other one, honestly I think there should be a fairly large restructuring of the project pages in general. I've copied the header to my sandbox to take a copy. How do you think I can have a community discussion about the layout of the Wikiproject? I've tried to have discussions on the main talkpage before and I don't get many people taking part. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: that's just referring to the tips tab, which is present on the "tabs" template but I didn't add to the "header" template since I would've had to find a image for it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry @Sdkb: I don't understand, can you show me an example? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: I'm referring to this page. And to answer your earlier question, the project's talkpage would be the main place to discuss anything. You might get more engagement if you keep posts short and link to mockups, but hard to say. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Please note, the current header breaks Visual Editor which makes contributing to the tables on the pages which use tables much much harder. John Cummings (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would have no problem with a change as it works great in mobile view...but can we fix the sizes (will not support if I have to side scroll the whole page just to see the last icon)? As of now they are simply overwhelming with a kid like look that is odd for an academic topic. As for new pages 2 of them the purpose is not clear or seem to cover the same topic as 2 other pages (thus why they have not been integrated). Not sure we need a full redesign for a project that will be dead in 6 months....but jumpin and fix it up...I will only object to pages that don't work in mobile view or cause readers to have to view multiple pages causing us to lose readers. --Moxy 🍁 21:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Moxy: can you clarify which parts work well and not well in mobile view? Also which 2 new pages seem to be the same as which other two pages? I'd be very happy to work on the descriptions to explain the difference. John Cummings (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC):
My desktop - the header takes up 2 lines with 600px of space taken up vs 30px for tabs ......on mobile view whole page has side scroll implemented to see all tabs. That said I like the images...looks like new facebook skin they started last week (and they know there shit - as in what works - they use simple one page layouts that are very user friendly with almost zero learning curve). As for pages...I tagged one for you...as it seems to be the same as the other sources page...no big deal just need to merger them. --Moxy 🍁 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. No objections. --Soumyabrata talk contribs subpages 05:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Since Template:WikiProject COVID-19 tabs doesn't work with the Visual Editor, it makes sense to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/header, at least until the issue is fixed. I understand that consistency is generally preferable, but not if it reduces functionality. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Richard Nevell: We tracked the issue to {{Start tab}} — so it's something that affects many WikiProjects that uses tabs, and this was just the only place it was noticed. I posted about it there, but it's not likely to get fixed soon, since it's something that should really be fixed with VisualEditor itself, and it's one of a whole slew of problems VE has. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    And until it's fixed there's a good reason to keep the two templates separate. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2020 (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:Not watchingEdit

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. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Not watching with Template:Please ping.
There were until recently five different templates that all served the same function of inserting text requesting that an editor be pinged if replied to. I'm trying to WP:CONSOLIDATE them all to make them easier to maintain at {{Please ping}}, where I've added additional parameters and improved the handling of both substitution and transclusion. Thus, in accordance with reason 2, I'd like to propose that {{Not watching}} be replaced with a wrapper template for {{Please ping}} I've drafted at its sandbox. This will change its appearance slightly, from (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) to (if substituted) (I'm not watching this page – please use {{ping|Sdkb}} to get my attention) or (if transcluded) (I'm not watching this page – please {{ping}} to get my attention), but I think this is an improvement, since it's less wordy and easier to copy for repliers, and it won't affect the meaning for legacy cases. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose I use {{subst:nw}} because it does not contain contain {{ping}} and I don't want username included in the substitution. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    @JJMC89: my goal here is consolidation, not forcing a format on anyone, so we could certainly introduce a parameter to make the ping plainer. Just curious, why do you prefer it without the brackets/your username? It seems like a nice courtesy to help others copy the code. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: They are similar enough to warrant a merge. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 01:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge to the logical title 'please ping'. These kind of consolidation I feel a very useful and also help reduce the complexity of things for new editors.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consolidation, for what purpose? I use this template and, like JJMC89, don't desire to use the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Chris troutman: Consolidation would make them easier to maintain, the directory less complex, and achieve the other benefits listed at WP:CONSOLIDATION. To be clear, what I'm proposing would mean that using {{subst:nw}} would generate (I'm not watching this page – please use {{ping|Sdkb}} to get my attention), which is very similar to the template as it currently exists. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:52, 17 May 2020 (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).
@Primefac: The sentiment that I read here is that there is desire for consolidation, but just a few concerns to wrinkle out about what the customization options should be. I think it would be helpful to have further discussion (including from yourself at Template talk:ppor). These templates are clearly all doing the same thing, and the path to herding them all under one roof seems to be a little rougher than it ought to be. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)