Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1 edit

Template: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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template pointing to template currently being deleted as its replacement. Recommend subst and delete. Izno (talk) 23:52, 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:ORlink 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; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can be speedy deleted per G7. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 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:Street grid of landmarks in the 19th-century Los Angeles business district 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 14. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 14 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: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 keep following the redesign. However, NPASR if there is a new rationale for deletion. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a hack of a hack for rounded corners. It should be replaced categorically with Template:Border-radius. Izno (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And should probably keep this with the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Border-radius per nom. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposed redirect location is nominated for subst and delete below. So if this TFD and that one are closed as Delete, this one would be substed and deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I refactored this template to call {{box}}, so it is no longer a hack for rounded corners. However, it may be simple enough that we could substitute/delete it for other reasons. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no issue substing the template with your modification and then deleting. --Izno (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice is keep the Plastikspork-fixed version. It is a nice short-hand template wrapper, with reasonable defaults, and easier to use than trying to work out how to do it with {{box}}. But add a radius parameter to it. However, I wouldn't be utterly opposed to a second choice of subst-and-delete, if that's where this is heading. My first:second choice ratio is about 70:30. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 21:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the rather significant change to this template mid-discussion, a relist seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original reason for deletion no longer applies. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True. However, this template also has only about 10 uses, which shows insufficient use to continue having a template for this. --Izno (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as this discussion has been open for almost 2 months and the original rationale no longer applies. I would start a RfC to get additional input on a possible future for this template then go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 23 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: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 redirect to Template:Tick. No rationale has been provided why the 3-pixel difference should be preserved. I suspect the vast majority of users were unaware of it, anyway.

Personal opinion: agree with having a follow-up discussion on standardizing icon sizes for accessibility reasons, and that we probably don't need a separate {{X mark big}} (checking its uses, {{Xmark}} would work just fine, and there is a size parameter if it really matters). That said, I'm sure there are more important things we could all be working on. — The Earwig talk 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Tick - seems to be directly compatible and a duplicate. 1900 transclusions to {{Tick}}'s 69,000. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I would tag this for T3 speedy deletion if I was a template editor. Edit: I have tagged the talk page with {{db-t3}}, however this TfD will probably be finished by then, or T3 will be deprecated. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why delete? A redirect is much better in this case as then if anyone ever looks at an old revision of a page that used this template, it would still look vary similar to what it was originally rather than just a relinked template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a broader discussion on standardizing icon sizes (for accessibility) would be a good idea, but it's probably not going to get consistent results discussing them one-by-one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we did keep, we should probably rename it to {{Big tick}} or something, along the line of your examples. Because "check" does not convey any difference compared to "tick", they're synonyms. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and if you rename it to {{Big tick}}, you can redirect {{Big hants}} to it as well. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed we should have a larger discussion on icon sizes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A tick is a small arachnid in the order Ixodida. Tick may also refer to Tick (check mark) (whyich redirects to check mark. What is this, British English or something? I'm open to merging Template:Tick into Template:Check mark, but don't ya'll have something better to do than move deck chairs around? wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:ENGVAR applies, of course: The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other. & MOS:RETAIN. But I don't really understand what your oppose has to do with the issue - this isn't an RM, it's a discussion to merge the two, by redirecting the low-usage one to the high-usage one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a stretch to apply the MOS, which is primarily targeted at article-space, to templates. But, generally "retain" means to retain the version that was created first (giving a first-mover advantage to creators), not the version with the highest usage. Template:Check mark was created on 26 May 2006, Template:Tick was created on 6 September 2006, three months later. Not that any readers will notice. Only editors see the template names; isn't it amazing these two have peacefully coexisted for 14 years? – wbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People generally apply many of the general page title policies and guidelines to templates too. And the principle definitely applies: the English Wikipedia does not have a preferred variety of English. Also, in merges, as far as I’ve noticed we generally haven’t merged the high usage template into the worse constructed, far lower usage template. And, of course, that something has been done for a long time is a very poor argument in a deletion discussion. The most amusing example of this in my mind is perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction, a decade old iirc. But you’ll see much less amusing examples at TfD every other week. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as wrapper around Tick: I would suggest turning this into a wrapper around {{tick}} (using a 23px default). No point in having 2 implementations. — hike395 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be fine. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: "merge as wrapper" will invisibly and automatically change all the check marks to ticks? So like a million stable pages won't be disrupted by the deletion of a 14 year old template? Knulclunk (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on WP:ENGVAR, the English Wikipedia does not prefer english varieties. Also, Template:Check mark was created 3 months earlier. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a redirect achieves exactly that... The alias {{check mark}} remains useable. That's an argument for saying every template with an American/British title needs a duplicate non-redirect version due to WP:ENGVAR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have forgotten that I also said that Template: Check mark was created 3 months earlier, and therefore is not a duplicate. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 02:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does that make it not a duplicate? Templates aren't articles -- transclusion count showing usage popularity and better structure, all other things being equal, matter more than a 3 month difference in creation date. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per nominator. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 02:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per other keep !votes. Also, rename the templates to {{Tick mark}} and {{Tick mark big}} respectively, consistent with {{Xmark}} vs {{x mark big}}. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect 3 pixels is hardly any difference ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 03:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really no reason to get rid of it. Heavily used, very intuitively named. If nothing else, make it a redirect. DS (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The TfD tag on transclusions is a bit misleading. Deletion was never proposed, only a redirect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I would also redirect {{x mark big}} to {{Xmark}} for the same reason as the rationale above. Why have duplicates of the X mark but not the tick mark? Techie3 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as first choice; the pixel size difference is too small to matter. This would also obviate all the blather about ENGVAR (if they both go to the same place, the "issue" just disappears). It's confusing to have two templates for exactly the same thing produce very faintly different output. Second choice: keep, but only as a wrapper for {{Tick}}, that just encodes the size difference, and otherwise passes on all variables. But I think that result would verge on pointless. I'm strongly toward redirect. PS: The "keep per ENGVAR" !votes are actually invalid (except where they raise some other rationale); MOS doesn't technically apply to template names, and the names of the templates are not the TfD issue in the first place; the redundancy of the templates is. They could be moved to "Template:Tick-check 1" and "Template:Tick-check 2", and we'd still TfD/TfM them for the same reason. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF; the existence of some other barely-different templates that also need to be nominated for merge/redirect is not a good argument to fail to act in this case. Also, the examples given of barely-different templates include some false comparisons (e.g. {{Helped}} and {{Done}} are templates with different purposes/meanings/wording, and the icon size difference in them is accidental or at least incidental, and meaningless). Those that are literally just minor variations, in size only, should be nominated next, however. That clearly does include {{X mark big}} and {{Resolved mark large}} which, like {{Check mark}}, have barely-discernible differences from the original templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There is clearly no substantial difference between these two templates that warrants keeping even a wrapper. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless someone can show an example of where existing check marks suddenly becoming three pixels smaller would cause any kind of problem or breakage. It seems less disruptive than having this ‹See Tfd› link on it for almost a month... The words are synonymous; a "check mark" is not bigger than a "tick". If it's deemed necessary to have a "big tick" version instead of {{tick|23}} (I doubt it), that could be done, with "big check mark" also as a redirect. --IamNotU (talk) 16:21, 2 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_1&oldid=1144966992"