Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6

edit

Template:English legislation

edit

Template:England laws was sent to TfD here as they were pretty much the same scope. While looking at the pages linked from those templates, I noticed that the above 3 are all pretty much included in Template:UK legislation. We don't need 5 navigation templates for the same scope if Template:UK legislation already has all of the links. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these have different scopes. Template:UK acts of Parliament lists is purely acts of Parliament from the UK, whereas Template:UK legislation covers all legislation from the UK and its predecessor states, and hence is a much heftier template. The same applies to the templates for English and British legislation - it is unhelpful to claim that one 'mega' template is better than more focussed ones. Mauls (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)][reply]
The 'meta' template exists and is in use (and I did not create it). Since it exists, it isn't useful for our readers that we have navigation templates that don't follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. And it's a complete burden for our editors to have to maintain 4+ copies of the same list. Ah, I just noticed it was you that created 3 of these templates. Can you point me to a prior discussion which lead to the split? Any TfD? Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: what exactly is the proposal here: deletion or merge...? Vestrian24Bio 11:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few points: I didn't create three of these, I created two of them; they do all follow WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (the meta template and 'English legislation' as collapsed horizonal at the bottom of each of their listed articles, the two other vertical templates at the top, uncollapsed in each of their listed articles - per WP:SIDEBAR). There is no need to maintain four of the same list, as it's three lists (England/Great Britain/UK), and one template combining three. See the bit in WP:NAVBOX about sidebars with a smaller, more tightly defined set of articles, and less-tightly defined lists being in a footer template - as is the case here. How is the change you are proposing in line with WP:NAVBOX? How will it benefit the reader? (I also have to confess that I'm a bit unclear what you feel the 'burden' is in maintaining a list of laws passed in years before 1707 and before 1801 respectively? As far as I was aware, there aren't any more years being added to past centuries?) Mauls (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very misleading to name pages and categories here after the United Kingdom when they are defined as stretching back centuries before it existed - it treats the community as simple-minded, which it isn't at all. No harm in re-naming, if a better name can be found which avoids that trap. Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An appallingly misleading approach. Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-error4im

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template has never been used in talk pages, remained unused since its creation. 37.25.85.161 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this template is not visible in Twinkle. If it's not visible in other Anti-Vandalism programs or gadgets, that's why it may not be used. / RemoveRedSky [talk] [gb] 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made this specifically due to a lack of a 4im template for the uw-error series, I'm not sure how to add it to Twinkle and thus it hasn't been used. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is the reason listed on the page as "Template:England laws was sent to TfD here as they were pretty much the same scope. While looking at the pages linked from those templates, I noticed that the above 3 are all pretty much included in Template:UK legislation. We don't need 5 navigation templates for the same scope if Template:UK legislation already has all of the links."? That's misleading and incorrect. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to look again at what you wrote and this page. Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym I don't understand. Are you talking to me? thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creating a template, not advertising it, not asking for it to be added to Twinkle, not using it yourself in a year is a sign that no one needed this template. Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a recreation of a previously deleted template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Template:Uw-error4im and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Template:Uw-error4im. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hong Kong Gambling films

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) Techie3 (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No main article but seems to be based on the unreferenced section at God of Gamblers#Gamblers franchise. Not a coherent topic for single series as far as I can tell, but combines multiple different loosely-related series based on cameo appearances, etc. --woodensuperman 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No discernable central concept. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GoldRoyalty Icon

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or other usages. Created in December 2024 and January 2025. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused user award which is superseded in it's anti-vandalism purpose with the Anti-Vandalism barnstar among other awards. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Election portrait placeholder text

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of MOS:ABBR and MOS:IBP- the sole purpose of this template is to fill the image field of election infoboxes with massive text containing an abbreviation of the party's name. Examples of its use can be seen at e.g. 2025 Kent County Council election and 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election. The party name (in full, not a rarely-used abbreviation) and party color are always shown immediately below anyway, so there are no circumstances under which duplicating this information in the image field in a less-understandable way is necessary or useful to any readers. All instances of this template being used should be simply removed with the image field left blank. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – very useful as a placeholder for leader images (which for local elections or local races are rare for non-winning candidates) without using a logo, which is often copyrighted DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the purpose of File:No image.svg, which was commonly used for infoboxes until the practice of adding abbreviated party names in massive text took off in the last few years. See 2016 Tooting by-election and 2017 Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, for example. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No image.svg doesn't display correctly on mobile because it is a 1x1 image but the actual ratio of images for infobox portraits is 3x4. It's very useful as I don't need to fiddle around with different sizes, I can just use eppt, and this increases consistency in infoboxes DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:3x4.svg is also usable. The answer to technical issues isn't shoving a massive (often seldom-known) abbreviation of the party name into the image field against all general policy/layout guidelines. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really join in with these Wikipedia discussions but I do look at infoboxes a lot and edit my own private ones often, the placeholder text adds a neatness and balance that would otherwise be missing with the no image.svg listed, this just feels like a very unnecessary change - the fact previous articles exist fine with the no image.svg also just proves to me that people can pick and choose as they wish anyway and so I see no reason to get rid of the placeholder text and I really would not like if this went ahead, please consider not doing so, thank you Liverals (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment (template creator) Just to be clear this template didn't invent the using of party abbreviations in election infoboxes when an image wasn't available, that has been happening for years by the time I created it (e.g. 2014 Heywood and Middleton by-election, 2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election). As you can see in those examples this was achieved by pasting a chunk of HTML into the image param, which I thought an un-intuative way of doing it that was liable to inconsistencies with each copy and paste (which I had already observed occurring). This may therefore require a larger discussion about the use of placeholders in election boxes in general, as a decision here is likely to effect far more articles than the ones that have this template transclued on them. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a quick and dirty search just to show how wide spread this "hand-coded"/non-template version of this effect is, in all sorts of election articles. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even if all of those can't be removed immediately, it's nevertheless the case that having an easily usable template makes the problem worse- compare 2025 Cornwall Council election with 2025 Worcestershire County Council election for example. I don't think there's a single case of the template being usable in a way which is compliant with policy. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The search above shows ~1.3k uses of the raw markup when compared to ~260 for the template (not to mention people are still pasting the raw markup to this day {e.g. [1]}), which clearly shows that this template isn't suddenly making the problem worse. I just fundamentally disagree that having a bunch of untraceable, slightly bespoke (but functionally identical), chucks of markup is better than a centrally track-able template. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to make it clear I'm agnostic on the topic of whether or not we should have these placeholders, but I object to being characterized as the fault of the template when it's obviously something much more wide spread than that. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually thought the HTML one was the only possible way to do it, this is obviously far better! Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no purpose in an infobox. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It serves an extremely vital purpose for keeping infoboxes vibrant CIN I&II (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a very useful template that I have begun using on multiple 2025 local election articles. Although I can see there is a point in the argument that it just duplicates information already listed, it does serve another, more useful, purpose than just a placeholder image for the sake of being a placeholder. When viewing many election infoboxes on a mobile device, the size of each party entry is often variable and is only as big as the text displayed in the body of the entry. Using this template makes each entry the same size. Previously, I have used a cropped blank image to set the width of each entry, but for some reason it doesn't display properly on mobile devices. For this reason I strongly urge that this template is kept. Into oblivion (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: violation of MOS:IBP; should be replaced with File:No image.svg as any usual infobox would have. Vestrian24Bio 11:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, better than the non-templated version being used all over the place right now. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its aesthetic quality may be the subject of disagreement between reasonable people but it's serving many pages well at the moment and there hasn't been laid out any compelling reason to remove it. Very silly suggestion for removal, I feel. Garnet Moss (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a useful feature Useful2 (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no appreciable benefit over a blank space
CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On that same note, what's the appreciable benefit a blank space has over the abbreviation? -Samoht27 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, More stylistically interesting than a blank space, makes infoboxes with a lot of missing portraits less of an eyesore without effecting content, which I think is valuable. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a blank image (nothing at all) is somehow less useful than the something that is done, either. It doesn't serve any more utility, so why should we make that the new standard? -Samoht27 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I fail to see how this template violates MOS:ABBR or MOS:IBP. In the case of infoboxes where suitable pictures of leaders/candidates are hard to come across, this template makes said infoboxes more coherent. I agree that File:No image.svg is certainly valuable in some circumstances, but I don't see a compelling argument for the deletion of this template. TTrojanHorse (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many UK election pages where we have no images of candidates and this is a good place holder to use instead. Helper201 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incredibly useful template, that is used on various pages. Des Vallee (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this visual style has been in use long before the existence of the template, and the template serves to standardize these uses. In cases where there is no image of a party leader available, this template serves to keep infoboxes visually coherent. If images of party leaders don't violate WP:IBP, I don't see how this template could. WMSR (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by others here, good and useful visual style which has been used widely Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: serves a valuable purpose, especially given the issues wtih the "no image" image noted above. Some may prefer a blank space, but then nobody is forced to use (or not use) this template. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to delete a useful template that is also widely used. Viatori (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very useful for elections, It makes election info boxes with parties that don't have leaders look nicer. It's used heavily across a lot of pages DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks far nicer and in many cases actually can help readers quickly understand an elections box. For example if parties are similar to each other (e.g. Lang Labor vs Australian Labor Party) or if there are different groupings for a party that would otherwise seem the same at a glance (e.g. Australian Labor Party vs Independent Labor (Australia) in a lot of Australian local government elections). Sure your UK parties might not really be known by their abbreviations but terms like "ALP" and "LNP" and far more commonly used in Australia. Also it just looks neater to have a placeholder of some sort instead of a blank gap that often just makes a page look unfinished and sloppy. Lord Beesus (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensively used in Australian elections and helps keep infoboxes evenly spaced and formatted, as per previously mentioned Australian parties are often well known by their abbreviations. Comfisofa (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's widely used and is helpful when there's no image. PlateOfToast (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's largely used and helpful in certain situations. King4852 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep claiming this to violate WP:IBP is outlandish. But I'm happy to see a majority doesn't want to delete a useful and widely-tested template for some pedantic, hazy reason. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is very useful to have a template to standardise how parties without portraits are displayed. As Cakelot1 noted, there are a lot of instances of the function of this template being hardcoded into election infoboxes already, this template just means that popular design can be implemented without hardcoding (which is what should be encouraged). If the issue is specifically with the abbreviations used for UK parties, this template is sourcing them from {{Party abbrev}}, so they can be adjusted there; alternatively, the second parameter of the template lets any display text be specified, so UK election infoboxes can just display full party names in the placeholder portraits if necessary. On election pages where none of the parties have portraits (such as 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election), I think it does make sense to just leave the image fields blank for all of the parties instead of using this template; this template is far more useful for balancing out infoboxes where only some of the parties have portraits. As noted by several other commenters, there are many other places (such as Australia) where party abbreviations are widely used and well-known, so the existence of this template cannot be a violation of MOS:ABBR, although perhaps the way it is currently being used for UK elections is. --SnorlaxMonster 10:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_6&oldid=1295135014"