Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29 edit

Template:Chicopee class oiler 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 relisted on 2018 July 8. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2018 (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:Halo Wars tracklist 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 relisted on 2018 July 8. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2018 (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).

Module:Expression 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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this module is somewhat clever, I don't see how it's useful for Wikipedia, especially in the unfinished state which it's been in since 2013 {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Module:Sandbox/Wnt/Expression. Admittedly it's unused and unfinished and I have no idea when I'd look back on it. Early on, we tended to treat the whole Module: space as a draft space for anything we imagined would one day be usable, but if people are going to go through and assess modules, no reason why I can't move them somewhere out of the way. Wnt (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2018 (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 Indonesian political party 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Infobox political party. The argument to keep this template in older deletion discussion doesn't make any sense since all paremeter in this template could be recreated with Template:Infobox political party. Hddty. (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please ping the participants of the previous discussion.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 04:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, useful as a frontend to avoid retyping the seats titles, and other prefilled information. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the source code, the template just become lower version of Template:Infobox political party since there are a hidden comment there that says that Indonesian political parties doesn't have international affiliation/political spectrum. Repeated information is not the problem since all article that use Template:Infobox political party also do the same thing. Hddty. (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at the source code, which is why I said "useful as a frontend to avoid retyping the seats titles, and other prefilled information". Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2018 (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).

Module:AASHTO minutes 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if it turns out this is actually being used and/or just needs a little modification to get it going. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, data is self-described as incomplete {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NOTIMELIMIT. Module creator is still active on Wikipedia. Etiquette should be to ask Happy5214 if they plan on finishing the module before nominating it for deletion because it is unfinished. If they've truly abandoned it they can G7 it themselves. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 20:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IIRC the module was written for a project by Imzadi1979 to upload these minutes to Commons. I think the module was a replacement for {{AASHTO minutes}}, but he has been adding the newly uploaded minutes to that template and not to the module. I'd ask him whether he needs the module. If not, you may delete it. -happy5214 20:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—the module was started as a replacement/augment to the template as Happy notes, but it seems that the existing template works just as well at present. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2018 (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:H:title – now Template:Hover title 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of use are either abominations violating MOS:ACCESS ("Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text") (as in here, or here) or abbreviations in which case {{abbr}} should be used, as in here. Maybe allow outside of mainspace, but definitely not in articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replacement would probably be done similar as sort of being done for the redirect {{tooltip}}; in both there is mixture of legitimate abbreviations and illegitimate uses. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and {{H:swl}} is unused so delete that anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling things that others have spent many hours working on "abominations" is, at a minimum, unproductive... Nevertheless, as one of its creators, I think it would be okay to delete this template at this point because its main functionality has been much more effectively achieved by the Wikidata project. --Benjamin Good (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry; I wasn't calling the template an abomination; I was however, pointing out that, many of its specific uses are quite bad Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Tooltip}}, if there are any features that should be merged; remove uses of the template that violate MOS:ACCESS; and replace uses of it with {{Abbr}} when it's marking up abbreviations. Whatever the original intent, the output of {{H:swl}} (which has a name that means nothing to anyone but it's author) is presently identical to that of {{H:title}} (which is also at WP:RM for renaming; see Template talk:H:title). So, even if H:swl were used, and even if H:title is kept under a better name, H:swl would merge, one way or the other.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)    [reply]
{{tooltip}} is a redirect to {{abbr}}.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got confused, and then one of the nominated templates was moved. Re-commenting below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. This edit was recently undertaken, converting the hoverbox to a note. I don't see how taking pertinent—but secondary—information out of the infobox where it is used to explain a metric and placing it at the bottom of the page in the reference section is helpful. If we are barring its use on the basis that it requires "interaction" I do not see how converting it to a citation actually improves the situation, given that the footnote system also requires "interaction" and is more disruptive to reading flow. Hoverboxes are used extensively in tables where space is a premium, such as at Motion picture content rating system where hoverboxes are used as an aid to provide further clarification without cluttering the table with information. If the template were deleted some tables would require an extensive redesign, and it is not immediately clear how one would go about this. If it is causing a problem for screenreaders then why can't the template just be fixed to make it accessible to screenreaders? Surely it can't be that hard to make screenreaders correctly interpret a hoverbox? I am not saying that accessibility problems should be ignored, but is this problem being approached from the right frame of mind? After all this is an online encyclopedia so surely the direction of traffic should be to make Wikipedia more reader interactive, rather than less? Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pieces of explaining text are, anyhow, generally put as notes instead of tooltips; this is hardly a strange thing to do. If the template can be made accessible to screenreaders, good, but I do not know how, and until then per MOS:ACCESS instances should be fixed and this template deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are essentially for bits of information that readers don't need to look at while hoverboxes are generally used to integrate essential information into a confined space, such as a table or infobox. I take access very seriously (and have initiated several improvements for color-blind users) but we shouldn't be taking retrograde steps just to improve accessibility for a small subset of users if this affects the majority too adversely. For example, if we can redesign a table to make it more accessible—either through using color-blind color schemes, supplementing color with labels and getting rid of problematic row and column spans—without compromising it for the main readership we should absolutely do that, but MOS:ACCESS should be not used as an excuse to to reduce functionality and usefulness for the main readership. We should be aiming for optimal solutions i.e. page design that benefits the most readers. Sometimes that will mean we should redesign a feature to improves its accessibility, but at other times it will mean sacrificing that goal to retain usefulness. If acceptable alternatives to the hoverbox exist or can be made to exist (they seem to exist for abbreviations) then we should explore those, but they are not interchangeable with footnotes in every scenario. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my newer (not mangled!) comment below. It's not that simply; we can't simply swap in <abbr> markup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Hover title}} for now (the one that used to be {{H:title}}). Replace uses of it with {{Abbr}} when it's marking up abbreviations. We also need to reverse the parameters in {{Hover title}}, to be in the same order as {{Abbr}}. {{Hover title}} should also have its documentation adjusted to note the accessibility concerns, and that it only should be used for supplemental information, not anything required to understand the material. Whatever the original intent, the output of the unused {{H:swl}} (which has a name that means nothing to anyone but it's author) is presently identical to that of {{Hover title}}, so can just be deleted.

    Input requested: See also Template talk:Hover title#Specify link: We need to find a way to bring the output of the template into compliance with MOS:ACCESS if this is technically possible. The summary is that the <abbr> element is accessible, but is strictly limited to abbreviations (including acronyms/initialisms) by the HTML specs (both W3C and WHATWG versions). The title= attribute is part of both specs but is not presently well or at all implemented in many if any screenreaders (and improvements to their functionality are very, very slow to appear, almost shockingly slow). If anyone knows of a way we can resolve this, like through new site-wide or user-level Javascript or something (like the WP:Navigation popups), please do chime in at that thread. It needs to be fixed, because we need to undo the abuse of {{abbr}} and the underlying <abbr> as a general tooltip trick, but {{Hover title}} isn't the ideal solution (yet). It's not that {{Hover title}} is broken; rather, the screen readers and we hope there's a workaround.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I raised MOS:ACCESS with User:Graham87 in October 2010 at Talk:Spiccato where he wrote, "Yep, that works for me." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: When I wrote that message, I meant that the "Yep, a cello" bit didn't get in the way of my reading. I actually wouldn't be able to read it even if I wanted to ... I don't know if it's the best use of a hover title, anyway, but ... meh. Graham87 06:20, 5 July 2018 (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/2018_June_29&oldid=849436700"