Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16 edit

Template:Archive top purple 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. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Delete (and subst or replace uses with Template:Archive top red) as it's redundant and almost never used. {{Archive top red}}, {{Archive top green}}, and {{Archive top yellow}} have 243, 232, and 129 transclusions respectively and the case has been made for their usefulness at this TFD last week. {{Archive top purple}} on the other hand has 3 transclusions in 7 years, and was even originally forgotten from last weeks TFD. Also, the shade of purple is virtually indistinguishable from the red in {{Archive top red}}. If anyone really wanted purple, they could use the bg= parameter on the base {{Archive top}} template. The Only Zac (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: User:Purplebackpack89, User:Pigsonthewing, User:Trialpears The Only Zac (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. pbp 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain your reasoning? This is a call for discussion, not a vote. The Only Zac (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. 1) Three isn't zero, 2) We JUST discussed this template and it shouldn't have re-nominated so quickly. pbp 15:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Three uses in seven years is practically zero when the others each have hundreds. To subst and delete would be trivial. 2) Archive top purple was not sufficiently discussed at the previous discussion, only red, green, yellow, and the color variants as a whole, so that discussion doesn't invalidate this one. The Only Zac (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we just had a deletion discussion close on the matter. Can we at least wait a week or two for the dust to settle? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see how that would change anything. Besides, Archive top red, green, and yellow were the main focus of that tfd, and Archive top purple was an afterthought. The Only Zac (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was still added to the first TfD making the discussion relevant. I saw nobody there in favor of deleting any of these templates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that discussion is irrevelant, I'm saying it doesn't invalidate this one. The people that opposed deletion over there only seemed to oppose deleting the color variants as a whole, and those who defended them only cited the usefulness of red, green, and yellow. No one even knew purple existed until Nigej made a joke about creating it which ostensibly proves my point. Also, I did want to suggest deleting purple at that discussion but Trialpears had already closed it, hence this new discussion. The Only Zac (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit that when I made the joke (based on the User:Purplebackpack89 name) I hadn't any idea that there was actually one in existence. I just mentioned it, as an example, thinking that no one would ever create a template such as Archive top purple. Nigej (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nigej, that's what I'm trying to say. Whereas Archive top red, Archive top green, and Archive top yellow have established use cases, Archive top purple serves no purpose. It's no different from Archive top orange, Archive top pink, or Archive top aquamarine for that matter; edge cases which could be done with the bg= param on the base {{Archive top}} if anyone had a particular desire for them. The Only Zac (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm here to discuss whether or not we should delete Archive top purple, not discuss whether we should have a discussion. So far the two keep !votes haven't provided an actual reason for keeping it. I think the previous discussion was closed prematurely, and I don't think the consensus we settled on for the color variants as a whole (with a particularly heavy focus on Archive top red, green, and yellow) extends to Archive top purple. It's rarely used, and it's not even included in {{Templates_for_archiving}}, nor in DannyS712's DiscussionCloser script. I could withdraw the nom and start again in two weeks, but that wouldn't change anything. The Only Zac (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed that discussion and I believe it was entirely appropriate. There was no consensus on whether Archive top purple specifically should be kept or deleted since it specifically wasn't discussed. This is a different proposal and there is no problem with having it now. --Trialpears (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying Trialpears, and sorry for implying you were wrong to close that discussion. I only meant that the previous discussion ended without sufficient discussion to come to a consensus on Template:Archive top purple specifically, which we agree on. Now, let's all move past this and discuss the template at hand. The Only Zac (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Barely used. Simple alternative. No logic in its existence, ie having purple and not orange, pink, etc. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the others were kept as wrappers mainly due to (a) high use and (b) colours having meaning. Neither applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:01, 16 November 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:Ongoing protests 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 2020 November 24. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:58, 24 November 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:Composer sidebar 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 no consensus. I see the arguments, which were numerically roughly equal, in groups. The keep group mainly argued that the sidebars have a navigational benefit. The delete group argued a mixture of two things: (a) that a sidebar shouldn't be used at all (instead a navbox at the bottom should be used); and/or (b) that these infobox-like sidebars are problematic for accessibility and mobile support reasons. Note that (b) does not address the case of an infobox (eg {{Infobox opera}}) with a sidebar below it, hence is not sufficient for outright deletion (verses just modification).

My reading is that there is no consensus on whether there should be a sidebar. Particularly, I'd note that Nikkimaria's argument that sidebars in the lead do remain permissible was true and not refuted in the discussion. I will note that today an RfC on the matter of lead sidebars was closed discouraging their use, however their mass-removal was explicitly not authorised and a clear consensus is still required for deletion, and it is difficult to extrapolate arguments made here into an RfC close that the participants were not aware of at the time of discussion.

For a (meta-)template this widely used, with a controversial history, there should be a clearer consensus on its deletion. I suggest usage be addressed on a per-page basis in line with Robert.Allen's suggestion, or templates be nominated on per-composer basis, bundling where appropriate (eg when arguments are the same, such as 'unused'). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the ~70 templates which are based on it (see search).

Recent nominations of tens of such templates, on three dates (September 28, October 5, October 8) resulted, without exception, in deletion.

They were nominated for:

  • (in some cases) failing WP:NENAN (i.e. for containing too few links to justify their existence)
  • for being redundant to and less useful than footer navboxes
  • for hiding their image - often an article's lead image - from mobile users, who (on latest figures) make up 57% of our users.

(Some were also unused.)

The remaining templates, and the parent, are nominated on the same basis.

Arguments for keeping them which were not upheld in the previous discussions included that they were "deliberately narrower in scope to the one to which it is claimed to be redundant", that they "serve a useful navigational purpose for this set of articles", "NENAN is an essay", and "these are sidebars, not navboxes".

In each case, the image should be moved into respective articles before the template is removed.

There have previously been objections both to nominating templates of this type in batches; and to doing so individually; see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Sidebar batch nominations for discussion on that point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for proposing this set Andy, and for your thoughtful nomination. I think these templates should be kept as I think they are useful for navigation and, if it is just a problem with the images, the sidebars can be edited rather than removed. On the other hand I'm aware this is not likely to be the community consensus. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with the footer template option and delete sidebar version. Sidebar templates take precious real-estate at the top of the screen. Unlike an infobox which provides users with summary of key points, this sidebars are purely for navigation purposes. This is highlighted by the fact that the code they use is not supported by mobile and unseen by those readers. For navigation templates, their place is at the bottom of the page where our readers are used to finding them. As Andy pointed out, any image should be kept and used in the article, and as the previous batch has shown, often it would be an even better image which is about the specific piece and not the general image of the individual who composed it. Additionally, many of the pages have received {{Infobox opera}} as a replacement, which is even more useful. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There aren't any horizontal navigation bars for many of the composers that use this template. The argument about visibility for mobile users is flawed because they don't see horizontal navigation bars either. There's no benefit in deleting this and more than 60 other templates, and considerable disadvantage. If opera sidebars are to be deleted, concentrating on those composers who have a horizontal a navigation bar would be more fruitful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of the previously deleted templates referred to above (particularly the October 8 batch) also had no equivalent navbox when nominated; in each case, horizontal navboxes were created and deployed before the sidebars were removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per MB and LT. People who feel that only bottom navboxes should be used are welcome to propose that at a central venue, but at the moment there are thousands of articles using sidebars, not limited to this set. Concerns around image placement/selection can be addressed by means other than deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted this was not the finding of any of the three previous sets of deletion nominations. Not all sidebars are attempting to be navboxes, especially not redundant navboxes, and there are 2.8 million transclusions of {{Navbox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, if you believe {{navbox}} should be the only permissible implementation, you're welcome to open a discussion on that point centrally. But at this point we're not there, so that remains an opinion and not a rationale for deletion. Similarly "other stuff was deleted" - otherwise we wouldn't need to discuss at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note template works in mobile view unlike nav footers--Moxy 🍁 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked using my Android mobile phone (on Die Fledermaus), and the template does not display, in either the native bowser or the WMF's Wikipedia app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no way for what you said to be correct Moxy. {{Composer sidebar}} uses {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, which has a message stating his template does not display in the mobile view of Wikipedia; it is desktop only.. I've also tested a random page using {{Composer sidebar}} and indeed it did not show. --Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Composer_sidebar.--Moxy 🍁 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Fledermaus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template showing how to make a sidebar, because there seems to be no wish to create new ones. As for the individual ones left, how about asking for objections to deleting specific ones? I don't use any of them, so would have no objections to deleting them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the search shows some templates we decided already to delete. An example for what I think is useless you can see at Das Mädchen aus Domrémy: a template which is much longer than the article, showing the image of the composer when old but he composed mostly when young, and mobile users wouldn't even see that image. Generally: I believe what serves composers such as Verdi well (see Aida), should also be good for Sacchini, see Dardanus (Sacchini) where I'd much prefer to see the singer on top than the bust of the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's useful to have a summary of composer stuff near the top, with the page overview. TreeReader (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with a footer navbox. the navbox provides a better format, leaving room at the top of the article for images and other floating content. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, while you may prefer that format, the other format remains permissible. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with the footer template option and delete sidebar version, Gonnym summarizes my view. We have the mobile view problem, the incredible clutter at the top of articles, the MOS:DONTHIDE problem, and the proliferation of infobox clutter along with the fact that many similar navboxes are used to promote POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I know, there is no consensus to remove it from Handel opera articles. That is sufficient reason to keep it. (Does not add any more clutter at the top than the nearly useless opera infobox.) I suggest you propose removing it page by page on the relevant opera article talk pages. Then you will probably get plenty of discussion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To repeat a line from the nomination: "Recent nominations of tens of such templates, on three dates (September 28, October 5, October 8) resulted, without exception, in deletion.". This is how we determine consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having text collapsed by default is unwieldy to all and creates poor accessibility for users of assistive technology. I didn't even realize this template wasn't visible on mobile which is another reason to deleted. As an side, I'm not pleased that these templates are currently being removed altogether or replaced with infoboxes with misleading edit summaries, before the discussion is even concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Laser's comment above. This template becomes a strong excuse to not have an individual lead image for each opera – as a result all of the Handel operas, for example, have an image of Handel at the top, which has nothing to do with the actual content of the opera... Aza24 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 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_November_16&oldid=991471068"