Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18 edit

Template:Contains Levantine characters 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Contains Levantine characters with Template:Contains special characters.
Should be merged with the standard contains template. I don't think it's appropriate to be advocating the use of specific CSS in articles. Izno (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno. I understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, I'm afraid Template:Contains special characters wouldn't help at all. There's an issue with Levantine Arabic (and some other varieties of Arabic, but not all...) that is very specific to Levantine and that can only be solved by using specific CSS. Please read the discussion that led to the creation of this template. I ping @Verbarson: who participated in the discussion back then. Until the related CLDR ticket is fixed, I guess we'll have to keep this template. However, if you find a simpler solution, it would be amazing! A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the issue, we cannot require readers to add CSS to read an article. A different fix should be made or the problematic characters removed. Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template. It is one thing to require readers to have an up-to-date OS or web browser, or enabling fonts, to be able to read specific characters in an article, but it will never be ok to require readers, the vast majority of them, are not registered, to set up a settings page and add CSS code to it. As I wrote above, a different fix that doesn't require anything like that from readers should be done, or the problematic characters removed. In general though, I agree that this template is the type that should be merged into the proposed target. Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggest removing Levantine Arabic characters (using the Levantine Arabic ISO codes) in an article about Levantine Arabic? 🤔 A455bcd9 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest enabling all of our readers to read an entire article and not block sections of content away from them. Either there is a fix which requires no CSS tinkering from readers, or remove the offending text until such a fix can be made. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both templates. The issue with both of these templates is that they try to solve problems that should not be a problem for websites like Wikipedia. Ideally, any font should provide an acceptable (given the font style) rendering for any Unicode character; alternatively, the browser (or operating system) should select an appropriate font for each language specified by the HTML language tags, or if the current font lacks characters required by the page it should 'fall back' to some more global font that does include them.
Multilingual support having grown rather haphazardly in browsers, OSs, mark-up and related code standards, this ideal is not always achieved. Much of the advice in Help:Special characters (linked to by {{Contains special characters}}) is outside the scope of Wikipedia configuration, and should not be necessary; at least the advice given by Template:Lang § Applying styles (linked to by {{Contains Levantine characters}}) is within the scope of Wikipedia configuration.
I would be sympathetic to a solution that combined both issues into one template, provided that it did not result in a bloated and overloaded template doing too much in one package—which I suspect would result. The problem with Levantine Arabic remains after the solution for special characters has been implemented; it is a different problem requiring a different solution in a different place.
Declaring some language characters to be 'problematic' and therefore unusable is an un-encyclopedic response. Editors should be free to use whatever text best communicates the meaning of an article. If we cannot seamlessly display the text required by an article, we should at least warn the user of possible problems, and direct them to possible solutions; if those solutions turns out to be beyond their capacity today, maybe need, curiosity or enthusiasm will lead them to enlarge their capacity tomorrow.-- Verbarson  talkedits 21:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it provides a useful warning which cannot be seemlessly replicated with the proposed merge target. I think that the template might be a bit verbose, and it might be better to link a help page or similar instead of including the proposed solution in the notice. But the essential information, that apc/ajp require unique CSS solution and may render incorrectly otherwise is useful. The fact that it is burdensome for readers to fix the rendering issue is in fact a good reason to use this notice template, as it's unlikely that many users are going to see these characters rendered correctly. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you add a help page with the same content, you can trivially merge this template. Izno (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (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:Hawkeye (2021 TV series) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:NENAN, but all links are in Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe with greater context, so this is redundant Indagate (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm just curious why you think this one specifically is redundant even though all Disney+ MCU series before it have their own Navboxes as well with the same type of info?
{{WandaVision}}
{{The Falcon and the Winter Soldier}}
{{Loki (TV series)}}
{{What If...? (TV series)}}
The only difference is the others have all of their episodes included, while the rest of the Hawkeye episodes are still drafts, so if there isn't a minimum number of episodes for the navbox, then I don't know what's wrong with this one compared to the others. -- Zoo (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: ZooBlazer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Those have unique links for episodes whereas all links in Hawkeye are in the main MCU navbox Indagate (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hawkeye one links to Never Meet Your Heroes. Like I said if there is a minimum amount of episodes that need to be in the mainspace that's fine, otherwise the info is the exact same type as the other navboxes. -- Zoo (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does but that episode also linked in the main MCU template, unlike the others due to their quantity. The issue I have with the Hawkeye navbox is that it's redundent to the main MCU navbox, whereas the others series navboxes aren't. Indagate (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – the plan is to eventually move all of the Hawkeye episodes into the mainspace, though I can see the argument that this is too early. Still, this passes the WP:NENAN rule of five, so I see no harm in keeping it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just hurry up and get the other episodes moved to mainspace, and this will resolve itself. BD2412 T 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They just need production info specific to each episode, then they're good to go. -- Zoo (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZooBlazer: What is the holdup with getting and adding this info? I'd think in the five days since my last post, at least one more of these could be finished. BD2412 T 00:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to find the info. -- Zoo (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think in the five days since my last post, at least one more of these could be finished A TfD discussion isn't grounds to suddenly knock out drafts. You're welcome to help contribute to building out their info to move them if you're so concerned about that in a TfD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the editor who recreate the navbox, I said then that technically it does satisfy WP:NENAN with that edit, despite having less episode articles in the mainspace as the other MCU Disney+ series. As such, I've said "weak keep" because I understand why Indagate nominated, but I think this is fine to stay per InfiniteNexus. Regardless, should !votes be different, result should just be to redirect as it was here rather than outright delete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (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:Ignyte Award Critics Award 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. ✗plicit 11:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes with no main article and either zero links or one link to articles in the body. Only two links are possible in the body, since the award has been given only twice. There is no need for a navbox yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would make more sense to merge these navboxes into a single navbox for all awards, but nonetheless, these separate awards do not warrant separate navboxes. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Awards are being presented again in September, which will add another winner in each category. Is it really so terrible to have a nav box in existence before it has dozens of winners? I don't understand the issue. They will obviously become more robust over time. CorundumCat (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, specifically the numbered criteria, for an explanation. If you create a navbox that meets these criteria, and it is used in articles, it will be more useful, and less likely to be nominated for deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2022 (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 league season 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 merge to Template:Infobox sports season. Izno (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox league season with Template:Infobox sports season.
Both infoboxes cover the same scope of articles. {{Infobox sports season}} is used more often. Parameter usage differs slightly on each template but can be easily added if deemed necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2022 (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/2022_June_18&oldid=1095004985"