Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9 edit

2012 Summer Olympics field hockey team roster templates 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LST is good; thanks for doing the work. Schwede66 18:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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).

2012 Summer Olympics handball team roster templates 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles update to use WP:LST. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused templates after merger of content that belongs in the article with the article and adjustments of transclusions on other pages. —Alalch E. 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose all implementation of LST until this process is discussed with the community at large. All removals of the above templates in the relevant articles should be reverted. SilverserenC 03:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I think the idea behind all these LST nominations is good I don't believe it's currently reliable enough for mass deployment. Based on Category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sections and some searches I estimate that 15-20% of LST uses are broken, which is unacceptable in my eyes. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Survey_on_replacing_templates_with_WP:LST where I've suggested some ways to improve this so that LST becomes something I can enthusiastically support. --Trialpears (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was just repetitive data and thus WP:LST is more appropriate, because templates should be used for standardized or navigational repetitive content, see Help:Template. Irecorsan (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (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:Bob Moses 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. Feel free to renominate it if you still wish to see it deleted! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premature navbox for an act with an article for only one album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author of the template has begun creating articles for other albums, so this could wind up being a 'keep' by the end of this TfD's run. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, now up to three albums. maybe relist this and see if more are created? Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might as well ping SundførTannhauser, creator of the new articles. --Trialpears (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, will get to creating the fourth album though the EPs and Singles pages would probably be unnecessary at this. But I'll leave it up to you guys. SundførTannhauser (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2023 (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:United City F.C. squad 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club withdrew from the leage and released all its players and staff, as written in United City F.C.. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, they currently have no players or staff as they released them. So this template is factually incorrect and not needed. If in the future they re-enter a league and have notable players, then and only then could this template be re-created or restored. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defunct club does not need a 'current' squad navbox. GiantSnowman 12:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (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:Resolved mark large 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:Resolved mark. There is consensus that we don't need two templates, but no consensus (yet) to add variable size to {{Resolved mark}}. The concern about breaking pages is mitigated by redirecting. I will have a bot convert some to use {{Resolved mark}} with a currently-non-existing size parameter. If you wish to have a size parameter enabled, feel free to start a discussion at Template talk:Resolved mark. If there is a problem with the bot edits, let me know, and I can reverse them. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just a worse version of {{Resolved mark}}. There is no need to have a larger image, and it causes increased line height. The template is also minimally used and should just be replaced with the standard version (Resolved mark). Terasail[✉️] 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to What links here, this template has 140 transclusions and {{resolved mark}} has 769 transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With 140 transclusions, the template is not minimally used as stated in the nomination. In my view, the rest of the nomination is subjective and arbitrary; there is no need to not have a larger image. This allows users to cusommize as they see fit. North America1000 07:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northamerica1000. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge add a {{{size}}} to indicate how large it should be -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly conflicted here. I recently started a discussion about standardizing image sizes which explains why icon sizes ideally should be somewhere between 14 and 19px. Coincidentally Terasail has been implementing this using the new template {{respond}} to generally standardize these templates. If we want a truly standardized system of response templates I feel like having one outlying extra large template is a bad idea and it should thus either be deleted/redirected or merged into {{resolved mark}}. On one hand allowing for customization is generally good, but on the other I can't see a reason for it, I can see the case the possibility of people entering overly large values causing huge line gaps, trying to use em which isn't compatible with images causing a full scale image in the middle of discussions. On top of that these are templates that generally should be as lightweight as possible to avoid PEIS issues (I believe FLC have banned them for that reason). A simple size option in px shouldn't be a problem but, if we want to support things like small and large it might be. Since response templates should ideally be standardized I feel like the choice of adding size support should be a broader discussion than just this template and hence I feel like the best course of action here is to delete/redirect and possibly add size options to all response templates after a discussion on that subject. --Trialpears (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of specifying a pixel size, we could also standardize the option sizes, with a case statement for LARGE, SMALL and DEFAULT, (or in this case just LARGE and DEFAULT) -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tholme (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Duplicative template. The process to standardize image sizes is already underway as described by Trialpears. —Alalch E. 21:54, 11 March 2023 (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/2023_March_9&oldid=1145132606"