Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7 October 9 >

October 8[edit]

Template:Shades of magenta[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) 14:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Shades of magenta with Template:Shades of violet.
Too esoteric. Contents should be merged into other relevant color templates, such as Template:Shades of violet, Template:Shades of pink, or Template:Shades of red pbp 22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose merge-Magenta is a legitimate color of which there are many shades. Inkject printers call it "magenta". --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2021 (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:Boeing 737 MAX orders and deliveries[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 after substituting into the main list article. As far as I can tell, there will be no need to "maintain a second table set" if the content is housed in a single article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These three should be substituted where used. This is not an appropriate use of template space since it's mainly article-related content, and belongs on the respective articles as part of the articles. Not on a separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Each of these is set up to allow the same data tables to be transcluded onto multiple relevant pages. Killing the templates in favor of repetitive individual article content will just unnecessarily double the amount of work needed to keep the data up to date and accurate on the individual pages. They have been working just fine this way for as long as 8 years, and I am not finding any explicit policy that delineates this as an inappropriate use of template space. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense for the multiple pages if it was say more than two. But really this is article content that can easily be substituted. I've checked where these three are used and it wouldn't be at all difficult to update any information. And the fact for the past eight years it has worked fine is only because the template space has existed without anybody questioning it, until now, about it being on separate space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So contrary to the original rationale, it actually is appropriate to use template space for mainly article-related content, but only if the template is transcluded onto three pages rather than on two? Sometimes templates don't get questioned for eight years because there is nothing wrong with them. Before we cavalierly decide it is reasonable to literally double the workload of those who have been diligently maintaining the data in these templates, all for the sin of the template being used one time too few, is there any actual policy behind this proposed deletion? Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first guideline where it states templates should not store article content. I'm paraphrasing but that is the guideline I'm using in my rationale. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what it says (emphasis added): "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, . . . ." - There is no apprecialbe text in the nominated templates, so this guideline does not apply to the situation. Agricolae (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been viewing these templates for years on a more than monthly basis and find them informative and useful. Leave them alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.36.2 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated maybe 70-80% of the monthly B777 O&D and maybe 40% of the monthly B787 O&D template updates the last 3 years. If the templates are removed and replaced by two identical table sets that needs individual updates then that is lack of common sense. I have no intention of doing the extra work required to maintain a second table set. Rygjar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I'm all in favour of avoiding code duplication, so in general it's perfectly ok to have a template that is transcluded only twice. However, I don't think the content of those templates should appear in any articles other than the List of Boeing xxx orders and deliveries. The main aircraft articles (Boeing 737 MAX, Boeing 777 etc.) are already large enough without that level of detail, and they link quite prominently to the corresponding List of orders article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute in the List of Boeing xxx orders and deliveries articles and remove from the other articles per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (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:Too many photos[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 to change to a talk page banner.. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking consensus to convert this template to a talk page banner. While it certainly identifies a real issue that is worthy of being tracked, it's not something so severe that we need to inform readers about it before letting them read the page. In most cases, the banner itself will be more disruptive than the issue it seeks to address. Therefore, putting it on the talk page makes more sense. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Really this is similar to the banner on the talk page where it requests an image. If there are too many photos, then it would be better to discuss it where this used on those articles' talk pages. Not on separate template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be converted to inform readers that the article may have serious accessibility problems due to mass amount of images... multiple formats... incorrect placement.... or text sandwich.Moxy- 00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While discussion occurs on the talk page, there's really nothing different about this template than say an NPOV or RS tag in that procedural sense. I'd say why not both? Moxy does bring up a good point that I can be a warning to readers when a page is cumbersome. KoA (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notices and discussions about the number of photos and images belong on an article's talk page. If there are disagreements, consensus can be achieved through the dispute resolution process. There is no justification for highlighting a perceived excess in the number of photos at the top of a Wikipedia article. The template distracts readers of the article and can represent an opinion of only one editor. Corker1 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that Corker1 is currently involved in a dispute where I used this template to point out image issues they disagree with. KoA (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn’t the kind of issue that we need to call out to a reader. wctaiwan (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to keep for the sole use case of WP:VPT#Failure of section collapse mechanism in mobile view provoked by excessive templates/images (possibly with bot enforcement). --Izno (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I agree. If I were to write a script that, for example, converts flag icons into emoji for mobile accessibility reasons, this would be a way to find pages in need of such attention. – Anon423 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A tracking category, as proposed in the VPT discussion, seems like a much less disruptive way to track this. Given that the template is also manually added by editors, it doesn't seem to offer any advantages over either a category or a talk page template. wctaiwan (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Templates on article spaces help editors take action and indicate a movement to correct such issues. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For delete !voters, could you clarify if you are supporting my proposed conversion to a talk page template or outright deletion? For keep !voters, could you clarify if you would be okay with conversion to a talk banner or not, and if not, what your objection is? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote is outright deletion of this template. But I would not be opposed for a talk page banner for this concern or a conversion of this one. It should not be in template format in my view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I object for my specific noted use case to either conversion or deletion. Izno (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(And would probably !vote to delete for all other cases, but I'm not strongly for that.) Izno (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a common problem with articles. The "talk page header" argument boils down to "I fully agree that this is a problem, but I want it not to be fixed". This is not an argument that should be given respect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems the same as any other cleanup template. It's acknowledging to the reader that Wikipedia articles aren't meant to look like this, and gives a prompt to step in and fix the problem if they know the topic well enough to make any calls on the best representative images. Someone who's having to scroll through twenty holiday photos to get to the second paragraph of the lead is given an apology, someone who's intending to print a long article is alerted to the unusual situation of it having four pages of gallery towards the end, someone who's about to use an article as the basis for creating their own about a similar subject is clearly told that this is not a perfect example, and so on. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; not seeing what distinguishes this from any other cleanup template that goes on the article itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template addresses a real problem with many Wikipedia articles. It serves to alert editors to trimming excessive pictures from articles. JIP | Talk 22:06, 15 October 2021 (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).

Titles[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 00:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is right, since I'm not an user. I saw that other templates were deleted because didn't have enought champions, like five. These templates have less than 5 champs with articles. 83.44.180.141 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2021 (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:Organized crime in Chicago[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:Organized crime groups in Chicago. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Organized crime in Chicago with Template:Organized crime groups in Chicago.
propose merging the smaller template into the larger one, as it duplicates it. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Organized crime in Chicago. All the crime groups in this one are featured in Organized crime groups in Chicago. Merging would be redundant. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was intending to merge and then delete. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging isn't necessary. Because the information is already presented in both templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that now, so how do I delete instead of just merging? --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd let the nomination play out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2021 (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/2021_October_8&oldid=1050393901"