Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

[edit]

Template:X11 color chart

[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a template? It is only used on one article and is a fairly straight forward set of table. Seems like it would be better for it just to be merged back into the web colors page. It is also misnamed as it is the SVG/CSS web colors instead of X11 color names. PaleAqua (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — on the basis that it would probably be useful for the X11 article as well. Speaking as a contemporary user of NCSA Mosaic 0.5 (the original public alpha release), the W3C extended color names are directly derived from the X11 colors, and were a de facto standard for web use long before being formalised, from the very earliest days of the web. I believe they are still very closely aligned with X11 (either identical or with only a minor supplement). CSS Color Module Level 3 formally calls them the "X11 colors", although curiously uses X11 color names on Wikipedia as a reference, rather than something from the X.Org Foundation as a formal standard should do. So, I believe the name is not in any way unreasonable or fundamentally wrong. To me, they remains the "X11 colors", no matter what other standards adopt them for their own use, when those new standards essentially use them verbatim (with only very minor additions, no major deviations from the X11 standard). As for the merits of this template, some consideration should probably be given to whether it should be used on both "X11 color names" and "web colors". Minor additions / variations for CSS use (SVG defers to CSS) can (and should) be noted via footnotes. The issue of it being a target of persistent vandalism (according to revision history) also needs to be considered. Murph9000 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of colors used by HTML / CSS / SVG is actually slightly different then the list used by X11, the 16 HTML colors replaced the similarly X11 colors for example hence why green is different between the two list. X11 color names also already has a full table of it's colors with a smaller chart showing the colors that are difference. I don't see why it would make sense to also have a complete list of the web colors which would be mostly the same. I am very aware of the origins of how the web colors ended up based on X11 colors, if the color wasn't in the HTML list of colors the code would just pass it through to X Windows and use that default. Which meant that the colors would work differently between Unix and Windows systems back in the the day. I actually did my first web page In late 92 before NCSA Mosaic. PaleAqua (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it's the only templated HTML/CSS color name chart I've found that is arranged into color groups. The others are all arranged alphabetically, which is useless if you're trying to find the RGB or Hex code for a particular shade of, for example, green. Call it whatever you want, and put it wherever we need to, but the chart needs to be retained. Is that what you mean by "merging" with Web colors? Sorry, I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to templates. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 02:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that's what I mean by merging it. I don't see why it needs to be a template if it's used only in one place and doesn't use any advanced template meta programing that take advantage of being a template. PaleAqua (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article. No point in having a template when it is not used as such. The guidelines are clear on this.–Totie (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article as single-use template —PC-XT+ 03:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the template creator, I think it is appropriate here to explain why this was created in the first place. During the three months prior to breaking this table out of web colors, that article had been vandalized multiple times. While a portion of the vandalism during that time period was to the prose, there was also some vandalism to the color table (see, e.g. this edit by one particlular persistent IP vandal). The problem this created was that nobody could really rely upon the color chart to faithfully reproduce the color names or RGB values. Not all of those who check new changes were consistently reviewing edits to the article, unless they were to the prose (or certain vandalism to color names). That vandalism was obvious, but only someone checking the source would know if a likely-sounding name change, or a change to the RGB value, was legitimate. In early December, I checked each color name and RGB value against official sources, and on December 5, I fixed yet more vandalism (by the same IP editor as mentioned above), along with some other minor fixes, and then separated the chart from the article. The intent was to allow, if needed, for the protection (or semi-protection) of the chart, while leaving the article open for editing by anyone. This was based on the idea used in some of the more visible templates where the template is protected or semi-protected but the documentation is not. It is important to note that the names and RGB values used in the chart do not change. Absent a change in web standards, the list of color names and RGB values will not change and will not need any editing (and any such web-standards change will likely be well-communicated ahead of time). Subsequent to the separation of the chart from the article, our persistent IP editor continued the campaign to change one of the color names, and after making three more edits, the template was protected for thirty days by an admin, Barek. (Note that blocking the IP would not have done the job as the user appeared to be hopping from one IP to another, within the 142.157.x.x range, which is too large to block, especially since a portion of that range -- including IP addresses being used for the vandalism -- belongs to a university). A secondary consideration was that the chart would likely have potential use in other articles, such as X11 color names, although it was not my plan to add the chart to other articles myself. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:13, 8 February 2016 (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).

Fremantle Football Club navboxes

[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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fail WP:NAVBOX #4 where "there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template", and articles are unlikely to be made due to failing notability. Also in accordance with the recent deletions of AFL club awards where a consensus at WP:AFL has been reached to delete these type of awards. Flickerd (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (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).

Article Feedback Tool templates

[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 relist to Feb 25. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool: "AFT5 was removed from all Wikimedia wikis on March 3, 2014." Therefore, no need for these templates to be left on pages. See Category:Wikipedia feedback pages for pages that use it and see wasted posts made there in the last 30 days. Anything related to AFT is wasting time of any newbie who thinks it is still used. There are probably more useless pages related to AFT if anyone wants to weed them out. Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (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:Miss Czech Republic winners in the Grand Slam pageants

[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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. This template, and four others to be bundled with this discussion, link a total of two articles. Suggest delete and propose later recreation when more can be done here. C679 13:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (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:Bassets

[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 relist to Feb 25. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2016 (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:Bradford City W.F.C.

[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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in the main article in a bunch of drafts for the seasons. Nothing but red links here. If there's a belief that the drafts are notable enough to mainspace then this could be useful. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (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:Sled dogs

[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 merge into {{Spitz}} and delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Sled dogs with Template:Spitz.
Template:Sled dogs is completely covered by the Sled dogs group of Template:Spitz. This template should be merged into the latter. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (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/2016_February_6&oldid=1138532977"