Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 8 July 10 >

July 9

[edit]

Template:Drmspeedy series

[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 -FASTILY 01:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is the exact same as the uw-speedy series. 36.70.7.44 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (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:Kylie and Garibay

[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. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation is dealt with at {{Kylie Minogue}} and {{Kylie Minogue songs}} --woodensuperman 10:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This navbox has a very small number of links, and is unlikely to grow. In the articles about the "duo", their two EPs and their one single, it's already natural to link to Kylie Minogue, Fernando Garibay, and the EPs in the body, so the navbox is redundant. (I put "duo" in scare quotes, because treating Kylie and Garibay as a distinct musical act, rather than two musicians who collaborated on a couple EPs, is weird, and not consistent with RS.) Colin M (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (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).

Altamont Corridor Express s-line 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 Delete -FASTILY 01:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{S-line}} templates for the Altamont Corridor Express. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Altamont Corridor Express. All transclusions replaced. There are also two dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (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:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons

[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 split. Consensus seems to read that it is too large as-is and could benefit from splitting into separate templates. As my standard disclaimer, please make sure all attribution (via {{split article}}) is given for the new template(s). There is no prejudice against renomination of the new templates after the split has taken place if the nominator(s) feel that the new template(s) themselves are not appropriate. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply too big to be useful. Subjects such as this are not really good candidates for navigation boxes, as navigation between articles in this manner is unlikely. Best left for categories and lists. --woodensuperman 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I favor splitting this into at least two, and possibly more than two templates – I also am in favor of removing any Nicktoons (the network) shows (that should be a separate thing). But I've been in favor of splitting this template for at least a year. There have been multiple discussions about this, at least some of which have taken place on my Talk page (probably in my Talk archives now). But deletion is overkill. At the least, a "current and upcoming shows" Nickelodeon navbox would be useful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've said this many times before, but studios and networks should not have a navbox for everything they've produced or broadcast, as while some might a handful, others, like TV network ABC or film studios like MGM, will have an enormous list which doesn't even serve any purpose, as people reading about a 2019 TV series won't care about a series from the 1950s (or even from 2 years ago). In this example, this template fails WP:NAVBOX #3 and #5. Most, if not all readers, will not navigate between the 1970s Nickel Flicks and the current Corn & Peg, but neither will they navigate between two current shows - Corn & Peg and Power Rangers Beast Morphers as they have nothing in common, other than being on the same channel. List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon is already there and doing the job of listing all shows produced by that network. --Gonnym (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but split, per IJBall. Absolutely no reason to delete this. One template for current and upcoming, one template for former, and one template for Nicktoons. Amaury • 18:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have one for former programming - imagine if we did that for something like the BBC! --woodensuperman 09:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they meet WP:TVSHOW (i.e. have a bona fide scheduled premiere date) and have an article, they can be listed. I can't speak to whether that would be appropriate for a BBC navbox, but for navboxes for networks like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, the "upcoming" shows that would qualify for inclusion in the navbox at any particular moment will be half-a-dozen shows or less. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Misread this! – Yeah, I'm coming around on the "former programming" navboxes being inappropriate. In the case of Nickelodeon, you'd have to "split" again by decade, and I can't think of one reason why that isn't redundant with List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (and why it isn't better handled by the latter, to boot). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 12 July 2019 (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:Zhavia Ward

[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 2019 July 17. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2019 (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:2014–15 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 2 table

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:30, 10 July 2019 (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:Featured portal

[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. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To stop tagging the face of portals on the basis of a discontinued assessment process whose last assessment was completed 3 years ago. The template places an empty star on the top right of the portal page (see e.g. Portal:Volcanoes), but that long-outdated quality rating is misleading to readers.

The WP:Featured portals (FP) process was ended in 2017 by decision of an RFC at WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC_about_marking_the_Featured_portals_process_as_.22historical.22. That decision followed years of decline in activity at FP: when the RFC was launched, we had gone more than 12 months since the last featured portal nomination was closed and were approaching the 2-year anniversary of the last time that a featured portal review was closed (and one FP review had been open for 23 months without movement).

The newest assessments are therefore more than three years out of date;most will be a lot older than that. In that time the portal may have deteriorated through lack of updating, or been actively changed in ways which degraded it. The Wikipedia:Featured portal review/archive shows that of the 31 portals reviewed there, 19 lost their featured status. The closure of the review process means that there is no longer any way of removing the star from portals which have fallen below the standards.

Obviously, the historical fact of a portal having once had featured status should continue to be recorded. This is already achieved by the tagging of the portal's talk page with {{WikiProject Portals|class=FA}}, and by the use of {{Article history}}. See e.g. Portal talk:Volcanoes, where the history is displayed and the talk page is categorised in Category:Wikipedia featured portals.

The tagging with this template therefore adds no extra value other than to mislead readers. To preserve the historical record, I have used WP:AWB to make a list of all portals which transclude {{Featured portal}}: see WT:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Transclusions of Template:Featured portal. I also used AWB to compare that list with Category:Wikipedia featured portals, and they are a perfect match: the 162 pages in the list are the same as the 162 pages in the category.

Note that this nomination is a followup to a discussion at WT:WikiProject Portals#Template:featured_portal, launched by User:Guilherme Burn. I think that the issues raised by GB deserve a proper hearing in a community-wide forum, rather than hidden on the talk page of a WikiProject.

In particular, the evidence I have shown above is that the concerns expressed at WT:WikiProject Portals#Template:featured_portal about removing the historical record of Featured Portals are wholly unfounded. That record is preserved in at least three other ways, and the only unique function of this template is to mislead readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All this template does is put an unobstrusive star outline on the portal page, and "giving them a badge of recognition that isn't quite the same as a full featured articles star" was a specific outcome of the RfC. Of the several ways a portal's former featured status can be determined, this is the only one that appears on the portal page itself, thus saving the viewer from having to navigate to the portal's talk page, a project page, or a category. Can the nominator point to any specific viewer who has been misled by the presence of such a star? Otherwise the nominator's fears are a red herring. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, the information presented is demonstrably misleading, so there is no need to identify a victim.
The idea of a not-quite-a-star symbol was explicitly listed in the RFC close under possible follow-up actions from this RfC, not as a consensus of the RFC. The close did not attempt to weigh the balance of views between deleting the star and greying it, so TFD is free to make that decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. Nor is the symbol is "misleading" to the reader. Hovering over the star produces the explanatory text "Before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal", just as a Featured article produces explanatory text. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian, a small, unobtrtusive, and informative icon at the top right explaining part of the portal's history, exactly as it was designed to do, adding extra value for readers. It saves the new reader having the inconvenience of having to click through to a new page (talk) and trying to make sense of what is often a sea of info notices at the start.
The nominator states: "adds no extra value other than to mislead readers" and summarises in her conclusion that "the only unique function of this template is to mislead readers". The latter statement is, with respect, UTTER BOLLOCKS (invoking WP:SPADE). A careful examination of the template code will reveal that the icon is called by invoking {{Topicon}} and passing it the parameter | description = Before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal. . Thats hardly designed to "mislead readers", unless the nominator has such a low opinion of readers and assumes they can't understand plain English on a tooltip that pops up on mouseover.
The conclusion of the nomination is blatantly incorrect and I'm surprised that this nomination from a very experienced editor (well familiar with templates) would conclude such.
And when did the nominator have such concern that our readers would be "misled" and become confused? She's spent the last 4 months or more on an anti-Portal crusade screaming from the rooftops, that readership numbers are extremely low, categorising them variously as virtually non-existent or risible. Oh well it looks like a "risible" number of readers will be "misled", or in truth rather better informed. The template is in Portals for a purpose and was designed accordingly to be informative for readers without having to navigate away from the Portal. Therefore, absolutely no need to delete it, and I'm sorry to say this BHG, but this is more part of the WP:JDL agenda of the crusade to delete anything and everything "Portal", cherry picking arguments and moving goalposts around to suit. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine rant there, Cactus.man. Hope you feel better after it. You do seem to enjoy your rants; you had a really long and angry rant at me at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox because you analysed a portal other than the one nominated, and you didn't even withdraw your heated comments when they shown to be wholly unfounded. And in every other encounter I have had with you, Cactus.man has been angrily ranting. He was wrong about deleting the automated spam portals (there was overwhelming consensus of a high turnout to zap them), and he is wrong too in comments about low readership of portals: every time I cite the figures, I link to the source and I link to similar figures.
Anyway, Cactus's perma-rage and his habitual disdain for facts is what underpins his anger at the deletion of portals when they have been abandoned for a decade and fail WP:POG. I am not on an anti-Portal crusade; I am one of a number of editors cleaning up portalspace by MFDing portals which are abandoned and barely-used. The only anti-Portal crusade is that led by cactus and his shouty pals who have done nothing to assess the sea of portals, let alone clean it up, and who insist that it should continue to be polluted with abandoned carp. If Catcus wanted to discredit the whole of portalspace, he'd be doing brilliantly; but I doubt that is his aim. It's hilarious that Cactus.man links to WP:JDL, because as he well knows, all my MFD noms are based on policy and guidelines. The JDL is the fact that Cactus doesn't like the removal of timewasting carp.
And in this case, the same perma-rage blinds him to the simple problem with the template: it displays the star without qualification or explanation. The tooltip note is displayed only if the reader does a mouseover, which most readers won't do.
Take for example:
  • Portal:Poland. It was last assessed for FP ten years ago, in August 2009. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:The Simpsons. It was last assessed for FP twelve years ago, in December 2007. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Star Trek. It was last assessed for FP Five years ago, in Feb 2014. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Dogs. It was last assessed for FP thirteen years ago, in November 2006. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:West Bengal. It was last assessed for FP twelve years ago, in March 2007. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Renewable energy. It was last assessed for FP eight years ago, in October 2011. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:North West England. It was last assessed for FP twelve years ago, in December 2007. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Volcanoes. It was last assessed for FP nine years ago, in September 2010. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Anglicanism. It was last assessed for FP eleven years ago, in May 2008. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Finger Lakes. It was last assessed for FP ten years ago, in July 2009. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Speculative fiction. It was last assessed for FP nine years ago, in September 2010. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
  • Portal:Freedom of speech. It was last assessed for FP five years ago, in February 2014. It's highly misleading to still give it a star.
I made that list simply by using whatlinkshere, randomly selecting portals, and reporting on single every one I checked. Those assessments are all between five and thirteen years old. Most of them are around ten years old.
Why on earth are we signposting readers on the basis of assessments more than half as old as Wikipedia itself? Now that FP is closed, those assessments are not even revocable, no matter how much the portal has deteriorated.
Catus wrote at WT:WikiProject Portals#Template:featured_portal there's no need to remove information that's relevant to the Portal history. In Cactus's own terminology, that is UTTER BOLLOX, because the information is already recorded several other ways, and deleting this template will remove precisely zero information.
The issue here is whether to prominently display to readers that a portal passed some assessment made up to thirteen years ago, when GWB was still POTUS and Lady Gaga hadn't made her first album and Qadaffi still ruled ruled Libya and Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach and Pet Seeger was still gigging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion (third collapsing) Retro (talk | contribs) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is unproductive discussion mostly unrelated to the template being discussed. As an uninvolved third party, I implore both participants to keep their discussion focused on the merit or lack of merit of keeping the present template, and not allow our discussion here to devolve into personal jabs of past incidents. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • JHC BrownHairedGirl:
  • You've got some nerve accusing me of "ranting" and being in a "perma-rage". A casual observer would conclude where exactly the perma-rage lies. I've just been reading through Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Portal_Guidelines where you accuse one editor, Alanscottwalker, repeatedly of having a serous comprehension problem and tell some other editors that when it comes to portals, the proportion of outraged reality-deniers like Alan and Moxy is depressinghy [sic] high. Not your finest hour, but it's good to know that I'm not alone in the "Outraged Reality Deniers" Club! Perhaps some self reflection is in order, because it seems to me that you have great difficulty accepting the fact that not everybody agrees with your opinion and feel compelled to issue lengthy, indignant rebuttals to every contrary view expressed.
  • It also seems to me that the issue of perma-rage lies firmly in your court. You seem to believe the fact that your view of matters is the only valid one and anybody who dares to disagree deserves a tongue lashing. Well just to complete the record, I'll share with you the final closing sentence of my post which read "I've created some blank space BrownHairedGirl for you to write your inevitable, indignant rebuttal, in the finest traditions of WP:BADGER; Over to you, or will you manage to resist for a change?" I decided to take that out because I felt you would find it too inflammatory. I now regret that decision. You've gone off regardless, much like a jar of Nitro Glycerine atop an unbalanced washing machine would do.
  • And please lets not be economical with the truth regarding WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. I did not have a "rant" at you, I thought I had discovered a serious error in your nomination and was intent on setting it out clearly and rationally. That you took it to be an attack on yourself by way of a "rant" is your problem: part of your difficulty accepting that there are other alternative (and valid) views on the matter. It transpired that my analysis of your nomination was incorrect, because it was erroneously based on examining the wrong portal, a fact which I readily acknowledged as my mistake and issued you a full, unreserved apology. And don't bother claiming that you had to point it out to me and ask for an apology. I had discovered the error myself and was busy composing an explanation and apology whilst you typed your indignant rant of your own. I also explained to you why I was unprepared to strike my whole commentary because there were some important points that I felt should remain. I did however strike the erroneous portions and issue 2 subsequent clarifying addenda, so please don't misrepresent what happened. What more did you expect? There's a few pounds of flesh still left on my carcass if you'd like one.
  • I don't dispute the readership numbers, which you religiously produce evidence for, I just attach a different level of importance to them which, unfortunately for me, happens to be contrary to your view. I agree with everything Alanscottwalker wrote in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Portal_Guidelines: that they're not significant, and even if a small number of readers find some benefit from the portals, well that's a plus. So, for me, low readership numbers are of no significance. I also don't disagree with the removal of most of the automated portals. I've stated my view that the deletions are warranted on more than one occasion.That you choose to ignore that and misrepresent my views is entirely regrettable. Also, I don't insist that [PortalSpace] should continue to be polluted with abandoned carp and [I] don't like the removal of timewasting carp. More misrepresentation and totally mendacious statements; please get your facts right. I don't particularly like "carp" actually. I much prefer Red Snapper.
  • That's probably enough "ranting", so I'll close with an observation: I agree with a suggestion I've seen somewhere of a possible solution to amend the existing or develop another template which would contain the the historical information relating to the date the FP was awarded. I repeat my view that there's no need to remove it from the main Portalpage, it's an unobtrusive, small icon (an outline of a star) with an informative tooltip popup (which would incorporate the new information). I think that's a reasonable compromise to pursue.-- "Mr Long Speech" (as I think you like to call me) Cactus.man ✍ 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great comedy, Cactus, for anyone who enjoys counterfactual anger.
    So let's look at what you call the truth regarding WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.
    You wrote: Why the rush? The sky is not falling. I think a more measured approach to eliminate these kinds of any errors would pay dividends for everybody in the long run, and reduce the heat surrounding this issue.
    This is exactly the same kind of sloppiness that The Transhumanist has been accused of by not checking the results of his "Portal creation spree". The same argument could be levelled at yourself and other Portal MfD nominators, whether it be inappropriate bundling of unrelated Portals, or other matters. or Portals that fail the stated criteria for inclusion on a speedy deletion list. It's as much of a "deletion spree" as TTH's "creation spree". Both could be categorized as constituting frenzied activity, consequently running the risk of being error prone.
    So you accused me of sloppiness, when the sloppiness was all yours.
    You built an entire paragraph of accusations and denunciations on an error which was due entirely to you not even correctly reading the name of the one page you were analysing. And you never even struck the rant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really worth a response, but what the hell, other than to say the sloppiness comment was primarily aimed at Legacypac who had a terrible habit of bundling often unrelated portals into one nomination. Even you called him out on it as I recall. OK, mentioning you in the relevant sentence and not (him?), plus analysing the wrong, similarly named, portal was ENTIRELY my mistake and it was SLOPPY. The comment was poorly worded, again, my mistake. Yes, mea culpa, I WAS SLOPPY, it was ME all along, but it was an honest mistake.
    Have you never made an honest mistake? No, I thought not. And I've explained to you MORE THAN ONCE, the reason for not striking the entirety of my comment / analysis. However, I DID strike the relevant portions and published two explanatory addenda to clarify matters for subsequent readers / editors. How much more do you want? Christ, just send me your address (don't forget to tell me which universe you live in) and I'll post that pound of flesh myself, just to be rid of you and be done with this annoying indignation, wilful distortion of facts and failure to listen to or accept explanations. Oh, before I forget, I've created some blank space for you to write your inevitable, indignant rebuttal, in the finest traditions of WP:BADGER; over to you, or will you manage to resist for a change? I'm done here. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with my moving of comments to another page being disputed, but these comments are clearly unrelated to the template being discussed. Please do not continue this discussion. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @BrownHairedGirl: For the same reason that I have collapsed the above section, I must also strongly request that you strike your first two paragraphs in your original reply to Cactus.man as being unproductive for furthering this discussion. We should not have to stoop to ad hominem and references to unrelated discussions to dispute other's arguments; doing so is disruptive to the goal of achieving a workable consensus by leading to acrimony and pointless arguments. Even if they started it, that doesn't mean you have to continue it.

    If you think this request is unreasonable, I would be happy to discuss this further on my or your talk page (i.e. not here). Retro (talk | contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retro, I am utterly sick of the lies and intemperate rants and ad hominem attacks repeatedly spewed out by portalsistas. (One of them even claimed a day or so ago that posting a reasoned rationale is "oppressive"). So when someone like Cactus throws it at me again, I will respond.
If you ask me to strike my post, but make no such request to the perma-rage editor to whom i was responding who who described my reasoned rationale as UTTER BOLLOX, then something is badly awry in your reasioning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Retro for a valiant, but doomed attempt to pour calm waters on a heated exchange. Sadly BrownHairedGirl is unable to contain herself and continues to personally attack me as a "perma -rage editor" and misconstrue the meaning of what I write. Very unfortunate. Well in the same vein as BHG, I'm left with no alternative but to respond. I DID NOT call your reasoned rational UTTER BOLLOX BHG. I called your concluding statement that ""the only unique function of this template is to mislead readers"" UTTER BOLLOCKS and then went on to explain why. I make no apology for calling it as such, there are times when calling a spade a spade is necessary. Just needed to clear up your incorrect statement. How about you cease the name calling (perma-rage editor, portalista etc) and we personally agree a voluntary IBAN? I've had enough of your compulsive need to respond to everything that's not going well for you with these indignant outbursts, littered with incorrect claims, half truths and distortions, all the while continuing to pour petrol on the fires. Sorry everybody, maybe Retro will hat this exchange too, I would welcome that--Cactus.man ✍ 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Fascinating stuff above. Catus chose to respond to my nomination with a sweary shouty unprovoked personal attack, had doubled down with repeated sweary shouty personal attacks ... and pretends to be completely astonished that I describe him as him perma-rage. Hey ho. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the time when a portal went through a particular process is relevant. Emperor Norton became a featured article 12 years ago, before all but one of the portals listed above; does its featured article status expire at some point? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au contrarire, @UnitedStatesian, time is very relevant because the more time has passed the higher the probability that the portal has fallen below the FP standard. Portals need maintenance and updating, especially the old forest-of-content-forked-subpage style of portal (which nearly all these are). If that maintenance and updating has not happened then it shouldn't still display a star.
If editors have concerns that the FA Emperor Norton has fallen below FA standards, we have the WP:Featured article review process to reassess it. However, there is no equivalent process for portals, because the whole FP process is historical. So what we now have is effectively an irrevocable star. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is no more misleading than {{Old AfD multi}} and the archived page it links to could be. Since the process has ceased, I can't see that keeping these links around would be problematic, per WP:NOTPAPER.--Auric talk 18:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – on mouseover, it clearly states, "before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal." This is not misleading whatsoever; rather, it is exacting. Also, a concern is that at MfD, where many portals have been nominated for deletion, the fact that a portal was formerly featured has been used as a rationale for some portals to be retained. Removal of the formerly featured star would hide this fact, potentially making it more difficult for users to assess all aspects of portals when they are nominated for deletion, hiding the fact that the portal has undergone a peer review. It would actually be misleading to remove the template, for both readers and others assessing portals for various other reasons. North America1000 18:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • NAIK, Portal:Dogs was last assessed for FP thirteen years ago, in November 2006. Please explain why you consider that an irrevocable thirteen-year-old assessment should be displayed prominently to readers?
    And how on earth can anyone be misled by not displaying that notice? Anyone who wants to assess a portal based on its former FP ranking needs to know when the assessment was made, and the template does not display that info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I am totally in favor of the exclusion, but it was consensus for keep in the Wikiproject talk page, this TfD was not in good time.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guilherme Burn: I'm not commenting on whether this should be kept or deleted yet, but I don't think this TfD is best served by citing consensus in a different venue. A discussion on WikiProject Portals does not seem like it would attract the broadest participation to evaluate the usefulness of this (it's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Retro (talk | contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the portal hasn't changed significantly there is no reason why it shouldn't retain its status as a featured portal. If it has we should follow the normal process to declassify it. Bermicourt (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bermicourt: I don't want to pile on, but it seems you didn't read the nomination in its entirety and your comment here is basically entirely invalidated by its reliance on a nonexistent process. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've given this a good, long think, and... haven't really been able to draft a cohesive comment of my whole opinion. I think this issue would benefit from an explanation of what meaning this icon conveys to the reader. Right now, I'm leaning keep, not because any of the previous keep !votes have a made a compelling argument, but because I'm having a hard time convincing myself that this icon is negative for the reader.

    BrownHairedGirl, I invite you to reply examining what you feel is misleading. But please don't make it a rehash of the fact that this is a deprecated with articles that have been nominated more than a decade ago, because I already understand that from reading your previous comments. Instead, I would like to know what you imagine a reader thinking when they see the icon or hover their mouse over the icon and read the associated title text. I have my own thoughts, which I will probably elaborate on later, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Retro: I expect that they will see it a some sort of mark of approval or quality, as some sort of indication that this is a better class of portal.
    I envisage that very few will hover their mouse over it, so very few will see the tooltip text. They have no reason to think that it is a clickable link, so why wiggle your mouse to what's probably a non-link?
    This isn't just my imagination. There is reams of usability reasearch of how readers use webpages, and the consistent theme is that readers speed-read and make very rapid decisions. They don't just wiggle their mouse over the entire page on the offchnace that something will pop up.
    So they will just get the indication of approval, without the hidden small print that the star relates to an assessment made a deacde ago on a page which anyone can edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retro, I find BrownHairedGirl's argument very unconvincing. The FP transparent star behaves no differently than the Featured Article bronze star. Assuming that the average reader actually knows without a mouseover that the bronze star indicates Featured Article status, neither the link from the star nor the mouseover text indicate when the article was promoted and there are still many FAs which have not been reviewed since 2008 and earlier—unlike some portals which were promoted as late as 2016 . If the argument is that the FP star so seriously "misleads the reader" by not indicating the date of promotion that it must be deleted, then the FA symbol should be deleted as well. Needless to say, I am not advocating either course of action. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voceditenore: But an analogy to the FA star does not quite fit because there is an actual process for removing it, while there is no current process for removing the featured portal star. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not read the discussion yet, but the nominator should have notified participants in the ongoing discussion of which they were aware. They should also have notified all portals/wikiprojects affected, preferably in a way that is clearly visible on the portal page itself rather than just the talk page (which is often rarely used). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For goodness sake, Espresso. This is one template, not a preparation for WWIII.
I did leave a note in the discussion in which it had been raised, with a link in the edit summary.[1]
The template is tagged for the portals project, so it will show in article alerts.
Not only am I under no obligation to splatter every portal talkpage with a notice about it, or to spend a whole day trying to identify which WikiProject relates to which portal and splat-messaging them too. and I would regard any such mass notification as sanctionable spam.
Anyway, if that's what you want, what efforts have been made by those portalistas who want to keep this template to notify WikiProjects that you are determined to continue to display a now-irrevocable star on the face of a portal within their scope which was last assessed up to thirteen years ago? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm probably one of the few non-retired editors remaining who took the quality of the featured portal process very seriously. Sven Manguard & I were conducting a quality sweep with a view to starting a demotions drive before his retirement. I personally re-reviewed around a third of the featured portals in November 2013. I admit that's not yesterday but it's not ten years ago, either. Though we found many flaws and a few clunkers, almost all remained very substantially better than the average portal at that date, let alone some of the ones at the lower end of the quality spectrum that I have observed being brought to MfD recently. If we want to give readers an indication of quality, past peer review as part of the featured process is all we have. Not making this available to readers seems inconsistent with the nominator's aims. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Others such as Portal:Ireland are in poor shape, with a large collection of ageing content forks (see the discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ireland). Others have been to MFD with a no consensus outcome, e.g. Halo.
So the idea that FP status is some sort of durable mark of quality doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's now nearly 6 years since the review process which EA describes happening for only 1/3 of the featured portals. How long do you intend to continue to display the star beside a set where the review process has been abolished? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, the star should remain on all FPs. The fact that some former FPs have been deleted is immaterial to whether the template should be kept. For those that remain, it provides the reader/visitor with useful, quick information about the portal's history, which they may or may not choose to follow up. The "average reader" rarely goes to the talk page to find out about issues like this, but if they do so, inspired by seeing the "mysterious" transparent star, so much the better. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Makes perfect sense. North America1000 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Makes perfect sense to me too, agree with everything Voceditenore says. -Cactus.man ✍ 15:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow.
What you seem to be saying, @Voceditenore, is to keep an outdated star indefinitely, regardless of how well it reflects the current state of the portal.
Just to clarify: Portal:Dogs was last assessed 13 years ago, in 2006. Are you saying that it's still appropriate to display the star on the basis of that 13 year-old assessment? And that it will still be appropriate to display the star in another 13 years, which will be 26 years after the last assessment? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the reasons I stated above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boggle. That's absolutely extraordinary. You really do want an indefinite, irrevocable badge of quality to persist unless and until the portal is actually deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a badge of formerly judged quality, as its associated text makes clear. You are vastly over-stating its significance, which is understandable since you are arguing for deletion against a fair amount of opposition. However, my answer is still yes, no matter how many times you ask it or how boggled your mind is by my opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. It is a badge of quality whose nature as formerly judged quality is not displayed on the face of the page, and is discernable only by the counter-intuitive task of mouseover.
If it actually said "former featured portal last assessed in 2006 by a process which was discontinued in 2017", I would have no objection at all.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: To clarify, I assume you mean the tooltip? Retro (talk | contribs) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the text that is displayed only when you wiggle your mouse pointer over the star. --16:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Voceditenore. A minor visual indicator that clearly links to a page that shows this process is historical. No problem with letting this stay on until someobdy invents a new process for quality control of portals. —Kusma (t·c) 12:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prospects of an alternative process are vanishingly slim, because the portals project doesn't even use the tools it already has. There are currently exactly 900 portals, but the standard assessment process through the project banner {{WikiProject Portals}} has been used on only about a quarter of them: Category:Unassessed Portal pages contains 715 pages, of which 683 are neither sub-pages nor redirects. So despite the deletion in the last 4 months of over four thousand automated spam portals and 600 abandoned portals, over 75% of the remaining portals are unassessed. That's why in the last week alone I have brought to MFD over a dozen abandoned portals. I thought that cleanup of junk would have finished ages ago, but as each layer of debris removed, yet more is revealed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pretty much everyone else here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Responding to BrownHairedGirl above: if you read my comment carefully, I wrote that I personally reviewed a third of featured portals. At the same time Sven Manguard reviewed somewhat more than me, and Bencherlite was also reviewing portals independently at that stage. Since the featured process was then moribund, when Sven retired the review did not continue. I have repeatedly raised the question of a resurrected or new featured process for portals but there has been little positive response. If the process were to be resurrected, I would be happy to participate in reviewing the existing formerly featured portals.
More generally, I'm entirely happy that the hover text should state the date at which the portal was featured, and had thought of querying whether that was technically possible myself. I don't know whether the entire text can be put at the top right of the portal without detracting from the appearance (featured portals were required to be attractive) but I'm comfortable with it appearing somewhere on the index page, and it is in any case available on the talk page. I think BrownHairedGirl is wrong about whether readers are savvy enough to look for clickable icons/hover text; in this increasingly text-lite internet, I think readers do so habitually to navigate. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Espresso Addict's analysis. Any user who's used a computer and is even slightly familiar with the internet doesn't randomly "wiggle" their mouse around. If they see something interesting, they'll probably investigate by moving the mouse to it. "Oh there's a strange little icon, I wonder what that is or does?" - click, they get taken to the page Wikipedia:Featured portals, and they're presented with a fuller history of the FP process, rather than just a one line tooltip -OR- no click, the tooltip pops up with the date the Portal was featured and a summary of the FP history. It's how the equivalent FA icon works, so why not here? The days of early usability testing of GUI's at Xerox PARC, and tales of users shown a mouse for the first time, who were utterly bamboozled by it and often ran it up and down the table legs, are now long in the past. As Espresso says, today's users are a bit more sophisticated and know what to do with a mouse connected to a computer. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As BrownHairedGirl has pointed out, logged-out readers receive a preview of blue links, so they probably use mouseover more than logged-in editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on Espresso Addict's comment. Wikipedia uses mouseover extensively in articles. Hover over the inline citation number and the full citation appears in box next to the text or highlights the reference if it already fits on the screen. It saves interupting the flow of reading. Ditto for footnotes. Ditto c.. Ditto {{IPAc-en}}, Ditto {{OldStyleDate}} etc. etc. I simply don't understand this insistence that readers/users (logged in or not) have no idea about using mouseover and that this is somehow an alien concept on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict, Cactus.man, and Voceditenore: Nice piece of portalista groupthink there, which misses the crucial fact that Wikipedia doesn't use icons for navigation. As I noted two days ago, Since Wikipedia navigation is overwhelmingly done through text links, readers are unlikely to see any purpose in wiggling their mouse pointer over the star.
Now would you all mind explaining what exactly is your objection to simply making the template display "Former featured portal (YYYY)"? With or without a star, as you please, and with a longer text on mouseover if you like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of top-of-the-page clickable icons for navigation to further information + a brief tooltip explanation is standard practice with top of the page icons on Wikipedia articles: the FA star, the Good Article symbol, the various symbols for levels of page protection, etc. I object to plastering the explanatory text on the portal page itself rather than having it as a tooltip message + clicakble link from the icon because (a) it is contrary to the way any other top-of-the-page icons work on WP and (b) it is unsightly and distracting, which is probably why none of the other icons plaster explanatory text and a blue-link on the actual page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, Voceditenore. You are using as a comparator only the tiny set of links which use icons.
But even if you use that limited comparator, the fact remains that none of the other star links is advertising a ranking which is derived from a discontinued process, and which is now irrevocable regardless of how much the portal has deteriorated.
Other featured stars are revocable. For example, WP:Former featured articles lists 1,162 articles that have lost featured status, with three pages added to the list last month alone. Demoted pages such as Age of Empires II no longer display any star.
But this FP star is unique in its irrevocability. It is like a seat in the British House of Lords. No matter how and when someone got the seat, they retain it for life so long as they are not actually imprisoned for a crime or detained in a loony bin. They may now have dementia and be talking utter nonsense, but they retain the right to speak and vote on laws.
That's not the same thing as a star derived from an ongoing process of assessment, and it shouldn't be treated as if it was the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating this argument. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I will not change my view no matter how many times you repeat what I consider a weak and basically invalid argument. The tooltip text makes the status and history of FP clear. No one is being deceived. You are completely over-stating this notion of needing to rescue the allegedly ignorant and gullible reader from "false advertising" because you want this template deleted and this is the only argument that you have left in the face of an overwhelming consensus to keep. If readers find a portal attractive and potentially interesting, they will use it. If they don't, they won't. The icon at the top, which contains information about the former status of FPs, makes no difference to that but provides useful information to any reader who happens to care. Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore, I will continue to stress the problem of false advertising, because it remains true no matter how many portal fans find it convenient to deny that fact.
Readers are indeed being deceived, because the star is displayed without crucial information about its status. Hiding that info behind a tooltip is still hiding it: readers need a tool to see it.
So your claim that The tooltip text makes the status and history of FP clear is like hiding the info in very very small text so that it is legible only with the aid of a tool, namely a magnifying glass or a zoomable display, and then claiming that it is written there in plain English so what's your problem..
If you sincerely believe that claim that If readers find a portal attractive and potentially interesting, they will use it. If they don't, they won't ... then why display the star if it's not for readers?
You say The icon at the top, which contains information about the former status of FPs, makes no difference to that but provides useful information to any reader who happens to care. So, if the info is not for readers, it belongs on the talk page. If it is displayed to readers, then it need to meet MOS:NOSYMBOLS: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed the spurious accessibility argument below where you have made it two more times. Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep: Nobody but the nominator supports deletion, and the idea that the star misleads readers has not been proved. Cambalachero (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for historical reasons. And restart the project, sounds exactly like what portals need right now. And standards change on Wikipedia over time, as they should. Jesse Owens' track records are horribly outdated by now, but that does not mean we should subsequently remove his awards and acclaim. These portals won by the standards of their time. Hecato (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hecato, your use of a misplaced comparator indicates that you misunderstand the proposal being discussed here. You are also wrong about a point of fact in relation to Wikipedia's "Featured" pages assessments.
Jesse Owens' track records are indeed a matter of historical record. We record that fact, but we don't claim that Jesse Owens still holds those records.
Similarly, it is a matter of historical record that these portals were once assessed as FP standard (mostly about ten years ago). That fact is recorded on their talk page and elsewhere, and there is no proposal to remove that historical info.
This discussion is about whether we continue to display that historical information prominently on the face of the page, even tho it is a) years out-of-date, and b) irrevocable.
The standards for Featured Articles have changed over time, and over 1,000 former featured articles which no longer meet that standard have had the star removed. See e.g. Age of Empires II: delisted per Wikipedia:Featured article review/Age of Empires II/archive1, and the star removed in this edit[2]. The historical record is on the talk page, but the star is no longer on the face of the article.
But the use of this template for a defunct and irrevocable FP status means that even if one of these former "featured" portals has now had its contents filled with pointless obscenities, there is still no way of removing that star. So because it was once a featured portal rather than a feature article, it has a star-for-eternity ... unless it is deleted. And at least two of the so-called "featured portals" have been deleted as abandoned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that a portal filled with pointless obscenities would have been approved as featured to begin with. And if it was vandalized later, then revert it! Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion
[edit]

Mainly for BHG as the nominator, but also the main voice for deletion. I mentioned it above but it probably disappeared in a heat haze (I saw it somewhere else but can't remember where, or who suggested it).

It should be relatively straightforward ??? to amend the relevant template to add in a parameter (say FP_Date=, with default text of: "This portal was assessed and granted Featured Portal status on". FP_date gets appended to the default text.) Then in the portal you just have to enter the relevant date in the FP_Date parameter. That way, the concern about not having any info on the date of featuring is resolved in the hover tooltip as well as explaining that the Featured Portal process is now deprecated. I think it's a good compromise. We'd need a competent template editor, those things just scare the bejeezus out of me, or I'd have boldly done it by now to check it out. Thoughts anyone? --Cactus.man ✍ 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's easily done, and it would be a minor improvement, but it doesn't resolve the problem fundamental that text will be displayed only if the reader does a mouseover the star. Otherwise the star is displayed without qualification.
Since Wikipedia navigation is overwhelmingly done through text links, readers are unlikely to see any purpose in wiggling their mouse pointer over the star. And a piece of user-interface design, that mode of revealing crucial text is utterly terrible.
As above, if the text was displayed on the face of the page, I'd withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactus.man and BrownHairedGirl: I'm working on a quick script to place the year on all the pages, and have already drafted the parameterized phrasing for the year. I also agree the phrasing when one hovers their mouse over the icon is inideal. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Look forward to seeing what you come up with --Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... And now my watchlist was blown up. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, MJL. Hopefully it will have been worthwhile... Retro (talk | contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, Cactus.man, and Espresso Addict: I've drafted two potential renovated formats for the template in the sandbox. I think option "B" looks alright. Feel free to try out your own design in the sandbox.

By the way BHG, you made a slight mistake in your nomination, but I think it's worth pointing out because it confused me while I was investigating which portals were featured. In your nomination, you said:

I also used AWB to compare that list with Category:Wikipedia featured portals, and they are a perfect match: the 162 pages in the list are the same as the 162 pages in the category.

However, this was entirely mistaken, because before I modified any pages Category:Wikipedia featured portals contained 156 portals, which is not the same number of pages that previously transcluded {{Featured portal}} (162, as you noted).

I suspect you may have accidentally actually compared the transclusions of {{Featured portal}} to Category:Featured portals. Unfortunately, such a comparison is meaningless, because Category:Featured portals is populated by {{Featured portal}}; every page that transcludes the template will automatically be in this category. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Retro, I am not sure what happened there, and now that changes have been made, it's hard to check. Anyway, thank for re-running the checks.
As to you drafts, A makes little difference because the display is still just the star. B adds the year, which is is a bit better, but still doesn't explicitly state that this is a discontinued process, so that even degraded portals can no longer be delisted.
If you changed it to say "Former featured portal * (2008)", that would do it for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I don't want to belabor that the mistake was made, since it already happened, and as you mention, it's a bit hard to check directly now.
But your comment makes me curious: do you have a way to compare articles and talk pages using AWB? A point of clarification may be necessary here:
I can't imagine how AWB could be used to compare pages in the Portal namespace that transclude a template to pages that are in a category in the Portal talk: namespace. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Retro, looks good. If I had to choose one, I'd opt for Option A, but could live perfectly happily with either Option. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactus.man: please can explain why you prefer not state in plain text that assessment was made in 2008? Why do you want to obscure that crucial fact by hiding it behind a tooltip? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either A or B looks fine, except that there's a typo: "The now-discontinued featured portal process designed [shd be designated] this portal as a featured portal in 2008. Because the process ceased operation in 2017, this portal may no longer meet the featured portal criteria."
I'd suggest additionally that the hover text could be trimmed along the lines of "This portal was designated a featured portal in [date]. As the featured portal process ceased in 2017, it may no longer meet the featured portal criteria." Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Typo fixed now Retro (talk | contribs) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl I don't want to hide it. As you'll note from the previous discussions, I feel that a tooltip is perfectly adequate to impart information to readers. Option A is also a bit more of a minimalist aesthetic which I usually prefer. But, as I say, I'm easy either way. If the display of the dates on the page is important to you, I'm not going to stand in the way. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Look, I'll drop the word "hide", since that may be a barrier.
My concern is simply: why require the editor to do a mouseover, when the info can be displayed upfront?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the newly-added "C" might be what you're looking for?
It's a bit too wide for my liking; I wonder if there's a way to compress the width of the text. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Courtesy ping: BrownHairedGirl) Retro (talk | contribs) 18:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Retro. "C" looks good to me. If that is implemented, I will withdraw the nomination. The only way I can see to reduced the character count is to remove the second year. I'd be OK with that, because the crucial info is when the assessment was made. The text is already tiny (possibly pushing the limits of WP:FONTSIZE, tho I haven't checked), so I'd be wary of compressing the characters any further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit on the wide side for me too. A quick thought: 2 line option? "Former featured portal" on the top, "(2007-2017)" on line 2. Don't know if tweaking the vertical linespacing to the minimum would be possible, but would help the visual impact. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to compressing the width of the text, I was thinking along the lines of Cactus.man's suggestion, but it does not look to be technically feasible within <indicator>...</indicator> (or if it is, it's very tricky).
Now that you've brought it up, though, my current rendering was previously smaller than font-size:85%. That's because I copied the font-size:x-small from Template:Template for discussion/dated, so that apparently has falled out of line with MOS:SMALLTEXT and needs to be adjusted. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It places too much information there, that is only of interest to maintainers, not readers. The date would be available at the talk page anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cambalachero, if the whole thing is only of interest to maintainers, not readers, then best to delete the template. This former featured status is already recorded on the talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I said. I said that about adding a date disclaimer in the main page, not about "the whole thing". Cambalachero (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, @Cambalachero. Are you seriously saying that it really is of no interest to readers that the quality mark being flagged to them actually date from an assessment ten years ago? Seriously?
          That's like a second-hand car dealer slapping a "Car of the Year" banner on the windscreen of a model which was actually "Car of the Year" in 2008.
This is encyclopedia, whose readers have a right to expect some integrity. We shouldn't be using dodgy car salesman tactics on our readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference: a car degrades over time. Featured stuff does not. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would choose option A at the sandbox. As I said above, the use of clickable icons for navigation to further information + a brief tooltip explanation is standard practice with top-of-the page-icons on Wikipedia articles and in other spaces as well: the FA star, the Good Article symbol, the various symbols for levels of page protection, etc. Anything else is contrary to the way any other top-of-the-page icon works on WP. Adding blue linked text next to the icon is unsightly and distracting, which is probably why none of the other icons do that, including those on FAs and GAs which haven't been reviewed in over 10 years. Voceditenore (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, Voceditenore and North America are knowingly making a false comparison. They are comparing the defunct FP star with the stars awarded by live "Featured" processes.
Voc says Anything else is contrary to the way any other top-of-the-page icon works on WP.
That's a bogus comparison, because there is no other case where a top-of-the-page icon is displayed for a quality assessment which cannot be revoked.
The fact that some FAs and GAs which haven't been reviewed in over 10 years carefully misses two crucial points:
  1. if an editor thinks any of the no longer meets the standard, they can initiate a review which may lead to the removal of the star. OTOH, that is no longer possible for an FP
  2. the criteria for FAs and GAs can be updated if they no longer reflect consensus. OTOH, there is no way to update the criteria for the discontinued FP process.
The FP star has become a permanent, irrevocable star which persists even if the portal is agreed to be abysmal, and even if the FP standards no longer have consensus support.
That is completely different to a live assessment process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not making a "knowingly false" comparison. My point was that the relevant information is in the tooltip and that no other top-of-of-the page icon also generates visible text on the page where they sit, not simply the FA and GA icons. Your original argument was that clickable icons with only tooltip text are non-standard on all of Wikipedia for any purpose. I have shown that not to be true. Their use is extensive and standard. You feel the need to make an exception to this standard practice with the multiply repeated assertion that it is deceiving the reader. I do not agree for the reasons I have stated. Incidentally, I find the accusations of editors being "knowingly false" when you simply disagree with what they say, the use of the sarcastic soubriquet "portalista" to discount any views contrary to your own, and the characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you as indulging in "group think" not only unpleasant but also very counterproductive. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore, your whole argument of the relevant information is in the tooltip is a clear breach of MOS:NOSYMBOLS.
You feel the need to omit visible information because you and some others have a personal preference for minimalism, but your aesthetic preferences do not override that accessibility policy.
You have indeed made the point that there are two other uses of icons, which I had overlooked: FA/GA, and page protection. I stand corrected on that.
However, the bit that I described as "knowingly false" is your repeated insistence that there is no difference between the lack of annotation on the FP star and the lack of annotation on the other stars. As you are well aware, nobody in this discussion has identified any other instance of a star being displayed in relation to a discontinued assessment process, in which the status is irrevocable.
So the stars are an exception to accessibility policy; but, as you know, this star is an exception to the exceptons.
If you can identify another instance of a star being displayed in relation to a discontinued assessment process, in which the status is irrevocable, then I will retract my claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The accessibility argument has nothing to do with this. MOS:NOSYMBOLS refers specifically to the use of tooltip to explain a symbol in the article text, not to top-of-the-page icons. Additionally, the logical outcome of the assertion that this particular template is contrary to accessibility standards means that all current top-of-the page icons are in violation of that standard and need to be changed as well. If your argument is that the tooltip information needs to be fuller on the FP icons than on the FA icons, that's a different story. However, it already is considerably fuller and could be made even more so with no difficulty. Your opinion that the lack of a current FP review process makes these icons in violation of the accessibility policy is, in my view, nonsensical. Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great comedy, @Voceditenore, replete with a fine collection of misrepresentations:
  1. MOS:NOSYMBOLS does not contain an exemption for top-of-the-page icons. You may wish to propose one, but it's not here
  2. You know perfectly well that my argument is not and has not been that more info should be added to the tooltip. My argument is and always has been taht the tooltop is insufficient to convey the fact that this is a former star awarded by a discontinued process
  3. You know perfectly well that I do not claim that opinion that the lack of a current FP review process makes these icons in violation of the accessibility policy. Please don't create straw men: it is disruptive.
My point is quite simple. Whatever the legitimacy of the other stars, they relate to a live process which aims to keep the rating system accurate. So the star is reasonably reliable stamp of approval.
The FP star denotes a piece of history, not a live assessment. History is unamendable, and this historical star misleads readers by emulating the style and positioning of live assessment processes, while hiding the fact of that crucial distinction.
Why are portalistas so keen to hide this info behind a tooltip? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, MOS:NOSYMBOLS refers specifically to the use of symbols in article text and makes an exception for {{abbr}}. If, as you claim, it does not exclude top-of-the page icons, then they are all in violation of the accessibility policy. You can't have it both ways. Also please do not ping me again, especially for comments like this one which are simply sarcastic bludgeoning. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. The only significant argument in defence of the current version of this template is the repeated claim by portal fans that the status of the former "featured portals" process is made clear by the use of text which appears on mouseover, a so-called "tooltip".
However, WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility clearly forbids this. MOS:NOSYMBOLS says: Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text.
WP:NOTAVOTE, and portal fans don't get to dump accessibility policy simply because it's inconvenient, and because they have a personal aesthetic preference for minimalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a proposal that has to be discussed like any other one, not a straightforward uncontroversial procedure. In case you didn't notice, all featured contents in Wikipedia (articles, topics, lists, pictures, formerly featured sounds, and even portals when the process was active) are marked with the golden star . Former featured portals are marked with the outline of the star . That gives a big visual clue that the process has been deprecated. Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about Wikipedia:Featured sounds Cambalachero. That was discontinued two years before Wikipedia:Featured portals, and there is likewise no review process for whether the file is still "considered to be one of the best sounds in Wikipedia". I also agree with your first point, this is a deletion nomination, not a "Revamp the Template RfC". I assume the closing admin will close it on the basis of whether or not there is a consensus to delete the template, not whether or not it should be revamped in a particular way, if at all. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2019 (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).

CTrain s-line 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 Delete -FASTILY 01:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{S-line}} templates for the CTrain LRT service operated by Calgary Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/CTrain. All transclusions replaced. There are also four dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. BLAIXX 10:38, 9 July 2019 (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:ICC Cricket World Cup winners

[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 2019 July 17. kingboyk (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2019 (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/2019_July_9&oldid=911569474"