Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1

[edit]

Template:Football squad player2

[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. There is a consensus to merge the templates to use a consistent design, however there is no consensus what the consistent design should be. To achieve a consensus on these questions I started a follow up multi-section RfC on the matter on the talk page. Please comment there to help gain a consensus (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Football squad player2 with Template:Football squad player.
Football squad player2 is redundant to a better-designed and more used template (Football squad player). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for two templates with the same function, best to merge into one (example). Nehme1499 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I just wanted to clarify my position, as I might have not explained myself correctly. I would ideally prefer {{Football squad player2}} to merge into {{Football squad player}} (the former is deleted, the latter remains). However, as a few users pointed out, {{Football squad player}} has a few issues (MOS:ICON and MOS:ACCESS) which {{Football squad player2}} does solve. Therefore, my proposed example above (see my sandbox) is, ideally, what I think {{Football squad player2}} should look like IF we decided that we should keep it (and delete {{Football squad player}}). But, my position remains that we should keep {{Football squad player}}, and merge {{Football squad player2}} into it. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Pointless having two templates that do the same thing and just leads to inconsistency. Number 57 22:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note, given the change in the initial proposal and subsequent comments, I do not support any merger that results in a new format differing from the existing Football squad player template (this is what I understood the proposal was initially). If a merger is approved, the new format will also need to be approved at somewhere like WT:FOOTY before being rolled out, rather than a random design like those suggested here unilaterally implemented. Number 57 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not redundant. Football squad player2 was designed to avoid issues around MOS:ICON and MOS:ACCESS by listing the nation not simply presenting the flag. It is used on most North American league articles. It is transcluded into {{Fs player2 sort}}, and possibly others. If anything, it should also correctly implement WP:OVERLINK (which both suffer from) and {{Football squad player}} should be deleted as that is displayed in two columns which look awful. And I will maintain those articles that currently use {{Football squad player2}} so that they do not use the two-column one that is prosposed to "replace" it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't all other teams using it? {{Football squad player2}} has been created 10 years ago, and the vast majority of club articles, including FAs and GAs, don't use it. Also, in my opinion what looks awful is having a single column, and having to scroll up and down to view players instead of having them all in one single viewable space. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Why does WP:FOOTY ignore ACCESS? FAs and GAs do not look for accessibility or other concerns. Do not attempt to conflate them perfect articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short, are you making the claim that Football squad player does meet accessibility guidelines or simply stating that because it's used all over the place, it's fine? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you don't oppose the merge per-se, rather the way I'm proposing the merge. Obviously, having two templates that do the same thing is redundant. What we need to agree on is whether to keep Football squad player or Football squad player2. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it violates specific manual of style conventions, and that we should fix those problems. What I don't agree with, however, is the fact that we have created a separate template 10 years ago which has barely been used, when we could have applied all of this onto one template. I, personally, don't like the aesthetic of Football squad player2, even though I realize that it does resolve those MoS issues. In my opinion, we should directly "fix" Football squad player, rather than having a separate one used for specific countries. Maybe by simply replacing {{flagicon}} with {{flag}} in {{Football squad player}}? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All squad/player lists should clearly be handled by one template, both these templates have the same general purpose. The particular formatting is another discussion of how they should be merged. I have no opinion on the what the final output of a merged template should be, as long as the relevant Wikipedia policies are followed. This seems to have been discussed extensively in the past, including here (which includes an RFC), here and another RFC here (which was closed due to another ongoing RFC here, which apparently was never properly closed before being archived?). S.A. Julio (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or rationale is there that all lists should be handled by one template? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly redundant templates should be avoided, just as is done with any other page. Per WP:TFD#REASONS #2, a reason to delete (or in this case merge) a template is if it is "is redundant to a better-designed template", which would be the case in this discussion involving MOS compliance. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since part of reason 2 is "better-designed template", then Football squad player is the one that should be deleted as it fails ACCESS by a stadia, and neither meets OVELRINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Angelo.romano: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#{{Football_squad_player2}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehme1499 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite far from being a proper discussion about the possible evolution of the templates. WP:FOOTY should ideally be the place where to start a discussion regarding a common template which can keep the advantages of both current ones, that is what I am talking about. --Angelo (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2020 (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).

Victorian Football League club abbreviation 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no longer used after conversion to Module:sports results. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2020 (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:Freedom Football League

[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't navigate anything ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:27, 1 February 2020 (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:The Reactionaries

[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 2020 February 9. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (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:1952 Summer Olympics football convenience template navbox

[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. The nine game templates which this template links to can be handled in a different TfD. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the links are red. The two blue links are all linked on the main article Football at the 1952 Summer Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few working links. Hog Farm (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC) (Retracting !vote, obvious improvements have been made in the last day) Hog Farm (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You want to try nominating the 2016 one, or just plan to keep harassing me by nominating templates I am actively working on? There are gonna be more blue links each day on this. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sportsfan 1234 has now made me aware that in some places a section-transclusion format is being used that would replace these types of templates and make the entire series obsolete. I have started a discussion on the use of templates vs. sections. If folks support the sections (which I am currently in favor of), the whole series of these navboxes will be unnecessary and I will recommend deletion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now converted the 1952 Olympic football tournament to use section transclusion rather than templates. My recommendation is now to delete this navbox and the nine game templates to which it links; each of those nine game templates is now unused. The goal ultimately will be to obsolete this series of template. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (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:Elwë family tree

[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in the articlespace. Hog Farm (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2020 (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:Fingolfin family tree

[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. Consensus determined together with near identical situation at #Template:Finarfin family tree (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in the article space. Hog Farm (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2020 (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:Haleth family tree

[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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any article, and of no obvious use. Hog Farm (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2020 (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:Finarfin family tree

[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. If there is a desire to use this template in the future or reuse content to create a merged family tree WP:REFUND apply. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be used anywhere and has no obvious use. Hog Farm (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are a ton of family trees throughout the Middle-earth articles on Wikipedia. I have two questions:
  1. Should we even have family trees at all? Some relationships between characters are important, but including so many minor descendants could be seen as indiscriminant.
  2. If we do retain some family trees, should each character have their own family tree, or should we re-use a small number of family tree templates?
Obviously, if we answer question 1 in the negative, we should delete this and most of the other family tree templates. But if we answer both questions in the affirmative, we should focus on merging/consolidating family tree templates. Though the Finarfin family tree is used nowhere at present, Finrod, Finwe, and Galadriel all have intertwined family trees that include pieces of this one. Perhaps we should merge all four trees to Template:Finwë family tree and use it in all three articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional trees should be removed categorically TBH. Some real person's heritage might generally be interesting , but fictional ones are not appropriate for Wikipedia. (And I still wouldn't put some real person's heritage on Wikipedia using a family tree. That's a thing for Ancestry.com.) --Izno (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote elsewhere: "My take is that where the tree illuminates, we should keep it, and where it clouds, we should delete it. Bilbo's relationships say a lot about him - both quiet Baggins and adventurous Took, both middle-class and with a link to the airs-and-graces Sackville-Bagginses, it's very helpful, and the scholars cited in that section of the article think so too". The implied requirement is, of course, that we support the use of trees with discussion cited to scholarly sources - generally, not difficult. I should say that it is not possible to determine from a poorly-written and poorly-cited article (alas! they are more numerous than orcs...) whether a tree in use there could have been so cited. Discussion, as with all notability cases, needs to centre on the sources available, were anyone to use them.
On this tree, if it's not in use then delete is sensible. On the general question(s) may we use trees in fiction, yes of course, if they help readers understand and navigate complex material in anything from Jane Austen novels to War and Peace then people should go right ahead; and may we use trees in Tolkien's legendarium, yes, when they help then of course, keep them. When collapsed they take up almost no space, and the number of bytes used is trivial, so if the benefit is "lots of confused readers helped" and the cost is "quite trivial, and unobtrusive" then the balance is overwhelmingly Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2020 (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/2020_February_1&oldid=940965954"