Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24
February 26 >

February 25

[edit]

Template:Pacific Rugby League Tests

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox – one article has been renamed and all other linked articles have been merged/redirected following wikiproject discussion. EdwardUK (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Upscaled images

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 13:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a similar or duplicate template of {{AI upscaled}} which is available on Commons. This is the English Wikipedia; whatever templates are on Commons doesn't mean they have to be here. Also, the OP has created this template based on one editor's approval, which can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup#AI-upscaling_image_cleanup_template. Additionally, as per MOS:IMAGES, see AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption. There's a clear mention of using the "caption"; we don't need a template to say that when editors can just follow this simple rule instead. Also, the English Wikipedia has a whole lot of templates, and this one is not it. It seems like the OP wants to make the English Wikipedia like Commons. Rejoy2003(talk) 17:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template. Its intended use is similar to something like {{cleanup image captions}}, for cases where an editor can see that an article is clearly going against the MOS (the key line you're quoting above being Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions.) but does not have the time or resources to fix the issue immediately.
It's very different to the Commons template, which is simply informing the viewer that a particular file has been upscaled by an AI. Belbury (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is English Wikipedia, and it concerns images that are displayed in English Wikipedia. It is appropriate to warn readers that an image might be a misrepresentation.
If the banner is too intrusive we could support an alternative template for image captions; a banner might be more appropriate to multiple examples. The use of two alternative templates options models Template:Primary sources and Template:Primary source inline. Using a template also allows such images to be easily searched, which facilitates clean-up.
The nominator has recently deleted the template from several articles, but has not added captions about the upscaled images. I interpret 'caption' as the text shown underneath a picture, not the text on the Commons page. Does Rejoy2003 favour including any such notifications in Wikipedia? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Commons template is a template to add information about the image on which it is placed; the English Wikipedia template is a cleanup template to mark the article for potentially unsuited uses of such images. They do not fulfill the same role.
Also, we don't need a template to say that when editors can just follow this simple rule instead assumes editors always follow the entire MoS at all times. They do not, and this is exactly why cleanup templates (such as this one) are a thing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Taylor Swift sidebar

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is needed as this is an exact replica of the navbox {{Taylor Swift}}, and per WP:SIDEBAR: "If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate. Note that the placement of sidebars in an article lead is discouraged by MOS:LEAD (though they may be permitted on a case-by-case basis)." I'm pretty sure the sidebar inclusion in the article Taylor Swift is not a special case that should be permitted and this sidebar is practically redundant. Ippantekina (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't favor any one type of navigation templates, but I am wondering why can't the Taylor Swift Wikiproject have its own sidebar? I did a quick dive into other sidebar templates to get a grasp of how these things works. Found some templates like Template:The Beatles history, Template:Barack Obama series, Template:Elon Musk series, and Template:Cristiano Ronaldo series. Swift is a celebrity who is as famous as these people if not more famous. A sidebar for Swift, who has over 100 Wikipedia articles under her belt, sounds like a good idea. And I observed something little interesting, that if Swift were to have a sidebar on Wikipedia, it would be the first one to be about a female subject. Whoa. ℛonherry☘ 11:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the creator of the template page. I also agree with this. The argument presented by the nominator argues that because the sidebar is an exact copy of the original navigational template on Taylor Swift, that it is redundant. Elon Musk and President Obama also have navboxes at the bottom of their articles with the same links that are in the sidebar templates I'm a little confused here about why it is any different than Musk or Obama's sidebar.
Best Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I myself try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I understand where you stand. As I said, the sidebar and the navbox {{Taylor Swift}} are identical in content, so having two is superfluous. Besides, the current content of the sidebar is too unfocused (listing every album, tour, controversy...? I don't see the point). A musical example given that is {{The Beatles history}} is very focused and concise for the lead, which is not the case with the current Taylor Swift sidebar. Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can reform Swift's sidebar instead of eschewing the whole idea of having one? I do not encourage OTHERSTUFF either, but we all know studying other articles/templates helps widen our understanding. I wish there were featured templates we could take cues from. Also, I don't think we have to take the example of TheBeatlesHistory like it's the bible because Swift is more comparable to Ronaldo, Musk and Obama in the sense that they're are co-existing and contemporaneous and the nature of their coverages within Wikipedia is similar source-wise. The Beatles are ancient. Though, I'd suggest we can take cues from all of these templates, including the Beatles, to have a template for Swift. The views the TS project articles, her biography for instance, have been receiving for the past few years also suggest that a sidebar near the top of the article instead of a navbox buried under the depth of the article would help the readers navigate between related articles easily. ℛonherry☘ 10:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If a sportsperson like Cristiano Ronaldo can get his own template, Swift does deserve it. Her articles is 8 times more than Ronaldo's. If this is deleted, it will just be one of the bias women are facing in the world and on Wikipedia. Yotrages (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. All the keep/oppose votes don't understand how templates work and are making unsubstantiated claims about bias toward women and that Swift deserves her own sidebar. Sidebars should not repeat verbatim what is already covered in a navbox for the same subject. That is repeating what is already being covered and helping to navigate across articles for the subject and is already doing the job. This template is just duplicating the navbox. And her popularity/notability doesn't matter in this case. She is notable, but not every notable person has or needs a navbox and/or sidebar. The individuals cited above have articles that while some are linked in both the navbox and sidebar, the sidebar does not have every and/or all the articles for say the Barack Obama sidebar nor should it. A sidebar should be a summary of links of related articles that generally explain what the overall topic is about. Normally if a subject has a navbox then it doesn't usually need a sidebar. Sidebars are not required. Neither are navboxes unless there are at least five or more links related to the subject.
The creator and some arguing to keep haven't been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand template policy and guidelines. "Maybe make it a sidebar/navbox template" doesn't make any sense. You can't have a template that's both. You either have a navbox or a sidebar. The navbox is doing the better job of navigating related articles for Swift.
"And I observed something little interesting, that if Swift were to have a sidebar on Wikipedia, it would be the first one to be about a female subject. Whoa." False.Template:Hillary Clinton series was created back in 2008.
"Swift does deserve it. Her articles is 8 times more than Ronaldo's. If this is deleted, it will just be one of the bias women are facing in the world and on Wikipedia." Deserve based on what? We don't operate on Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. And what evidence of bias is there? This is a case of WP:They don't like it. This sidebar is not worth keeping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm glad Hillary has one. Category:Women sidebar templates doesn't show Clinton. ℛonherry☘ 10:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, after reading everyone's arguments and per my comments above. WP:SIDEBAR does not claim a topic cannot have a sidebar if it already has a navbox. If a sidebar can indeed make navigation between articles easier for the readers than the existing navbox, especially for a popular topic, I do not see the issue in having one. This is not violating any of the stipulations in WP:SIDEBAR, which recommends a case-by-case approach to determine whether a sidebar would be helpful to the topic, and it is indeed helpful, I believe, in Swift's case. ℛonherry☘ 10:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said that there can't be both. If you read what anybody has said about the standard practice of sidebars and navboxes, it's only needed if there are enough articles about the subject at hand. And sidebars shouldn't repeat verbatim what's already in a navbox. This latter part has been stated multiple times. This part is not hard to get. If as a compromise, the sidebar should be trimmed down to remove all the links to each article on her albums, recordings, tours. Legacy and related articles sections need to be trimmed to articles directly about her. The article on her cat for instance is one of those that can stay. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against the idea of trimming the contents of the sidebar. I am only supporting having a sidebar. I think the contents of the sidebar, like you suggested, should be scrutinized. But I believe that's a discussion we'll have only if we decide to have a sidebar at all. ℛonherry☘ 17:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Colour classifications

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Color classifications. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, articles are using {{color classifications|colour}} instead to switch from color to colour. or, we could redirect if there is a problem with deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - using ENGVAR spelling for templates is more intuitive than parameters on the ENGVAR-incorrect spelled template. For ease of maintenance we should make the primary template parameterized, but mere use of the other spelling in the template should give that ENGVAR-spelled template. Animal lover |666| 10:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navboxes are not a place to have fits of nationalism. The pages we link to are what the articles are titled, not what we want them to be titled. When the article linked to is not the titled the same the link isn't colored correctly. Additionally, what exactly is the point when we create a fake title for a reader sending them to Colour chart and then the reader sees that the article is titled "color chart" and uses "color" throughout the entire article. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect to {{color classifications}}. Us Brits don't need a seperate colo(u)r classifications navbox that's still in American english. I think the template creator intended for redirect-like behavior anyway, as it just transcludes {{color classifications}}. Theooolone (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_25&oldid=1211787568"