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]
  • Merge templates together as they serve the same purpose of listing players. I am neutral on what specific formatting should be used, as long as it is consistent across all articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal what about doing something similar to {{National football squad start (no caps)}}, without the DoB, and replacing the club column with the full country name with the flag ({{flag}})? I've tried something here. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Full country name isn't necessary since the focus is on the players, not what country they are arbitrarily affiliated with. TrailBlzr (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the nation name is not necessary, why include the flag? Purely as decoration? Not all reader can hover o determine the link. The nation shouldn't be linked to start with. Can't link the national football team either as not all players represented the nation at that level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in an accessibility-correct way per Walter Görlitz. While I appreciate aesthetics, that should be a secondary concern, always. --Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the less accessible template {{Football squad player}} by the more accessible one {{Football squad player2}}. Take the opportunity to improve the compliance with MOS:ACCESS and MOS:OVERLINK. There's no excuse for maintaining templates that knowingly breach our community-wide guidelines; we write articles not to please editors, but to be readable by everyone including the visually impaired. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Football squad player}} per N57. GiantSnowman 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace {{Football squad player}} by the more accessible {{Football squad player2}}. Apart from the MOSICON/country-name thing, there was also an issue with the two-column squad list, which to the sighted reader is obviously a single table but whose underlying html didn't "look" the same to screen-reading technology. Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per Walter, RexxS and Struway. The problem isn't this template; it's the footy project's seeming blind spot regarding accessibility. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace: per everyone above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge though I'm still split on what format to use. I agree that {{Football squad player}} is less accessible one, but on the other hand I find {{Football squad player2}} to be visually lacking, especially on larger screens. It leaves too much empty space on page. Just imagine using this template for teams that have 30+ registered first team players with another list of 15+ loaned out players just below that. Maybe if we enabled users to includ some additional info about players other than name, shirt #, position and nationality to fill in the page? DoB or number of caps and goals for current club for example? Nightfall87 (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or oppose - I find {{Football squad player2}} to be much worse in terms of listing long squads of 25+ players (which are the general case in football teams), apart from being visually lacking. If the proposal goes in favour using {{Football squad player2}} as the "default" option, then I am definitely opposing to it. Also, a football squad template discussion, if any necessary, should better be take place first on WP:FOOTY, not here. --Angelo (talk) 11:39, 4 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]
  • Merge into {{Football squad player}} --Add92 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep both, horses for courses. I mainly edit a lower league team, Doncaster Rovers where the players mainly come from the home nations, a flag is ample for identifying their nation allegiance, adding the nation's name too is simply clutter. At least in the lower leagues, it is more interesting and relevant to see a players age, or their specific position (not just FW, MF, DF, GK), nation is not that important, more of an extra decoration, and the flag covers that perfectly, even if hovering is problematic for some users. I realise this may be different for teams in higher leagues. I like {{Football squad player}} visually, it's clear and has none of the boxing. A sortable table isn't necessary either when there are usually 20 to 30 players listed - eyes can sort it easily. If there is a much bigger squad of 40 or more then sortable may be helpful. So, for me and my team, it's {{Football squad player}} all the way. Cjwilky (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or use only {{Football squad player}} First of all, this vote should be done from the beginning. Maybe it wasn't on purpose, but author made it seem like merge option means making all articles use {{Football squad player}}. Instead it would create this horror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nehme1499/sandbox/Template:Football_squad_player I find it hard to understand how could anyone propose anything other than removing abomination that is {{Football squad player2}}. Using half the table to spell name of the country is asinine to say the least. Average football club has 25-30 players, which makes using single column a total idiocy. P0g0.try (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only abomination is that you assume every reader of articles on the sport has the ability to understand all of the pretty pictures you insist on seeing next to player names. The flags are entirely unnecessary, but if the project insists on seeing the, ACCESS must be respected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • On one hand, your argument is that flags are entirely unnecessary and should be removed, but on the other hand you also argue that some people don't have the ability to understand flags so we MUST write name of the countries next to the flag making it seem like flags are really important. It's almost like for you this is a political /social justice issue and being pragmatic is alien to you. By the way, majority of people cannot differentiate (all of the) flags - lack of knowledge - but we have the option to move our cursor over the flag and see name of the country. It takes 1 second. But why be sensible and rational when we can worship the rules and dictate others how things should look. P0g0.try (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace {{Football squad player}} with {{Football squad player2}} per RexxS and Struway2. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per above, mainly per Walter Görlitz and Cjwilky's rational. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace The two column list when viewing on mobile is an awful visual experience, and the single column formnat benefits from been able to sort by name, nationality or squad number. Those benefits mean I prefer {{Football squad player2}} over {{Football squad player}}. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Football squad player}} (preferred) or keep both templates available. Flags are useful tools to identify nationality of players, as a simple guide, but to list out the names states of origin in full is unnecessary - flag icon navigates to the Wiki page of the state anyhow. Visual and single column factors also make me favour fsp(1).Otapka (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me guess: you're sighted, use a desktop browser and have never read MOS:ACCESS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Football squad player}}. I also agree with P0g0.try and Otapka. Nowhere77 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace {{Football squad player}} with {{Football squad player2}}. The latter is better for visually impaired users and meets MOS:ACCESS standards which the current template does not. This is a change that has been long overdue. I think the original football squad player has served its purpose. NapHit (talk) 21:46, 13 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]

  • Delete WP:TOOSOON for any of the teams, and therefore it is a non-navigational navbox, one of many made by a now indeffed user. Yosemiter (talk) 19:54, 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"