Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Labattblueboy (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 6 August 2024 (→August 6: Campaignbox North American theater of World War I). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 5
August 7 >

August 6

Template:Campaignbox North American theater of World War I

There was no North American theater during the first world war. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultipleMedalistMedalTable

Subst and delete – Used in only one article. Creator of this template no longer active. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move topicon

No transclusions except in one editor's sandbox. Proposed in 2020, apparently, but not used anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on the "proposed in 2020" bit, here's the history as best as I can reconstruct it. In April 2020 Sdkb noted that the RM banner is relatively disruptive from a UX perspective and proposed a change to the banner. Generally there are three main issues with the RM banner which still apply in 2024 which I'll give in order of increasing severity.
  1. Unlike banner issues such as NPOV or inadequate sourcing, page titling is an editorial concern irrelevant to most readers. It contributes to banner blindness, and it immediately distracts the reader from trying to find the information they came to the page for.
  2. It brings a lot of noise to move discussions on highly trafficked pages. Our page titling criteria (e.g. COMMONNAME) and consensus based decision making (i.e. NOTAVOTE) are not well understood by the general public. Having closed a lot of requested moves including the 2020 Kyiv rename, closing becomes harder when you have a high volume of "ILIKEIT" comments and exceptionally so when it is on an active, high-profile, or geopolitical topic. This slows down the RM process and leads to the banner being up even longer which amplifies the first problem.
  3. The current RM banner and process are an effective vector for political campaigns to influence public opinion without actually needing to move the page. As a case study, take the inciting incident for this template which concerned the title of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which had 4 RMs in 1 month. Biden supporters wanted to focus on the allegation by Tara Reade and pushed for leaving Biden's name out of the title and using the singular rather than the plural; Biden opponents wanted to highlight Biden and other less substantiated allegations by including his name and using the plural. Ultimately I think we got the call right, but the problem wasn't making the right call: for over a week while this RM was active we advertised in Wikipedia's voice, without citation, that a major candidate for public office may have engaged in multiple sexual assaults. I think that's a bad outcome, but it's remarkably easy to pull off: just start a "good-faith" move discussion and you get free advertising for your unverified POV on any page you like no matter how high traffic for 7 days (or longer if it attracts enough noise to make finding a closer difficult).
With all this as background, Netoholic suggested converting the RM notification from a page banner to what MediaWiki calls page status indicators and {{Move topicon}} was my attempt at implementing it. There was a technical problem with the template which caused it to stall out after a request to modify common.css, and given the pandemic at the time and other priorities I think it fell off everyones' radar. For the reasons above, I think it's still a viable initiative and worth keeping around in case someone wants to pick it up. — Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with Wugapodes that it should be kept given the ongoing need to reform the way RMs are advertised. If anyone would like to help out with the common.css issue, I'd love to pick up the initiative again. Sdkb talk 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Portals sandbox

Used in only one sandbox which itself hasn't been used in years. The general Template:Sandbox heading is enough if needed. Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Belgrade

Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Belgrade task force is a task force. Usages should be replaced with {{WikiProject Serbia|Belgrade=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newyorkerize

This template violates accessibility guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, as screen readers will vocalize the diaereses, rendering the words unintelligible. I can confirm this is the case, as I tested the template by installing a text-to-speech web browser extension. Amendment: I may have incorrectly filed this, as my nomination was not for deletion but for discussion, as this is a templates for discussion. The issue isn't the mere use of the diaereses but its non-standard application of them, which would be vocalized by text readers. Svampesky (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not invent the diæresis. It's been part of the English language for at least a century; if there is an accessibility issue with people using uncommon orthography, this is something which needs to be resolved either by the embedding of metadata (e.g. setting a non-printing tag with correct pronunciation) or the improvement of screen-reading software. In either case, I posit it would be better to better handle this case through a coöperative endeavour, rather than immediate deletion of any template which (within five hours of its creation) does not emit perfectly compliant accessibility-supporting output to all software ever written. jp×g🗯️ 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on the issue, just this text: or the improvement of screen-reading software. That isn't something that can happen in a Wiki discussion. If there is an issue with screen readers and something we do (even if it is correct), we should stop doing it until the issue on their end is resolved. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head -- we once had a user named ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ; we currently have a user named ජපස (his name is not even written like that irl, he just uses the letters). We have user signatures featuring stuff like "×", "🗯️", "☏", "¢", "😼", and the utterly cursed "𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇" -- we have people who use diacritics and diæresis on Latin characters in articles, talk page discussions and their own names. If it is in any way incumbent on us to avoid ever using characters outside of the standard ASCII set, this comes as extremely significant news to me. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's almost certainly better ways to go about this than immediately flagging something for deletion without so much as trying to consult the person that made the template first or even just creating a discussion about it on the talk page. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle. Nominating a potentially useful, and decently documented, template seven hours after its creation is too bitey (link for explanation of WP jargon; I know that JPxG is not a newcomer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_6&oldid=1239001236"