Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21

Template:Jason's Bracketology

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jason's Bracketology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused and is not useful to Wikipedia. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete after subst'ing to User:Jasonwells1982. —Air plane man— 19:27, 27 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ASM Oran

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASM Oran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, redundant to simple wiki markup. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is unused and can be replaced with wikitext. It looks like the file that was to be transcluded with the template is deleted anyway. —Air plane man— 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image wasn't deleted, it was just turned into an inline link because non-free images should not be used in templates. Without the image it's just a link to the ASM Oran article, so it can be safely deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 01:04, 28 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RAF lists

Template:RAF lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One of a number of similar RAF templates which are cluttering the Royal Air Force article. This template is visually similar to the RAF template and with the exception of List of RAF Regiment squadrons link, all the links point or redirect to articles in the Royal Air Force template. (The RAF Regiment might usefully have its own template). Greenshed (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think merging them would solve the problem. Airplaneman ✈ 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Seems logical to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N&

Template:N& (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired. Doesn't render a readable character Gnevin (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn in light of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alt text Gnevin (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to only discusses how to alter images to comply with the policy. However, the template doesn't use images, it uses Unicode characters. Can't screen readers handle Unicode automatically? How can I fix it? SharkD Talk 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an HTML TITLE attribute to the template. It should comply with the policy now. SharkD Talk 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what the problem is, it's not used in articlespace, and a simple alt-text solves the accessibility issue. I also don't see why this is named in such a way as to be highly unclear as to what it is. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also prefer it if issues like these were taken up with the screenreader software producers, instead of with Wikipedia. We can't go adding title spans around all the unicode characters we use in Wikipedia. It's ridiculous and honestly, I'm even somewhat offended. Many people are trying to make the website as accessible as possible to as many people as possible (for users who want to copy text for instance), and unfortunately some folks aren't keeping up. The screenreader software producers sitting on their asses making a lot of money off of disabled people by doing a half-ass job, should not EVER be a reason to nominate a template for deletion. The title attribute is an acceptable solution for me to make this more accessible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unicode is a sufficiently structured/encapsulateed data type that it can be easily handled by screen readers. The ambiguity regarding what the content is exactly does not exist for Unicode like it does for images. SharkD Talk 09:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well unfortunately the screen readers can't make sense of these type of characters and the only thing we have control is our own project content and as such we should make it accessible to as many people as possible Gnevin (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a problem here (and it appears that there is), but this is certainly not a solution. I concur with everything that TheDJ said above, and think that this TFD is unnecessary.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've plenty other templates that work for all and don't exclude people. This template has at least 6 peers which render something for screen readers. If this was an issue excluding people using IE or Firebox because we used HTML code that isn't supported in IE or Firefox we would move to a cross platform code not blame the developers products. While it maybe the developers issue that they aren't compliant. It's us using the code which is excluding people when we've plenty of other options Gnevin (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have redited the alt text to say "Red X" which is what the template is of. This template is used a lot on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. ~ R.T.G 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work Gnevin (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was using the title attribute rather than alt. I've added the alt text. Does it work now? Reach Out to the Truth 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✗Yes but note the line break that the deletion notice is causing ~ R.T.G 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't work . Gnevin (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just see a red box? If so, i'm having the same problem. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's working for me. I see a red X and when I hover over it it says Red X. Note that at Template:Y there are other ticks and xs to test which all have alt text. ~ R.T.G 09:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was about screen readers not hover over but it moot now anyway Gnevin (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No not really. I cannot test that myself but if it's not working it really should be fixed. That is one of the major purposes of the alt text after all. Try WP:HELP maybe? ~ R.T.G 09:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above WP:ALT is totally in flux at the moment so there is no point in continuing this discussion Gnevin (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Y&

Template:Y& (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired. Doesn't render a readable character Gnevin (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn in light of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alt text Gnevin (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. SharkD Talk 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what the problem is, it's not used in articlespace, and a simple alt-text solves the accessibility issue. I also don't see why this is named in such a way as to be highly unclear as to what it is. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FANGS still shows unreadable, it's not an image so alt-text can't be used and shouldn't our visual impaired editors be able to understand talk pages? Gnevin (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment considering the way that talk page discussions go, I find it very hard to see how you would get editors to rewrite their draft suggestions in ways to make them accessible if they themselves do not use screenreader software, unless you want to start a wikiproject for solely going through talk pages and redacting people's comments to make them accessible. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is about making the check marks accessible, peoples comments in general will have to wait Gnevin (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, I do not see any ALT text being used on the images on the FANGS site. SharkD Talk 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not Ironic, they hide the purely decoration images like they should Gnevin (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have redited the alt text to say "Green tick" which is more descriptive of what the template is. It is used a lot on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. ~ R.T.G 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to consider that those templates are transcluded on to some other templates which in turn link to hundreds of articles. ~ R.T.G 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to do anything, here. These templates are generally fine, as is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plovdiv

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was 'withdraw - Now filled, concern no longer valid. I have to say, it is highly unusual for a template to be created over a year before it is filled. But I'll give you that. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plovdiv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty navbox since November 2008. No content to fill it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think that maybe it would be best to ask the creator why it hasn't been filled first? It is an ongoing process to cover the Bulgarian municipalities in detail....

Speedy Keep The template contains content and is useful. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:23, 21 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Altwelcome

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altwelcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused user welcome template, user retired the day they finished this template. Furthermore, there are more than enough alternatives in Category:Welcome templates, this template adds nothing special to them. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since welcome templates are subst templates, how would you know it was unused? 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and never substed. I had the AWB database scanner fired up, so I searched for ==<font color="red">Welcome!</font>== — the only result was this template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused. —Airplane man ✈— 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has in fact been used. See the search results. Not a lot, but not completely unused either. Reach Out to the Truth 01:23, 28 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Livingships

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Based on the concern about original research, I plan to remove, not substitute, the two transclusions. Editors could introduce similar content as regular text if there are appropriate sources to address that concern. RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Livingships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A very old template being used on two articles. Per a discussion at WpShips it is felt that this template is out of line with its intended purpose and also introduces original research into the article. Brad (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see that this template is serving a useful purpose, save typing a few words in an article. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for misuse of template space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. —Airplane man ✈— 20:23, 27 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Oldmfd

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. A one-word nomination is not going to lead to the deletion of a template that is widely used and specifically cited in the deletion process guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldmfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old R12056 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still used. Is there an improved template you are suggesting we replace this one with? If not, then the nomination really isn't justified. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep standard name for XfD templates. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But it is still important. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "old"? What kind of justification is that?? -- œ ^™ 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I don't get the basis for this request, and, as stated above, that kind of justification is "old"? Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What is this nonsense? This is one of the most heavily used templates on the project. – iridescent 19:37, 23 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bambi

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bambi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, would also only navigate two articles anyway. The Evil IP address (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Navbox contains only two links which can be easily found on each of the two respective articles already. There’s really no need for a template that doesn’t serve a true purpose. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above; not needed. —Air plane man— 20:09, 27 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.