The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G11 by Bbb23 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't find a proper CSD criterion for spammy templates, hence the tagging for a regular TfD. Template just includes a blog link. Jip Orlando ( talk) 16:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes ( talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes ( talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Unused rail station template other than in one sandbox, which is an outdated version of
Template:MAX Light Rail RDT which was deleted. If a station link needs to be generated, it should use the data that comes from
Module:Adjacent stations/TriMet (via {{
stl|TriMet|station name}}
).
Gonnym (
talk) 15:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This template is a {{
topicon}} displayed on the main page (not talk page) of all formerly
Featured portals. It shows up as a hollow star (
) in the upper right corner and when hovered over it displays the text Before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal
.
The template has been nominated for deletion before during what is colloquially known as the "Portal wars". Why they are called that will probably become quite clear just by reading that nomination with a lot of feelings by both side of the discussion and this template was kept by a landslide. I do however believe much of the discussion on the merits of this proposal got lost among a lot of shouting, personal attacks and bad arguments from both sides.
The main issue with this template is that the associated process was marked historical per a RfC in 2017, with the last actual featured portal candidates being from 2016. While I think keeping the template the first few years after the process died made quite a lot of sense there have now been 7 years since the last assessment and a lot has changed since.
The main argument raised in the last discussion was that it was long since the last assessment and there is no way to remove the potentially misleading mark about its quality. Given that 20% of formerly featured portals have since been deleted at MfD at least that many featured portal marks are likely to have been not up to current expectations of portals. While I agree with this I don't believe that is the best argument for deletion.
Rather it's just that this symbol which was kept to keep help readers identify which portals were likely to be better than others even if it wasn't necessarily maintained anymore doesn't perform that task anymore. This can be illustrated by looking at some randomly selected featured portals and non-featured portals. Special:RandomInCategory gave me Sports, Fungi, Portal:Cuba, Geology, Portal:Lakes and Portal:Kentucky, half of which are featured and half not. Looking at these portals I have no idea which is which.
All of them has an introduction which all but Fungi uses {{ Transclude lead excerpt}} to create. Then we get either a selected or recognized (or both) article box using {{ Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} or {{ Transclude random excerpt}}. Sometimes this is repeated ones or twice more with another more specific list such as Selected athletes, Selected team, Selected species, Selected biographies and Vital articles. Then we go to the pictures where the same method is used to create one or two image boxes. Sometimes there's something a bit more creative such as the panorama at Lakes which looks quite nice if the image fits on screen and the gallery at Geology. We then get one or two DYK boxes. The rest of the portal is filled up with a category tree, a whole bunch of navboxes, links to related portals, links to a bunch of big portals, links to other Wikimedia projects, some WikiProject stuff like a list of related WikiProjects or a WikiProject todo list. This leaves a small handful of boxes that are not basically universal for some of the portals, like a selected quote for Sports and Cuba, an in this month box for Sports, a complete list of recognized content for Cuba, a list of the WikiProjects 10 most viewed articles for Geology, a link to the reference desk and some external links at Lakes and finally a list of the largest cities in Kentucky and a list of new Kentucky related articles.
Given this description do you think you can guess which ones are the featured ones? All portals have now become so homogenous that basically all of them have the same level of quality with the poor ones having been either deleted or improved to the point that they too are at the same quality as all other portals. Why then should we have special stars for some of them and not for others? -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 15:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused table template which on my screen is extremely too large to even fit. Gonnym ( talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 14:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This is... not really what templates are for? It's transcluded onto three articles, and kind of makes a mess of all of them: a shared see-also section (in the case of
Old revision of List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, a second see-also section) and a very long list of links which seem at a glance to be reliable sources but aren't used as sources for anything (because templates can't insert ref tags into the text above them) which form a shared source list across three articles.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 07:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
[...] but aren't used as sources for anythingisn't true; the articles appear to use a manual WP:SFN system, with the template providing the full refs. The use of a template here adds much more brittleness than it provides value. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
No real content inside the tag. Kiran_891 ( TALK) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G11 by Bbb23 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't find a proper CSD criterion for spammy templates, hence the tagging for a regular TfD. Template just includes a blog link. Jip Orlando ( talk) 16:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes ( talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
unused after being merged with the parent article with attribution and transcluding articles converted to use WP:LST. Frietjes ( talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 22:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Unused rail station template other than in one sandbox, which is an outdated version of
Template:MAX Light Rail RDT which was deleted. If a station link needs to be generated, it should use the data that comes from
Module:Adjacent stations/TriMet (via {{
stl|TriMet|station name}}
).
Gonnym (
talk) 15:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This template is a {{
topicon}} displayed on the main page (not talk page) of all formerly
Featured portals. It shows up as a hollow star (
) in the upper right corner and when hovered over it displays the text Before the featured portal process ceased in 2017, this had been designated as a featured portal
.
The template has been nominated for deletion before during what is colloquially known as the "Portal wars". Why they are called that will probably become quite clear just by reading that nomination with a lot of feelings by both side of the discussion and this template was kept by a landslide. I do however believe much of the discussion on the merits of this proposal got lost among a lot of shouting, personal attacks and bad arguments from both sides.
The main issue with this template is that the associated process was marked historical per a RfC in 2017, with the last actual featured portal candidates being from 2016. While I think keeping the template the first few years after the process died made quite a lot of sense there have now been 7 years since the last assessment and a lot has changed since.
The main argument raised in the last discussion was that it was long since the last assessment and there is no way to remove the potentially misleading mark about its quality. Given that 20% of formerly featured portals have since been deleted at MfD at least that many featured portal marks are likely to have been not up to current expectations of portals. While I agree with this I don't believe that is the best argument for deletion.
Rather it's just that this symbol which was kept to keep help readers identify which portals were likely to be better than others even if it wasn't necessarily maintained anymore doesn't perform that task anymore. This can be illustrated by looking at some randomly selected featured portals and non-featured portals. Special:RandomInCategory gave me Sports, Fungi, Portal:Cuba, Geology, Portal:Lakes and Portal:Kentucky, half of which are featured and half not. Looking at these portals I have no idea which is which.
All of them has an introduction which all but Fungi uses {{ Transclude lead excerpt}} to create. Then we get either a selected or recognized (or both) article box using {{ Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}} or {{ Transclude random excerpt}}. Sometimes this is repeated ones or twice more with another more specific list such as Selected athletes, Selected team, Selected species, Selected biographies and Vital articles. Then we go to the pictures where the same method is used to create one or two image boxes. Sometimes there's something a bit more creative such as the panorama at Lakes which looks quite nice if the image fits on screen and the gallery at Geology. We then get one or two DYK boxes. The rest of the portal is filled up with a category tree, a whole bunch of navboxes, links to related portals, links to a bunch of big portals, links to other Wikimedia projects, some WikiProject stuff like a list of related WikiProjects or a WikiProject todo list. This leaves a small handful of boxes that are not basically universal for some of the portals, like a selected quote for Sports and Cuba, an in this month box for Sports, a complete list of recognized content for Cuba, a list of the WikiProjects 10 most viewed articles for Geology, a link to the reference desk and some external links at Lakes and finally a list of the largest cities in Kentucky and a list of new Kentucky related articles.
Given this description do you think you can guess which ones are the featured ones? All portals have now become so homogenous that basically all of them have the same level of quality with the poor ones having been either deleted or improved to the point that they too are at the same quality as all other portals. Why then should we have special stars for some of them and not for others? -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 15:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused table template which on my screen is extremely too large to even fit. Gonnym ( talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 14:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This is... not really what templates are for? It's transcluded onto three articles, and kind of makes a mess of all of them: a shared see-also section (in the case of
Old revision of List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, a second see-also section) and a very long list of links which seem at a glance to be reliable sources but aren't used as sources for anything (because templates can't insert ref tags into the text above them) which form a shared source list across three articles.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 07:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
[...] but aren't used as sources for anythingisn't true; the articles appear to use a manual WP:SFN system, with the template providing the full refs. The use of a template here adds much more brittleness than it provides value. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
No real content inside the tag. Kiran_891 ( TALK) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)