Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 15



Template:Smaller

 * 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn.
 * Smaller

Redundant to, 77,835 uses.

sets the font to 90%; to 85%. Firefox and Opera show these as the same size; with IE and Chrome there are only a few pixels in difference. has the semantics of where  does not.


 * : HHHHH
 * : HHHHH  Gadget850talk 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - 77K is still a lot. And I do see a difference between 85% (12px) and 90% (13px) on Windows with Arial (Vector); it depends on what font is actually used.  13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn --  Gadget850talk 13:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Mayors of Boise

 * 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 keep. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mayors of Boise

Redundant to List of mayors of Boise; Such templates really should be replaced with succession templates. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 04:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Deletion Boise is a US state capital and a major regional city in the western United States. It deserves better. Besides, succ-templates are cumbersome at best.  Oh No! It's Faustus37!  it is what it is - speak at the tone 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * keep, seems no worse than any of the others. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which states in relevant part:


 * Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems.


 * Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia.


 * Bottom line: we accept and even expect a certain amount of redundancy in our categories, lists and navboxes, and that's okay. We may, however, make a common sense determination that one form or more forms of navigation aids are clearly better, and that another is inappropriate given the circumstances.  That said, it is well established that redundant categories, lists, and navboxes for the succession of officeholders is usually permissible.  I see no reason why this particular navbox presents any peculiar problems of its own.  (It could, however, be more user-friendly and better organized with the office tenures in parentheses following each name.)  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.