Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8



Template:Language politics

 * 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 after replacing with politics. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Single-use template that doesn't look like it should be substed. Wants to be a sidebar but isn't. (Would be a very broad sidebar.) Izno (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Language politics
 * Delete per nom. Single use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should this be converted to a navbox or something instead? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * politics already exists. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace single use with politics if relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as Gonnym proposes. --Bsherr (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (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).

Template:Archive box collapsible

 * 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 to Template:Archives. Izno (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Archive box collapsible

Archives is our by far most customizable archive box template and can almost perfectly replicate the Archive box collapsible with just a few padding differences as can be seen to the right with Archives being on top and Archive box collapsible below. Merging Archive box collapsible with Archives would give users of Archive box collapsible access to tons of new features such as customizable title, an optional searchbar which would be very useful for many of these pages since they usually have a ton of archives and an integrated auto archiving notice along with many others as seen at the docs. --Trialpears (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. We should make archiving a simple one step, not requiring investigative journalism to decide which of the many archive templates, is the correct one. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and Gonnym. These templates are so similar it is better and simpler just to merge them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:CONSOLIDATE. I like the padding for the bottom box a little better, but I think the top box's non-linking over the title is preferable (because of MOS:EGG – people may assume the link goes to a list of the archives for the page, rather than general archives help). Archives as the more developed template should be the destination point for the merge. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:40, 13 July 2020 (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).

Template:Archiveme

 * 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 July 21. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Archiveme
 * 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:Disasters in Bangladesh in 2019

 * 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. I believe it's fine deleting Disasters in Bangladesh with WP:REFUNDs in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. If it was tagged it would have uncontroversially been deleted by this discussion and an unused navbox with no links would never survive TfD. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Template coming out of the blue, with no other templates in this supposed series. Template is pointing on just four events, one of them without an article. WP:NENAN. And please take a look at the mother template too: Template:Disasters in Bangladesh The Banner  talk 19:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disasters in Bangladesh in 2019
 * Delete the one and delete the parent too. But as the parent was not tagged, you will probably need to submit a separate TFD for that. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2020 (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).

Template:Rn

 * 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 keep. Further discussion, if desired, should probably go to WT:MOSNUM. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC) FWIW, this template is only used in 44 articles, even though it was created in 2011. To my eyes, it makes Roman numerals look badly formatted. Most article text is in a sans serif font, so to have them in a serif font is a bit jarring, even more so because the font size is increased and so looks slightly too big to fit on the line of prose - for example, instead of XXII. MOS:MARKUP says to "keep markup simple", so I always write Roman numerals with regular English letters, no template, and that's what's done on most articles. That's also how they are written for MOS:ORDINAL. Roman is used in over 2000 articles to convert from the Hindu-Arabic to the Roman number system, but it does not apply font type or size changes. -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rn
 * Actually every example on MOS:ORDINAL is in a serif font, due to use of the red/green templates, which *do* set serif on purpose. So this is not unheard of!Spitzak (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the suggestion here is that the template is redundant I disagree - Roman numerals in sans-serif "look" very anomalous, (seriffed fonts are called "Roman" for a good reason) and the (very slight) size difference is of course quite deliberate, and intended to make them stand out (or "jar" if you prefer) making, on the whole, for improved legibility. Whether the template needs to be uniformly applied throughout the whole encyclopedia is another question entirely - perhaps strict consistency is not really necessary between articles like Roman numerals and other articles where the template would only be applicable once or twice, and would hardly be missed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If readers can't read the characters in the XXII in this sentence, then I would expect they are going to have serious trouble reading the other words in the sentence, and they just need to increase the font size in their browser. I don't think legibility is a good argument for increase the font size, and standing out is not desirable. Changing the font type, I could see some possibility of an argument for, even though I would lean toward "meh" on that point. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep until consensus at Talk:Roman numerals says the article should not use rn or that the template output should be altered. If the concern is that a local consensus might override normal procedure, hold an RfC and discuss it at a MOS page. Roman appears to be used only once or twice per article and it is obvious from context that roman numerals are intended. For example, Pope Stephen II uses the template only in the hat note "In sources prior to the 1960s...". By contrast, Roman numerals has many examples of I and II and other numbers where a sans-serif font is confusing. I edited the article to show how it would appear without the template, see permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The altered version of the article looks much better than the current version, other than some template parameters that ended up becoming visible. Interestingly, three of the images in that article show Roman numerals in serif fonts. In two, they are actually side-by-side with Arabic numerals. Instead of making the Roman numerals seriffed, they actually show a serif on the "1" and none on the "XI" etc. which is exactly how Wikipedia's sans-serif default article text font behaves. One image does it the other way around. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Beland: I take it you are saying my permalink (using plain text I and X etc.) looks much better than when using styled text such as and . That may be so in a designer's sense of wanting to achieve an attractive grey blancmange with lovely images. However, for anyone actually reading the article, plain-text numerals are hard to parse. Perhaps the styling used is a bit too aggressive, but it could be made less so if desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep MOS:ORDINAL does seem to go out of its way to avoid using a sans-serif typeface its examples. I also find myself agreeing with the additional comments by Soundofmusicals, and so must vote keep. Louis Waweru Talk  03:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like that's because it uses xt to make the example green. The font that xt uses is a serif one, perhaps for contrast with running text, but that serif is applied to all examples, whether or not they have Roman numerals. And it is also applied to the "Elizabeth" in Elizabeth II, which is not what rn does. -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and in due course convert Roman to format them properly. Roman numerals are not text, any more that Arabic numerals are.  Most fonts distinguish 0/O and 1/I for a very good reason.  Likewise we need to distinguish /I, /V, /X &c. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example where such a distinction is important for clarity? Given "I" means the same thing as "1", and the other characters can't be confused with any other glyphs, I'm assuming it would have to be some circumstance where the Roman numeral "I" is confused with the pronoun "I", and I can't think of a situation where that would happen? -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to keep this style, then Rn should be merged into Roman. Wikipedia should use one consistent style in writing Roman numerals. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Writing is complex. When discussing Roman numerals, characters like I and X pop up frequently and they are confusing without specific styling (rn is used 387 times at Roman numerals). However, at Pope Stephen II (and many similar articles), it's pretty obvious that II is an id, and most of those fluent in English would know it's Roman numerals. Special styling in that case is not needed and may be distracting. Rather than litigate the issue in a deletion discussion, the matter should be investigated at a MOS page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it adds style and legibility. the traditional font looks better, and it clearly identifies Roman Numerals to avoid confusion. it may not be widely used, but it's useful within its limited sphere, and could be expanded at a later date. Xcalibur (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep noticed that I haven't actually "voted" on this one - not that it is necessary from my remarks (near the top of this thread) nor from the weight of comments. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2020 (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).

Template:Verylongtalk

 * 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 July 21. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Verylongtalk
 * 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).