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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:58, 13 March 2015 (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.
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.
delete unused; overly complex method of adding a category --Gadget850talk 15:48, 4 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:37, 13 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to other methods for adding padding (e.g., {{px1}}, {{thinsp}}, ...) Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are not redundant, they can produce a variable size of padding, and their naming makes sense. Further, they are of a series with an unnominated template {{pad left and right}} -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete redundant; in examining each template, {{pad}} can easily replace all; the first two are unused, {{Pad left and right}} is used on one help page. --Gadget850talk 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. The left and right one would need to be replaced by two identical transclusions of {{pad}}, but I don't think it's used enough to worry about wrapping or anything. —PC-XT+ 01:25, 5 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
non-standard template for inserting endashes in prose. seems less opaque to just use the standard method for adding endashes. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete overly complex method of text formatting --Gadget850talk 17:09, 3 March 2015 (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.
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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very few topics, no prospect for expansion. Topics are already well-connected (or could be if not already, and don't need the navbox for it). WP:NENAN. LazyBastardGuy 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NENAN is an essay, not policy, and does not reflect consensus. There is potential for expansion, for instance with additions of articles about the bands other singles, related articles, etc. CatfishJim and the soapdish 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether anything else about them is notable. At present, an LP and single are listed, but both could (if they do not already) have a list of personnel involved. Both titles could be put on the pages of each band member. If expanded, fine, but at present this template is not needed and there is no guarantee it will be. LazyBastardGuy 23:14, 12 March 2015 (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.
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.
delete used in four articles; non-standard citation method: I know of no style that uses anything like this; move current uses into the section --Gadget850talk 21:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a relatively new template. Restrict to non-article-space. This should not be used in articlespace, as all references should be in the main references section. However, this would be useful in discussions, so use in WP-space and talk-space would be good. Document into the reference template system -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a different citation system for non-articles? --Gadget850talk 15:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are discussions, and references should be associated with the discussion thread, not the page. The references should exist in the thread, not at the bottom of the talk page, where they would not be associated with the various completely different discussions (such as WP:VP each thread has nothing to do with each other; or here at TFD, where each discussion has nothing to do with each other) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2015 (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.
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 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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unused (only used in see also for another template); redundant with → in the CharInsert toolbar below the edit window. --Gadget850talk 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to look up the arrow symbol to even use the template, so it doesn't serve a purpose as shortcut template for the arrow. It does add a non-breaking space in front of the arrow (it appears to be part of a series). SiBr4 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:32, 13 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:37, 13 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete unused and redundant --Gadget850talk 21:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment{{0}} is poorly named, it should be called "no visibility" since it isn't restricted to statistics use and wraps an HTML entity. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an issue for a separate discussion. --Gadget850talk 15:45, 4 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:42, 13 March 2015 (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.
Champions League/European Cup winning squads[edit]
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.
I think that the templates are not really useful, they are just tagged at the end of a players articles without providing new information. If a player won the Champions League/European Cup this can usually be found in the Honours' section. Jaellee (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Uh, am I missing something here? As an American, I can't say that I have an in-depth knowledge of the various European football/soccer championships, but it is a well-established practice among the major sports WikiProjects to create roster navboxes for individual teams that win major championships. Are these not major football/soccer championships? I think we need to notify WikiProject Football regarding this TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has been notified [1]. Up to now such templates were only provided for national teams participating in a World Cup or Continental Cup, not for club teams. --Jaellee (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I, for one, will defer to WikiProject Football's more restrictive standards regarding championship team navboxes, if that is the established practice of WP:FOOTY. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - in association football/soccer we do not have/need these kind of 'champions' templates like there are in US sports (NBA, MLB, NFL etc.) - I think the reason why they are acceptable in those sports is because (and forgive my ignorance if I am incorrect) but there is only one major trophy to win each season, whereas in football there are many (see often three but sometimes more) so it's simply not practical. GiantSnowman 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, sir. Only one championship trophy per customer per year/season in MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and WNBA professional leagues and NCAA college sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, it would be unusual for a US sportsperson to win more than three or four championships in their career so these templates don't clutter up their articles too much. In contrast, though, Welsh footballer Ryan Giggs won 34 trophies during his playing career, and to have a championship squad template for every one of those at the bottom of his article would absolutely ludicrous.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the Snowman's rationale immediately above and the established practices of WP:FOOTY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Overkill. Number57 09:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all above. – PeeJay 14:52, 16 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
unused, redundant to {{col-break}}, and fixed large column counts are bad for narrow screens. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete unused and redundant --Gadget850talk 21:30, 2 March 2015 (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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete these are variants of {{tl}} (of which we have a plethora of variants) that just add padding or other useless styling --Gadget850talk 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) :PS: {{Tnfpad}} did not get tagged.[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.
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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:27, 14 March 2015 (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.
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.
This template should be deleted because it is redundant to Template:Tennessee Sports. All teams listed in this template are also listed in the state template. It's pointless having two templates that accomplish the same task: listing other sports in the area. For an example, see Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles. Tavix | Talk 14:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale: redundant to statewide sports navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - @Tavix: Please provide notice of this pending TfD to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. One all-inclusive table covering all TN sports teams is more useful for navigation. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2015 (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.
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.
Way too vast to be useful. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A large number of links are not an automatic disqualifier for a navbox, if the navbox is coherent, well-organized and satisfies the WP:NAVBOX criteria. That being said, this is the largest number of links I have ever seen in a single navbox: almost 800 primary links to articles about MEPs, and over 1,000 when secondary links are included. Given these numbers, I seriously question whether there is a better way to organize and navigate these links -- perhaps by creating "sub" navboxes for each EC member country's list of MEPs for use on the individual MEP article pages. As existing people navboxes expand with newly added links each year based on elections, new hires, new HOF inductions, new recipients of annual awards, new winners of annual competitions, etc., this is going to become an increasingly frequent issue for our navboxes, and it is one that deserves some serious discussion (apart from a simple "too big, delete" answer). Clearly, the parent list article and categories/subcategories also have a role to play here as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - @Robsinden: Please notify the creator of these templates of this pending TfD discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for the last 5 years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Rob, as far as excuses for not notifying a template creator go, that's a relatively good one. I have notified WikiProject European Union of this TfD discussion: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these unwieldy navboxes. New ones should be created for each country and kept current, e.g. {{French MEPs}}. I don't think that we need navboxes for past parliaments. Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've created one as an example here. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, Alakzi. I think this may be the way to go here, as long as the information in the navboxes for the past EU parliament sessions is preserved in the underlying list articles. Is there anyone else we should be pinging to join this TfD other than WP:European Union? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Alakzi: [3]. While I think your suggestion is an excellent one, it would be nice if we had some buy-in from the editors who actually create and maintain the MEP articles before we completely change their inter-article navigation systems. And someone is going to need to create all of those newly subdivided navboxes, too, if this is the route we choose to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject to an important proviso. We have some useful precedents for dealing with large navboxes. The largest that I'm aware of is Template:Murinae, the next largest (in its earlier existence) is/was Template:The Beatles. I recommend taking a look at the edit histories and talk pages of these templates. Templates this huge serve no useful function as navboxes, even though they are written using {{Navbox}}. That does not mean that they cannot serve a useful purpose: they become, not navboxes, but instead should be thought of as list articles, presented in a different form. It follows, if we think of them in this form, that they can (and should) be linked to, but should not be transcluded at all, or transcluded on only one or two articles at most. The course of action is: (1) create new navboxes of conventional size (not difficult to do this, as the monsters are already organised by country); (2) remove all transclusions of the monster templates, and replace by the appropriate smaller template (a straightforward but long and tedious job, given the large number of links); (3) the smaller templates may also be added to articles where there is no transclusion of the monster template (4) replace the monster templates with the appropriate collection of smaller templates (see {{Murinae}} for an example). Worth noting that, in addition to the obvious pointlessness of having such huge navboxes transcluded on individual MEP articles, there is another problem, hidden well below the wiki-waterline: the huge number of inter-article links generated, which increases, not linearly, but with the square of navbox size. Another reason why the use of the monster templates as conventional navboxes has to be rejected. NSH002 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It follows, if we think of them in this form, that they can (and should) be linked to ... Linked to from where? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever appropriate. One obvious place would be the |below= section of the smaller templates. --NSH002 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not link to the list articles, like with my example? Alakzi (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why not, or you could have both, or you could link from the list articles. --NSH002 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need lists "of a different form" that duplicate existing list articles? I'm trying to understand. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My memory must be failing! I had thought that when I (mostly) re-wrote the article for the MEP Molly Scott Cato, that I had put in a "See also" list to the full list for 2014-2019, but on checking, I see that I merely linked to the UK list. Which means I must have rejected the need to create even a navbox restricted to UK MEPs - and, by extension, to per-country MEP navboxes. I also see that (thankfully) no-one has tried to create a similar monster navbox for 2014-2019. I note also that the MEP list articles are actually quite good. So I think, in this case, these can all be deleted, and moreover there is little point in creating per-country navboxes either. But the general point I made above remains: "too large" is not always a sufficient reason to delete a navbox (though often it will be). --NSH002 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, way too large of a scope to be useful and duplicates the articles, Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004. I could see having one for a more narrow range, but even that would be questionable since it would lead to more "bottom of the article bloat". Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; overlarge and not useful for navigation. Almost certainly listified somewhere already. Neutralitytalk 19:43, 13 March 2015 (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.
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.
Template apparently designed to make 'Ping' names unreadable, through the use of <small><small><small>, and otherwise redundant to {{Ping}}. Such micro-miniaturisation of text is an accessibility barrier, and should never be done. I attempted to resolve this by changes to the template, which were reverted, and then by discussion on its talk page, at which the reverter did not comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not notice the talk page discussion or I would have commented and you could have alerted me by using this template. Doing so would have worked perfectly; that is, this template works without any problem for its intended function of providing an echo notification, which is the point. We don't need large intrusion in text with the relatively recently added ping facility. The facility comes from the notification provided, the red number in the interface informing of a message, who it's from, where it is, and a link to the location – which is its chief function, to provide the notification – not for others to read @NAME on the page. The reason for the template's existence is to keep the displayed end to others with as small a footprint as possible, as I do not want any post of mine to be prefixed by a large @User1, User2, and User3:. The users it is intended to alert get the notification and don't need to see their usernames in large relation to text and its use is not intended for readers. This is just the next step up from using a "silent ping", which some have asked for because they want no footprint at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of which addresses the issue of the accessibility of the text that is displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. You just stating "accessibility" as a mantra without analysis is not very meaningful. Everything is contextual, and the context here is that this is not the article mainspace but talk pages, and the text is not meant to be part of the post, but a way to invoke the echo notification system. This text is not meant to be a part of the post to be read. Making it resemble and appear to be part the body of the post – the semantic content of the talk page message you are writing – by its posting at normal size is a distraction, is what it being minimized (but without hiding it entirely); it is a feature not a bug. To the extent your use of “accessibility” refers to issues for vision impaired users, I’m not understanding what you mean. Wouldn’t this have no affect whatsoever on people using JAWS and similar?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, I agree that there may be some use to an 'invisible' ping, but wouldn't putting it in an element with display="none" do the same thing more effectively? {{invisible ping}} might be preferable over {{unreadable ping}}Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martijn Hoekstra Seconding Martijn's proposal for an "invisible ping" using <span style="display:none;">; I had the same idea. (Testing with this message whether or not it works.) SiBr4 (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It works. And suddenly, I'm not so sure it's a good idea anymore. I get a note I'm being pinged, but I don't see a ping. Confusion ensues. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wikitext would still include the {{invisible ping}} template, so it is visible in the diff screen (which is what displays if "View changes" is clicked in the Alerts box). It may be confusing if one is used to pings being displayed, but once found, the template name obviously implies the resulting ping would be invisible. SiBr4 (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your arguments, but I just experienced it first hand, and have to conclude that the result is non-intuitive and confusing. For me this is one of these things that sound like a great idea, but just doesn't work as well as I imagined it would in practice. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete If we really need such a feature, add it as an option to {{ping}} --Gadget850talk 21:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has the opposite effect to its intention for me. I see a tiny piece of text that is below the threshold of what I can read and I strain to try to read it. It actually draws my attention to it far more than {{ping}} does. Because it is less than the size of text that I can read (without zooming my normal browser settings or using a magnifying lens), it is an accessibility issue for me, and I suspect for many other older readers. It is true that screen readers like JAWS won't notice the effect, but that doesn't help my issue. Personally, I'd recommend putting all this effort into adding a option to {{ping}} to have the display hidden. There are some good ideas at http://snook.ca/archives/html_and_css/hiding-content-for-accessibility --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with RexxS. The first time when I see the template being used, I actually zoomed in to 200% to see what it's talking about (always read the fine print right?), and discovered that it is just a mundane pinging of a person I don't know. This only distracts people to the template, not from it. I would be OK with the creation of {{CC}}, which is to be placed at the end of the conversation, and would be ambiguous on its purpose. Having {{CC}} should satisfy Fuhghettaboutit's concern about accessibility, but also would blend into the surrounding text better than the triple <small>. Timothy G.from CA (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in favor of other suggestions such as an undisplayed ping —PC-XT+ 01:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (...if any alternatives are needed.) —PC-XT+ 14:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fuhghettaboutit says, above "We don't need large intrusion in text with the relatively recently added ping facility" (emphasis in original). The nominated template is used on 629 pages. {{Ping}} is used on 89,582 - over 140 times as many. It's clear that the members of our community have "voted with their feet" on this matter; and there seems to be no problem for the "tiny" template, nor the mooted invisible replacement, to solve. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 5 March 2015 (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.
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.
Delete all per previous TfD discussion and deletion of similar navboxes @Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 15; in that prior TfD discussion, we have already deleted navboxes for Southeastern Conference student newspapers and mass transit systems. The subjects of these navboxes are various constituent academic colleges and schools of the member universities of specific college athletic conferences. Colleges of business, law and medicine are not college varsity sports teams, and they are not directly related to the universities' membership in their athletic conferences. The prestige and academic reputation of these colleges and schools are not dependent on the membership of their parent universities in these athletic conferences. To help discussion participants better evaluate these attenuated relationships in Wikipedia terms, here are the five WP:NAVBOX criteria for evaluating whether a particular subject may be appropriate for a navbox:
"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."
delete, athletics association is orthogonal to academics. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the arguments put forth by Dirtlawyer1, the burden of proof is on those who argue that these navboxes align well with how others' classify these subjects or how they classify themselves e.g., active organizations that mirror these navboxes. In the absence of such evidence, the assumption that these subjects are not classified or organized according to the athletic conference of their respective institutions is a natural one that requires rebuttal. I would not be surprised if such evidence can be provided in a few instances where some subjects have created such organizations; however, we still require evidence. That said, it is more a bit disingenuous to claim that the Ivy League is simply an athletic conference without significant cultural and historical associations that extend well beyond the narrow world of U.S. higher education minutiae. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the arguments of DL and ElKevbo --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete academic departments have nothing to do with athletic conferences (which is what the Ivy League is)--GrapedApe (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote on this, because I really don't care one way or the other. But, I do feel it's worth pointing out, that, at least in the US, the phrase "Ivy League" has a meaning outside of just athletics. In fact, I think you could make a pretty good case, that, to the average American, the academic meaning of the phrase "Ivy League" is actually the primary one (obviously, we college sports nuts are not the average). That's fairly unique, in fact, I can't think of any other US college athletic conference that's in even a remotely similar situation. So, this is a bit of a unique case, IMHO. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 18:20, 13 March 2015 (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.
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 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.
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.
Comment regarding notice - @Zoupan: Please provide notice of this pending TfD discussion to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, Zoupan. Your cooperation is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2015 (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.
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.
Sandžak is not a country, nor an administrative unit. It has no official use. Zoupan 02:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notice - @Zoupan: Please provide notice of this pending TfD discussion to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fulfil the conditions delete it. --Ammar TivariTalk! 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I have removed the indent from Ammartivari's comment to clarify it was not in response to the preceding discussion of notifying the template creator. If anyone disagrees, including Ammartivari, please feel free to revert.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (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.
DoneTavix | Talk 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
