Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a ((R from page move)) falls under WP:R#D2 (The redirect might cause confusion). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Resize with Template:Midsize. ((resize)) reduces text to 90%. ((midsize)) reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of ((Font size templates)), they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss☎01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss☎02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
Tentative merge: ((midsize)) accepts |size=, which can translate to |1= in ((resize)) (if |2= is present, AFAICT). ((midsize)) also accepts |height= for line-height. Would we add that parameter to ((resize)), or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will need to make a detailed plan - Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss☎16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of ((midsize)) are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update:Qwerfjkl and I have reduced ((midsize))'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of |height= being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. ((font)) exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that ((resize)) be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing ((midsize)) from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using ((midsizediv)), mentioned above. It can be switched to ((resize)) with the |div= option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the |size= option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for we should start another merge or rename discussion, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for ((midsizediv)), that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see |upright= when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss☎20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result is suitable for inclusion in any list of people (e.g. sportspeople) with their year of birth and age as of some achievement. ((Birth year and age)) can't do this sort of math, it can only tell how old something was as of the current moment, not as of any particular date. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. The sport is one and done after Paris, meaning there will only be one champion per event. Can be created if the sport is held again in the future. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about it. It would be inconvenient to recreate a page again after four years if the event is held, but that event is not played again, then it shouldn't be there. So let's just wait and see what happens in four years. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template also has a poorly defined function per WP:TG. Contrary to its name of "Hamas history," it seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information about "Hamas members," including their positions and years and places of birth and death. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and fails four of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to change the template page name to "Hamas members", I had already changed the displayed title, but I assume moving it during the deletion discussion would cause trouble?
Which four WP:NAVBOX guidelines does it fail and how? the only one I can see a major problem with is "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" but that could be solved fairly easily by either renaming it ((Hamas sidebar)) or creating List of Hamas members.
The sources are all in the linked pages. I have only once seen a source in a navbox, so I presumed they were against the style guide? but I can add them if they are allowed?
It doesn't show assassinations, the map shows birthplaces and family origins (most of them died in Gaza, or outside the range of the map, a map wouldn't show much).
Keep – I think there's no more issue regarding this sidebar. For the sidebar, no need to put the references as per WP:NAVBOX. However, we have to create new page based on this. I totally agree that we maybe can create the List of Hamas members page to fulfilled the guidelines.
The template has poorly defined function per WP:TG. It serves no purpose, has no precedent, and seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information including about their places of birth, their militant operations, their wives, their children, and even their religions. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and failed all five of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines namely #4 the existence of its own separate article. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to history, because that seemed to better describe the content, this template includes more past figures and fewer current / recent than the one you listed above. But I presume I shouldn't move the page yet?
It's basic biographical details, their leadership role, birthplace, date of death, etc. The date of death link to the page about it if it is a page to link. Religious diversity within the group is relevant to the topic.
What do you mean by "unsourced"? Navboxes don't usually include sources? All the info is in the linked pages, with sources. I have left out any information that sources conflicted about in the linked articles, e.g. the dates of birth for many of the leaders of Hamas are disputed, so I've left them out.
How does it fail all of the navbox rules? the only one it seems to fail definitively is the having a matching main page. But a page could be made. Creating a page seems equally valid as deleting a template to solve the problem of "template doesn't have a page".
Which page do you think it should be linked to? (I was not aware of that rule until Makeandtoss listed it, I had read the relevant parts of the technical guide for navboxes, I hadn't noticed the was also style guide, etc.) The two most relevant pages I have found so far are:
Violates WP:FILMNAV, which states: Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This navbox consists almost entirely of films starring Reynolds in which he happened to also receive writer and/or producer credit (something very common in Hollywood). He was not the primary creator, i.e. director, of any of the films listed. The few valid links that remain fail the WP:NENAN rule of five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in the end. If he writes and/or produces, yes, I totally think that qualifies as a primary creator of the works. but, if there ain't at least 5, it just won't work. So, Delete. BarntToust (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]