Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 25: Difference between revisions

Only one use (Kavalactone), and the numbered captions of the images in it make it only really usable in that context to correpond with that article. Proposing substitute and then delete. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and almost-useless template whose functionality is very different from the existing, similarly named {{Hidden}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. Concerns of OR two years ago. Not sure if they were resolved. If maps OR concerns can be fixed and used then we can keep, but if not – delete. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and all it does is show the words Times New Roman in large font size. If work in progress, we can userfy it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar with a deleted article link and mostly plain text. Article had been deleted early this week for copyright infrigement. Highly unlikely this will be used at all. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Controversial issues with Template:Controversial.
These two templates are strikingly similar, with Controversial being far more widely used. I think either the two should be merged, or else Controversial issues should be deleted, as the latter honestly presents information that is common sense to most experienced editors. Newbzy (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any change since Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 19#Template:Controversial? One used by editors and the other by Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures (used by admins only). One template links to an essay the other to enforcement procedure.Moxy🍁 14:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. There is no reason to keep these two separate, especially as we risk them both being added to the same page. If for some reason the language has be different for ArbCom actions, then create a |arbcom= parameter. But don’t keep them separate! If there was one thing participants in the previous discussion could agree on is that they shouldn’t appear both on the same page, and, in my view, this is the only solution which can guarantee that. (I still think the Controversial template should be deleted to help fight banner blindness, but it seems that ship has unfortuntely sailed.) FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An error now appears if both used on an article due to being redundant. Perhaps the one used by editors/article stewart’s should be renamed so those that don’t read links and template documentation can readily see a difference. Move Template:Controversial to Template:Polemical alongside a move of the essay itself Wikipedia:Controversial articles to Wikipedia:Polemical articles.Moxy🍁 15:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe both should be deleted as prime examples of banner blindness. Second choice would be merging and requiring an explanation of exactly what is controversial. We don’t need lots of boilerplate on articles. Again, neither template has anything to do with ArbCom; they just allow editors to label their articles as controversial without doing anything to help editors edit better. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above replies is an example of why I think we should separate the names of these so those unaware that one documents an enforcement procedure of the Arbitration Committee about specific contentious topics Wikipedia:Contentious topics vs a link to an essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles. Moxy🍁 16:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox college football player with Template:Infobox gridiron football biography.
Merge into Infobox gridiron football biography. If you look at Arch Manning (a current college player), the only real difference in display is the class and major parameters and those could just be added to the gridiron infobox where roster status is for pro players. Major isn’t strictly necessary anyway since it always gets removed later, and no one cares to add it to the body. Here is what Manning looks like with the gridiron infobox. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It is time. WikiProject College Basketball had agreed to migrate from a college specific template to the basketball-generic {{Infobox basketball biography}} template over a decade ago. While college players were touted as student athletes to avoid paying “amateurs” (pre-NIL days), their notability has little to do with their major, either then or now. Save us the annual tedium of coverting infoboxes when a college player turns pro. MOS:INFOBOX says:
  

  Infoboxes, particularly infobox forks for the same category of articles, should maintain a consistent appearance with related infoboxes, particularly in relation to layout, colour and structure.

  Just make all (American) football players’ infoboxes the same already.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bagumba-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. No clear reason to keep the two separate. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Let’srun (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only if “Class” is added to the main template. In college football, whether a student is a redshirt or not, or what year they are is important. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 21:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW the basketball biography templates for college basketball players do not include class or redshirt status.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this an easy yes. Should have been part of all the previous mergers. I think we just overlooked this one. –Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only seems to be used by a now–CIR blocked editor. Subst and delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]