Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

< November 6	November 8 >

November 7

Template:Double image, Template:Triple image

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 merge with {{Multiple image}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Triple image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Can be fully replaced by {{Multiple image}}. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{Multiple image}} is much more useful than both {{Double image}} and {{Triple image}}, and conveniently makes use of any number images, tow or three, in a singular template, thus making the two latter templates dated. I support this certain evolution of Wikipedia, and effectively disposing of both templates will help give {{Multiple image}} the usage it deserves. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - The notice that Double image is up for deletion never went up, so I put in an adminhelp request for it to be added to that page. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it's already covered by another template. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, {{Multiple image}} will do. Aeron Valderrama (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{Multiple image}} per Rez's reasoning. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, if possible else Delete. {{Multiple image}} seems sufficient. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, {{Multiple image}} is sufficient}} -- Saint Soren (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as {{Multiple image}} works. Blackash have a chat 06:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Double image template has the facility to adjust the size of two uneven sized imgs and has been widely used in thousands of articles. In the multiple img template size is fixed--Nvvchar. 06:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Multiple image}} also has the facility to adjust the size of two uneven sized imgs, size is not fixed. See the |widthn= parameters, also the demonstration at Template:Multiple image#Matching image heights. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless

Please explain precisely what format of the new template will replace each format of the old ones.
Template:Multiple_image/doc#Horizontal placement states

However, this will not be apparent if only two images are used, as the template with "direction = horizontal" will place both images on different lines (rows), creating a blank space. Thus Template:Double image must be used. Similarly, if one wishes to display three images side-by-side on one line, Template:Triple image must be used.

If this is not true, please fix the documentation. Otherwise, do not delete. jnestorius^(talk) 13:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section was added just under a year ago by Hyacinth (talk · contribs). It's not altogether clear what problem this is intended to address, nor is there anything at Template talk:Multiple image which seems to be related. The fact that nine edits were needed to create this section suggests to me that Hyacinth was attempting to demonstrate a problem and explain a solution, but failing to do so. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: almost all of the parameters of {{double image}} and all of those on {{triple image}} are positional parameters (the sole exception is that {{double image}} recognises |valign=), so generally speaking it means adding names to these. Additionally, |direction=horizontal is necessary in both cases, since that format is hard-coded into {{double image}} and {{triple image}}. See User:Redrose64/Sandbox5 where I have taken one use of {{triple image}} and one of {{double image}}, both from American Civil War#Victory and aftermath, and below these I have converted them to use {{multiple image}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Multiple image}} --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very KEEP: May I ask whose idiotic idea it was to make an issue out of nothing?? What are you, ten years old?? Is the existence of a "Double" or "Triple" image template burning a hole in someones ass? Taking up so much precious computer memory? Causing your computer to crash? I just noticed the "fineprint" announcements at the tops of MANY pages: isn't it RUDE and overly SNEAKY to suddenly insert an announcement like that in FINE PRINT?! I'll bet a billion if you'd placed that same announcement at NORMAL SIZE in a NOTICEABLE BOX this non-topic of discussion would be over in a minute because more people would NOTICE what seems to be the silliest discussion among so many silly discussions I've ever seen on wikipedia!! Leave it to each editor decide whichever template they please. Unless every existing "double" image template will AUTOMATICALLY be re-formatted into a "multiple" image template without causing headaches for editors having to re-formit every page themselves, I say KEEP AS-IS and go for a jog if you have so much free time! Japanglish (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First: enough with the shouting; and WP:NPA applies here just as it does everywhere else. Regarding the rest of your post: you can tell whose idea it was by looking at the original nomination. The "fineprint" announcements are no smaller than they would be for any other article-space transclusion of a template that is up for TfD; and they are in fact larger than some. Five styles of TfD notice are available (including not showing any message), and in this case the largest was used - if the smallest was used, it would look like this: ‹See Tfd› - just nine visible characters. On the template page itself, and on its doc page, they are very much more noticeable. In the past, all the boldface and red borders did appear on article-space transclusions too, but that led to complaints that the notices were too distracting, or that they broke page layouts, or some other problem. You will not be expected to re-format every template yourself: what will happen is that the {{double image}} and {{triple image}} templates will be converted to wrappers for {{multiple image}} - two edits, one each to two template pages, and that will be done by the closing admin. Later on, a bot may be tasked with going through the articles which use {{double image}} and {{triple image}}, and alter these to {{subst:double image}} and {{subst:triple image}} respectively. When the bot saves its edit, they will automatically become {{multiple image}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

didn't direct my comments to anyone; my diatribe was rhetorically directed intending to make a point about a non-topic, and i hope i made my point! didn't realize i was treading on delicate sensibilities along the way; anyway… if i'm the one who seems idiotic in the process, so be it... i still think its an idiotic idea & unnecessary~ Japanglish (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per ~~Redrose64~~ jnestorius above. (Unless you've figured out a practical way to automaticaly replace all "Double" and "Triple" image templates in WP). --Odysses (○) 04:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: which of my comments is the one that is "as per Redrose64 above"? My actual !vote was "Merge", not "Keep". --Redrose64 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: I was referring to the "Keep unless" section by jnestorius. --Odysses (○) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've no idea as to the relative merits of the templates, but I do know that the current template works well in the William Burges article, and that the tag added to the page is an irritating distraction. Could it be removed? KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been comments above from Japanglish that the TfD notice is not visible enough, which suggests that it is not an "irritating distraction". Anyway, the normal procedure is that the TfD notice will be removed once this discussion is completed - whichever way it goes. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{Multiple image}} or delete them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I must say the announcement is in fact a little confusing and sketchy in nature and probably causing some concern among editors. It almost seems like vandalism - someone playing a prank - until you notice it on so many pages. I must also say, as a contributing editor, I'm concerned too; one of my article contributions makes expansive use of the "double image" template, to which any change of shape may affect the layout/presentation of the article, so I hope (surely?) you folks are considering all angles. Leave-well-enough-alone? Seems like you may cause more work to editors who are already too busy. Surely there must be other more pressing matters to occupy yourselves with than something so seemingly trivial as this; edit an article? Penwatchdog (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into {{Multiple image}}: As long as it doesn't affect the way the photographs are positioned. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever yo do, fix the system so it doesn't create monstrosities like this: List_of_organisms_named_after_famous_people Greetings, --Janke | Talk 09:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment of 00:21, 14 November 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark doc as deprecated, unless there is an automatic method to convert old usage - not clear from discussion above if that is proposed. In this case a bit of historic duplication does not seem to be a big problem. Rwendland (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be necessary to detail the conversion procedure; many TfDs close as merge, and to repeat the information given elsewhere - such as WP:TFDAI and WP:TFD - would be needlessly repetitive. But if you're curious, see my comment of 12:04, 13 November 2013, from "You will not be expected to re-format every template yourself" onwards. Just be assured that the closing admin will know what to do - if they don't, they shouldn't be closing TfDs. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless "multiple image" can do everything "double/triple image" can, and whoever doing this correctly ports all current use of the latter to the former (and not just delete existing instances of use). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{multiple image}} can definitely do everything that {{double image}}/{{triple image}} can, see User:Redrose64/Sandbox5; and it can do more besides. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for it to be deleted. It's useful, and while its true that the other formats might work just the same, deleting this template will just cause massive holes in decent articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that this "will just cause massive holes in decent articles"? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete especially if there is no way to automatically convert to the multiple template.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think "there is no way to automatically convert to the multiple template"? It can be done in two edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain? Will there be a bot going through all the current instances of {{Double image}} and {{Triple image}}, reading in their existing parameters, and appropriately converting them to {{Multiple image}}? Gabefarkas (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabefarkas: I did explain, see my post of 12:04, 13 November 2013 above, from "You will not be expected to re-format every template yourself" onwards. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I wasn't trying to be rude, it was an honest question, and I missed your original comment apparently. Gabefarkas (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pointless deletion. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how bout Close discussion? seems to me Redrose is the only one pressing this discussion even though Rezonansowy was the one who opened it (?) but… why don't you just walk away from this one? i'm seeing a lot of "keep"s here… also made notice of articles as Janke & Penwatchdog point out, which are currently suffering from all TfD-tag-clutter while this discussion drags on… here's a REAL topic for discussion: how to adequately APOLOGIZE to readers/editors for any confusion/etc caused by this flub! Japanglish (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already in widespread use, it works fine and even if another template can do the job the syntax is likely to be more complex. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - whatever happens, do it fast, at the moment extremely messy notifications are being displayed on a number of FAs. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete unless a case can be presented that the multiple version cannot duplicate -PC-XT+ 10:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temponary keep. Hello, I'm nominator. I think mark these templates as obsolete for now will be best solution for this problem. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and/or delete. There's obviously some misunderstanding about what happens when a template is merged. It appears there will be no loss in functionality at all (i.e., these templates are completely redundant). older ≠ wiser 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEW ANGLE: lets try it this way, if this discussion is to proceed: please prove WHY deleting the Double/Triple/Quadruple/Quintuple image template is of such importance here... MERITS please? more important than the nuisance its causing? is the mainframe in danger of crashing because of the existence of this/these template(s)? is someones thesis in danger of failing?? this aint about the nominee or the nominant or the nominati; the articles look like Something Honoring Inherent Turmoil, in the simplest and politest terms... someone mentioned "give the 'multiple image' template its day in the sun" or something like that; is that template suddenly feeling lonely or something?? I haven't myself heard the 'multiple image' template shouting out "hey, folks, use me too!"... c'mon now folks, how many more days are necessary here?! please don't give me further reason to use the word 'idiotic' to justify my opinion... someone please put this sh*t to rest and CLEAR THE TfD TAGS FROM PUBLIC SPACE! sorry, i shouted didnt i. i'll also reiterate: Wikipedia should express some kind of "excuse us" at least for any public perception of ineptness. i'm thinking of so many reasons people already dis wikipedia, plus one. Japanglish (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(More in a similar vein at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 6#Double image template deletion discussion) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps those complaining about the tfd notices may get better results by temporarily replacing the template with the multiple version until this resolves, if the notice is that much of a problem. Discussions can go on seemingly forever, and notices are a part of this. If someone doesn't know how to work with these templates, I or someone here will most likely be glad to help. Those who prefer keeping may find hope in that a conversion that can't be done will strengthen their case. To be honest, I doubt such a failure will occur, but I've seen some strange things... -PC-XT+ 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Japanglish should note that the reason for the propsed deletion is actually explicitly mentioned on the main Templates for Discussion page. Item number 2 under reasons to delete is the template is redundant to a better-designed template. Most of the keep !votes here seem to be predicated on the incorrect assumption that the current usage of the template will not be addressed when the discussion is closed. The notices are unfortunate, and to be honest I think this could have been dealt with by boldly converting these templates to wrappers for {{multiple image}}, as described by Redrose64 above. As long as the functionality was not changed and the usage appeared mostly identical I can't see that this would have inconvenienced anyone. AJ Cham 08:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this was a protected template, so actually the bold edit wasn't an option. AJ Cham 09:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - quite redundant. I can see from reading the above that most people advocating a keep do not seem to understand what happens when a template is deleted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - no use keeping it now. People will learn how to use it eventually. Swordman97 (talk)
Keep, Jafd88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafd88 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 November 2013 (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.