Closing instructions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 1 | 96 | 0 | 97 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 34 |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
How to use this page
What not to propose for discussion here
The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{ Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
Reasons to delete a template
- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template (see also: WP:Infobox consolidation).
- The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
Step | Instructions |
---|---|
I: Tag the template. | Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
Note:
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
II: List the template at Tfd. | Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log. Add this text at the top, just below the
If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add Use an edit summary such as Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the {{subst:Catfd2|category name}} |
III: Notify users. | Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}}
for this.
Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
Notifying substantial contributors to the template
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Closing discussion
Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDCloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions
June 2
Template:Othernaming
- Template:Othernaming (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template; not sure what purpose this serves. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:VB auto1
- Template:VB auto1 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb hvn1
- Template:Vb hvn1 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace; not sure what purpose this serves. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st1 header
- Template:Vb st1 header (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st1 start
- Template:Vb st1 start (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st1
- Template:Vb st1 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Clubvt1
- Template:Clubvt1 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template in mainspace; does not appear to have any additional benefits from existing templates. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts
- Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I do not understand why this template was ever even created. Its existence makes it more difficult for readers to edit the article on lunar eclipses, and I have now transferred the information within it to that article and removed the template from it. I've never seen this in a Wikipedia article before. A loose necktie (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless template. More like an article masquerading as a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is useful information useful in many articles. Sharing them in one place avoid duplicated content, and allows them all copies usages to be changed at once. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- But it isn't a template that follows template guidelines on Wikipedia. No one is arguing against the usefulness of the information. The nominator has transferred the information to the relevant articles, thus the template as it stands has become useless. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The template is active in 6 articles at the moment. I don't know why you wouldn't choose to use a template like this. - Tom Ruen ( talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- But it isn't a template that follows template guidelines on Wikipedia. No one is arguing against the usefulness of the information. The nominator has transferred the information to the relevant articles, thus the template as it stands has become useless. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete Article te
sxt should not be stored in templates * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- It is NOT an article test. I don't even know what you mean. Tom Ruen ( talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It was a typo for "article text" * Pppery *it has begun... 01:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is NOT an article test. I don't even know what you mean. Tom Ruen ( talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think this template does have some value in providing a consistent description across several articles, but shouldn’t just transclude text; ideally it would contain the associated diagram and put the whole thing in a box with V•T•E links. User:GKFXtalk 11:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Justput in abox with VTE links.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Pppery. Additionally, I don't find value in this template for its apparent use; an article summarizes. Each individual eclipse article should instead link to the appropriate explanation of a contact, not explain it itself. Accordingly, I recommend not substing before deletion. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 04:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
June 1
Olympic football templates
- Template:1948 Summer Olympics Football Finalists (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1952 Summer Olympics Football Finalists (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1956 Summer Olympics Football Finalists (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:1960 Summer Olympics Football Finalists (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unnecessary templates, no reason why people would be looking to navigate between teams based on their appearance at these events. We don't have similar templates for other Olympics, so far as I can see, or for any other sports, and this is because they have very little value, and are therefore unnecessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Provides no useful navagation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Ultimate event
- Template:Infobox Ultimate event (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
unused. Gonnym (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2017 American Ultimate Disc League South
- Template:2017 American Ultimate Disc League South (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Used in one article (and 2 user sandboxes of a user who wasn't edited in 4 years). Subst to article where it belongs and delete this template. Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete per nom. Don't need a template for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a vastly notable topic that would need a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox AUDL team
- Template:Infobox AUDL team (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
3 uses which can be easily replaced with Template:Infobox sports team. Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Template:Infobox sports team per nom. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and replace the three instances with Template:Infobox sports team. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Ultimate kit
- Template:Ultimate kit (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused in mainspace but even if it were, it is an exact copy of Template:Handball kit. Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not needed, as an ununsed duplicate. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st3 header
- Template:Vb st3 header (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Does not seem to serve any additional purpose other than what Template:Vb st1 header already achieves. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st2 header
- Template:Vb st2 header (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Does not seem to serve any additional purpose other than what Template:Vb st1 header already achieves. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Vb st2 team
- Template:Vb st2 team (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Does not seem to serve any additional purpose other than what Template:Vb st1 team already achieves. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
May 31
Tennis hall of fame by country
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Argentina (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Australia (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Belgium (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Czechia (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame France (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Germany (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Great Britain (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Netherlands (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Russia (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Spain (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame Sweden (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Tennis hall of fame United States (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:International Tennis Hall of Fame members lists all members of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. These navboxes then break it out by country. They are completely redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all. One template is enough. No need for individual templates for each country for each member. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1936 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1952 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1956 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1968 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1972 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1980 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1988 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Men Basketball Squad 1992 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Brazil Women Basketball Squad 1992 Summer Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose deleting navboxes for teams that finished lower than third place in the tournament. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all It's just a list of athletes. Nothing notable other than that they participated in the Summer Olympics for Brazil. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Apologies, didn't know these shouldn't exist for squads below third place. Happy for any I created to be speedy-deleted. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Hide in print
- Template:Hide in print (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Only in print (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Exclude in print (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)
These templates aren't working and havn't worked since 2013 following T50052. Following that ticket support was dropped for hiding text through Category:Exclude in print (also nominated here). When appropriate uses should be migrated over to {{noprint}} which hides things using the noprint CSS class.
There is currently no way to only display something in print. Hence {{Only in print}} will simply be removed. As far as I can tell basically all transclusions comes from a dubious use at {{doi}} which would break links in PDF versions if it worked properly.
This system is mainly in use for the Download as PDF and Printable versions found in the sidebar. It is also used for book generation by PediaPress. I've tested it using their previews and the above is accurate for all three of these methods. I contacted PediaPress about this a week ago to make sure no issues would occur on their side from this change (which it shouldn't) and they have not responded. --Trialpears (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Only in print per nom. Redirect Template:Hide in print to Template:Noprint. Wrong venue for Category:Exclude in print; per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template, {{catfd}} only applies to
template-populated tracking categories
, which this isn't (but I would support deleting that as well if it were properly proposed at CfD) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Pppery A simple redirect won't be appropriate since {{ Hide in print}} often is coupled with {{ Only in print}} where manual action is needed. It also has some subtle differences which could break tables if the conversion is not done manually.
- I am well aware of the rules for what should go where but choose to ignore them in this case. I believe the more technical audience would have more opinions on Category:Exclude in print and that it would be unnecessary to fork this discussion to two places. If you think there would be an actual benefit in nominating it at CfD I'm happy to withdraw it and renominate it. For the time being I've dropped a note at WT:CFD in case the CfD crowd is interested. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- My point about Template:Hide in print is that I think the end result should be a redirect rather than a redlink. If transclusions need to be replaced manually first, that is fine with me. * Pppery *it has begun... 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that people using templates such as {{hdl}} are being mysteriously pointed here with TFD notices. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G, that's because that template use these templates (both of them hence the double notice). -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- People, Trialpears, can we not find a way to tag the templates that are under discussion and not others that are not? Not just in this case but in every case? Tagging every template that transcludes those listed here is ... well, unwelcome. I'm assuming that {{ doi}} is not being proposed for deletion, right? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers It's not possible to disable transclusions used in other templates without disabling all transclusions. I have disabled the notice at {{ Only in print}} since that one should be redundant to the notice at {{ Hide in print}} in most cases. -- Trialpears ( talk) 10:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- People, Trialpears, can we not find a way to tag the templates that are under discussion and not others that are not? Not just in this case but in every case? Tagging every template that transcludes those listed here is ... well, unwelcome. I'm assuming that {{ doi}} is not being proposed for deletion, right? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G, that's because that template use these templates (both of them hence the double notice). -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that Template:Noprint does not always work in replacing Template:Hide in print; I tried it at Template:Deadliest typhoons, where the argument text is supposed to appear as a table row, but under Noprint it becomes fostered content and appears outside the table. The markup in question is a table row:
{{hide in print|1=
!colspan=5{{!}} Main article: [[List of tropical cyclone records]]
}}
- What does work is replacing that markup with
!colspan=5|
- but that would probably leave a blank table row in the noprint case. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, this will have to be done manually for cases like this. -- Trialpears ( talk) 20:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You can set the row to noprint as I have just done. Izno ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what more should be said here. This system doesn't and will never work, replacement is possible, but it will require manual attention on a significant amount of pages. I don't see anyone disputing this or advocating for an other solution over the past 3 weeks. --Trialpears (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Zoologist
- Template:Zoologist (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unlike in botany, there is no such thing as a "standard author abbreviation" in zoology and the ICZN does not recommend abbreviating author names. The most common practice is to simply use the full surname for any author. This template is adding false information to articles and needs to be deleted. For more information see Author citation (zoology) and the ICZN code itself. Nosferattus (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- comment there are some tendencies to a system that resembled accepted abbreviations for botanists, just something I notice in the literature, and there is quite a bit of usage and content on wikipedia that refers to those informal conventions. In their context, a worker's field, it is often obvious who an authority is; there is a value maintaining that familiarity when it is linked. ~ cygnis insignis 01:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep You're both right; the effect of the ICZN code (see its chapter 11) is for the author's surname to be used as the identifier (disambiguated with initials if need be). Such a recognised authority surname is certainly worth identifying in a zoologist's article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Recognized by who? It's entirely original research based on misconception. I don't see how it provides any useful information to the reader. The subject's surname is already given in every article and use of surnames (or abbreviations) is not standardized. If anything, we are misleading the reader, especially by citing the "standard abbreviation" to the ICZN code. Nosferattus (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- By the ICZN. And there is absolutely no call for essay-length rudeness here, this is source-based. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: I'm not sure what about my argument was rude, but I certainly didn't intend for it to be, and I sincerely apologize if it came across as such. I still believe that the statement made by the template is misleading original research. Can you point me to the specific statement in the ICZN code that supports the template's claim? I don't see anything in Article 51 that supports or discourages any author name style, other than the statement that "If the surname and forename(s) of an author are liable to be confused, these should be distinguished as in scientific bibliographies" which only applies to a small fraction of author names. Nosferattus (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Recognised by the sources we use. "entirely original research" is a very absolute statement, I strongly doubt that a consensus for deletion could be achieved on that premise. ~ cygnis insignis 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- By the ICZN. And there is absolutely no call for essay-length rudeness here, this is source-based. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Recognized by who? It's entirely original research based on misconception. I don't see how it provides any useful information to the reader. The subject's surname is already given in every article and use of surnames (or abbreviations) is not standardized. If anything, we are misleading the reader, especially by citing the "standard abbreviation" to the ICZN code. Nosferattus (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Without commenting on whether these are widely accepted identifiers or not, I doubt these templates are particularly useful. The author abbreviation is basically always the surname or initial + surname. If the purpose is for readers to identify them in a list of publications I think that's completely unnecessary since that would be trivial to figure out. Also worth noting these are often placed in conjunction with {{botanist}} with basically the same text which looks really bad. --Trialpears (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: One more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete zoologists don't have unique author abbreviations. Usually only a surname is given in citing a zoological authority. That works OK when there is only one person with a given surname publishing on a particular group of animals in a given time period. If there are multiple people with the same surname working on the same group of animals at the same time they can be distinguished with an initial. But even if say, "A. Smith" and "B. Smith" both published on a particular family of insects in the 1960's, doesn't mean that there isn't some other "A. Smith" or "B. Smith" that published on fish or lizards in the 1800's. Botanists have a standardized system of unique abbreviations. Only one botanist can have the abbreviation "Smith"; other can be distinguished by one ("A.Smith") or more ("A.B.Smith") initials. If unique initials run out, the next botanist would get an abbreviation such as "A.B.Smith (bis)". Zoologists don't have this system of unique abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Str mid/nonLua
- Template:Str mid/nonLua (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template is dependant on a feature that is not going to be enabled on WMF wikis; see phab:T254782. (Same as TfD/2021 May 10 § Template:Str_rightc/nonLua.) User:GKFXtalk 12:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest to Guarapiranga (talk · contribs) to contribute non-LUA versions of templates to the Templates Wikia instead; or if WikiSource accepts source code it might go there. (does SourceForge or GitHub, etc. accept WikiCoding?) -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unopposed* The template is not in use. It was created bc often Lua, in spite of its ample flexibility and efficiency in targeted tasks, has very strict limits when applied hundreds of times on the same page.
Template:Humans
- Template:Humans (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Sidebar unused in mainspace. Izno (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. I'm sure there is a humans-related template that is better used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it predates the mass roll-out of sidebar, so is a hand coded table, that is incorrectly not float:right ; since it is in this format, it clearly isn't used, as it would have been converted between 2006 and 2010 if it were used by someone coming along and making it a sidebar. There's a weird out of date draft sitting at Talk:Humanity/Draft that uses it that hasn't been truly edited since 2006 and that probably should also be deleted or re-userfied back to user:Goethean/Humanity, where it originated and who was the only major contributor. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:2016NHRep
- Template:2016NHRep (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Used in only 3 places which are unlikely to need an update with the election 5 years past. Subst and delete. Izno (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The information on the template is useful but can be displayed as a list on the articles it is used on, 2016 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, Results of the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, and 2016 United States presidential election in New Hampshire. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:History of Phitsanulok Province
- Template:History of Phitsanulok Province (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused sidebar in mainspace. Izno (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The articles linked in the template are better off not on a template and quite a few linked are not part of the history of Thailand in the general sense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I raised some issues with the template and removed its uses in 2019; the changes don't appear to have been disputed. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
May 30
Template:Drapac riders
- Template:Drapac riders (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 22:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:List of high schools in Manhattan
- Template:List of high schools in Manhattan (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of high schools in Queens (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of high schools in Staten Island (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of high schools in the Bronx (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:List of high schools in Brooklyn (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
These templates are better off being displayed as a list on the List of high schools in New York and List of high schools in New York City articles rather than on separate templates. And the templates are superseded by the Template:Education in Brooklyn, Template:Education in Manhattan, Template:Education in Queens, Template:Education in Staten Island, and Template:Education in the Bronx where the list of high schools in the templates above are linked to the navigational templates. There's no need for separate templates for high schools in the five boroughs when they're included along with other types of schools and other educational institutions in the navboxes for each borough of New York City. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. These templates should only appear in the List of high schools in New York City article. List of high schools in New York is way too long and completely unnecessary and should instead just link to the articles that are already created. --Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:SportsNet New York
- Template:SportsNet New York (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
A local television network linked only to a few pages about their Mets-related programs. Even those pages might not be notable. The rest of the template is just plain text outside of the notable on-air personalities for the network. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I have proposed those run-of-the-mill tv shows for deletion. This navbox would then only be for on-air staff, which isn't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:ColorToLum/nonLua
- Template:ColorToLum/nonLua (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Described as a "non-Lua version of {{ColorToLum}} to be used in large tables", but actually spends about six-to-ten times longer executing Lua code than the original and therefore has no benefit over the original. See Special:PermaLink/1025981290 versus Special:PermaLink/1025981783. Unused. User:GKFXtalk 18:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment User:Guarapiranga should consider contributing this to a source code repository instead of Wikipedia -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Continental and regional labelled-map templates
- Template:Continental and regional labelled-map templates (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
The parameters are confusing, it's hopelessly outdated, and is nearly unused. Painting17 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:WpEnergyPortal
- Template:WpEnergyPortal (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused. Replaced the 3 uses with the standard {{portal}}. Izno (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Is italicized
- Template:Is italicized (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Not sure if was ever used, but currently it is unused and seems too specific for any general usage so unlikely to be used. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't implement this as a template for what it does do. Delete. --Izno (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This was created five years ago for Template talk:Commons category-inline#Italics. If there's a better way to implement the intent, go for it @Izno. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 18:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Memorial Tournament honorees
- Template:Memorial Tournament honorees (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template for winners of an non-notable award without an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as template creator, see Memorial Tournament for details and history. Jack Nicklaus initiated this coveted yearly honor and its physical site which compares with the golf hall of fame (and is harder to get into) as the centerpiece of his near-major yearly PGA tournament at his Muirfield golf course. The induction ceremony is broadcast yearly, and on a quick search there are many articles about the who, what, and wheres for the honor, its yearly honorees and, for living honorees, their respect for the award and induction. A stand-alone article could be written as this is one of the major golf awards in terms of hall-of-fame type honors, but it is included within the Memorial Tournament page as the tournament is named for the honor itself, its sculpture-like outdoor monument garden which includes a mounted plaque for each of the 79 honorees, and for the time of year it is played. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. This is just navbox clutter. Creator is grossly overstating the honors significance (and that of the tournament), with the one line of prose we have in the tournament article adequately covering it. Any mentions of the honorees are almost all limited to trivial passing mentions in articles about the tournament. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Incorrect, as Jack Nicklaus' tournament was designed to be a major and ended up on the second tier with the Player's Championship. The award is an honored award among golf professionals, and has near Hall-of-Fame status as an honor due to Nicklaus' vision of creating it in 1976 along with the tournament named after it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Designed to be" is a huge leap away from actually being. It is patently obvious that it is neither on a par with either the Majors, or The Players, or the WGCs. It stands below all of them as a tournament that the leading players are more than willing to miss (edit: evidenced by only 28 of the top 50 playing this week). Any claim to the contrary simply doesn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apples and a three-putt. The template is about the Memorial honorees, not the tournament. An honor universally respected in the golf world. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The wider golfing world takes very little notice. Trying to elevate this to the level of the HoF is frankly ridiculous; some of the claims here would be worthy of the Memorial PR department (but they know better). In any case, this discussion is about the template, which provides navigation to articles with a connection that almost no-one is aware of, and even less would be interested in browsing. Therefore it's usefulness is practically non-existent and it is just more TCREEP on pages with an abundance of navboxes already. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep In what way is this not a notable award? The mainspace article meets notability requirements and there is no way this counts as a cluttered navbox. This nomination is ridiculous. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The mainspace article is about the tournament, not the award/honor; there is just one line about the award/honor along with a list of recipients. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- A notable tournament that has an award, thus this is still notable. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- What is certainly true is that the award is underplayed in the Memorial Tournament page, which is inconsistent with some pretty good sources. It should be expanded accordingly, and full out its own section. Maybe more eyes and interest from the golf wikiproject would assist in improving the page as regards the award that the tournament is named after. But that lack of Wikipedia emphasis aside, the honor of being a Memorial Tournament honoree, in the eyes of the honorees and their respect for Jack Nicklaus, remains consistent. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- A notable tournament that has an award, thus this is still notable. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, Seems pretty niche information to me. I would even question as to why we have the list of honorees in the winners tables. When adding 2021 into that table recently, I tried to look up who was this year's honorees. A non-mainstream source was where I found them simply claiming they were 'the same as last year'. Would suggest it's not really a hot topic on many people's agenda. Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- By saying that the honorees should maybe be removed from the winners table is not taking into account that the honorees are the purpose of the Memorial. Nicklaus wanted to create a standing memorial in his hometown for those who have exceled in the sport, and he did so by building a tournament around it. May not be a hot topic to many people, but it surely is in the gold world. The only problem, Moe Norman has yet to be inducted! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Murtaza ali
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7. ✗plicit 13:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Murtaza ali (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Improperly formed, and solely promotional. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2021 (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).
May 29
Template:Albums category/strip dab
- Template:Albums category/strip dab (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @GKFX with the reason "This subtemplate has been replaced with regex on its parent template and is now unused." FASTILY 22:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not even a template. Has no practical purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Years, months and days before now
- Template:Years, months and days before now (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Redundant to Template:Age in years, months and days. It seems to be reformatting the date but this is unnecessary as that template is now also capable of accepting multiple date formats, e.g. {{Age in years, months and days|1998-02-24}} → 23 years, 3 months and 9 days User:GKFXtalk 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Not even used. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:MuseumsWiki
- Template:MuseumsWiki (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
WP:ELNO #12 states: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors should not be linked externally. As this given wiki claims to have a whopping 469 articles, I don't see how linking to it would be compliant with ELNO. Thus, we shouldn't have a template for an external link that runs against ELNO #12. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The MuseumsWiki has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It was founded in 2006 with the task that museum personnel will participate in populating this wiki with museum-related material, perhaps more detailed than suitable for Wikipedia [1]. The Wiki has been edited since then continuously. The relative small number of editors and articles compared with Wikipedia should not be considered as non-substantial, because the number of museum experts is very small, and the conservative approach of many experts is a serious barrier for collaborative practice. Nevertheless the MuseumsWiki has operated as an experimental introduction in collaborative methods for museum experts, and as far as I know helped authors to find their way into the Wikipedia community as well. Best, --ThT (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – The MuseumsWiki is stable since 2006 (15 years) and has a number of editors in the museum world. It also hosts the Virtual Library museums pages, established in 1994 (27 years ago) as part of the Virtual Library and older than Wikipedia itself, with editors from around 20 countries around the world. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete According to their Special:ListUsers there has only been 2 users who have made a single edit in 2021. That is definitely not a substantial number of editors. I don't see what relevant content readers would gather from these pages that isn't/shouldn't be on Wikipedia even if this wasn't a clear case of ELNO. --Trialpears (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which effects museum experts worldwide. Especially the cancellation of almost all conferences related to museums and museum organizations in 2020 impacts the MuseumsWiki very much, because in the past these conferences generated most of the utilization and editing. Best, -- ThT ( talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- ThT, Corresponding figure since the start of 2019 is 9 users with over one edit (excluding global bots). If you want over 10 edits we only have 5 users since start of 2019. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to explain the relative small number of editors and articles compared with Wikipedia before with the general lack of collaborative practice in the small community of museum experts so far. Since the paper A Museums Wiki presented in 2007 at the Museums and the Web conference there's a substantial history of stability though. Best, -- ThT ( talk) 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- ThT, Corresponding figure since the start of 2019 is 9 users with over one edit (excluding global bots). If you want over 10 edits we only have 5 users since start of 2019. -- Trialpears ( talk) 09:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which effects museum experts worldwide. Especially the cancellation of almost all conferences related to museums and museum organizations in 2020 impacts the MuseumsWiki very much, because in the past these conferences generated most of the utilization and editing. Best, -- ThT ( talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Trialpears; this wiki clearly does not have
[...] a substantial number of editors
* Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- As an attempt to reach a consensus, I would suggest to consider the MuseumsWiki as a site that contains neutral and accurate material (WP:ELYES), because it utilizes collaborative methods for museum experts. Best, --ThT (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:He or she
- Template:He or she (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:He/she (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:They (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:He or she and Template:He/she with Template:They.
Recommending merge since the use of "he or she" solely enforces a false gender binary, and {{they}} already exists: as such, fold this template into {{they}}. I know that the syntax for verbs when used with "they" is different, and as such correcting those as the templates are merged will do. Additionally, if this is successful I'll probably double down (via WP:BOLD) and merge other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}. Casspedia (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: The templates discussed are only used in userspace and usertalkspace. These templates are not used in mainspace. Casspedia (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Replace with {{They}} and delete. There doesn't seem to be anything needed to merge. This could just be redirected, however, the "He or she" name itself is problematic and even as a redirect it shouldn't exist. Note that {{He/she}} should also be added to this nomination. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Vote changed - see below. Whatever our personal preferences, the use of "he" and "she" is still perfectly acceptable English in the outside world and applies to the vast majority of English speaking people. Wikipedia should reflect that world and not become a place to push a particular political or personal viewpoint. Clearly where the sources follow an individual's publicly stated-preference for some other term, Wikipedia can reflect that. Bermicourt:( (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)- Adding this: templates typically differ from real-world use, and the term "he or she" can be very insulting to someone who deliberately did not set their gender because they aren't male or female. This is especially notable if/when this template is transcended into other templates. Casspedia (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia isn't generally concerned about who it insults. It doesn't set itself up as judge and jury over that sort of thing, it merely follows WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I'm assuming that the latter would usually respect what people say they are unless it is obviously nonsense. But what we don't want to do is call the majority by pronouns they wouldn't accept either.
- There's actually a related problem which is nothing to do with personal preferences and only tangential to this nomination: converting the use of "he" or "she" to "they" in all circumstances often results in utter confusion about who we are talking about. In a gender-free world, "Fred fed the ball into the scrum; then they collapsed" leaves the reader in confusion about whether the entire scrum collapsed or just Fred. Our language is not yet geared up to dealing with this and poaching plural pronouns for singular objects just creates another, even more confusing problem. Which is why we should proceed with caution. Bermicourt ( talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The issue of gender-neutral language is irrelevant to this discussion. All three templates allow the same functionality. Guettarda ( talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge (or just redirect). The templates appear to do the same thing, and "they" is the simplest and most inclusive formulation. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is not the duty of TfD to try to force users to use singular they if they do not want to. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Pppery: did you actually check the templates or just go off their names? "He" and "She" aren't changed; the only difference is between having for an unset gender "he or she" or "they". "he or she" is just bad grammar. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what exactly makes that bad grammar, and still feel that this TfD is inappropriately trying to insert an opinion into templates, whereas templates in general should be neutral and not have opinions. It should be up to each editor to decide whether to use "he or she" or "they"; there should not be forced standardization. (And yes, I did look at what these templates do and still feel they should be kept.). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he or she" is absolutely correct grammar. What is bad grammar is using "they" or "them" with a singular object; that just fails the test of numerical agreement which is why it has the potential to cause such confusion. It would be more helpful if other, perhaps new, words were used instead, but that is worldwide English language issue, not a Wikipedia one. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Singular they exists and has existed for centuries. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Jochem van Hees: So have other grammatically improper forms, such as flat adverbs and double negatives. It does not make them correct. ( See also: English usage controversies) Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well I don't know how you define grammatical "correctness" (because there is no definition). But I checked the Longman, Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, and all of them say that "they" can be used in singular form as a replacement of "he or she" when the gender is unknown. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 11:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Jochem van Hees: So have other grammatically improper forms, such as flat adverbs and double negatives. It does not make them correct. ( See also: English usage controversies) Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Singular they exists and has existed for centuries. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- "he or she" is absolutely correct grammar. What is bad grammar is using "they" or "them" with a singular object; that just fails the test of numerical agreement which is why it has the potential to cause such confusion. It would be more helpful if other, perhaps new, words were used instead, but that is worldwide English language issue, not a Wikipedia one. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what exactly makes that bad grammar, and still feel that this TfD is inappropriately trying to insert an opinion into templates, whereas templates in general should be neutral and not have opinions. It should be up to each editor to decide whether to use "he or she" or "they"; there should not be forced standardization. (And yes, I did look at what these templates do and still feel they should be kept.). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Pppery: did you actually check the templates or just go off their names? "He" and "She" aren't changed; the only difference is between having for an unset gender "he or she" or "they". "he or she" is just bad grammar. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alt merge proposal - would merging all three into Template:Gender be a solution? All you have to do there is type in {{gender|(he, she, or they)}} and it will appear for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- All the "gender" templates can be transformed into templates that invoke {{Gender}} with a certain parameter, e.g. for him/her/their, he/she/they, etc. so I support this proposal as well. Casspedia (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alt merge proposal per Knowledgekid87, just bundle it all into one template. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question. Notwithstanding the grammatical discussion above, if someone can confirm that the templates are only for use in User space, then I don't have an issue with that and would be happy to support a merge. What users choose to say about themselves is their choice. I would only be concerned if the templates were deployed in Main space. Perhaps the merged template should be "Template:User Gender" to make that clear. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Currently, the template usage is a mixture of userboxes and talk page discussions, with no mainspace uses. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. To speak to Pppery's concern, this template is being used only in project-focused spaces, not in articles, so our duty is to be inclusive, not to abide by what reliable sources say or anything like that. "He or she" is outdated, trans-exclusionary language, whereas "they" is a perfectably acceptable replacement for any situation currently using "he or she". I haven't looked into the alt merge proposal thoroughly enough to comment on it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep / Alt merge: "He or she" is a perfectly fine and grammatically correct phrase; while it is increasingly common, I do not believe "they" is an acceptable alternative for a third-person singular pronoun. English third-person singular pronouns are unfortunately gendered — it's not our job to rewrite the English language. If somebody wants to use this template, that should be his or her decision. I would also be fine with expanding {{Gender}} to support more options and then rewriting all of the other templates to use it. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Original merge The singular they is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable word. It might seem ungrammatical to some, but it is what people use in practice and is less clunky than "he or she". It has been used for literally centuries; see references at singular they. As such, redirecting the other templates to
{{they}}
is a good idea. User:GKFXtalk 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - Alt merge: per Knowledgekid87, although if we can't do that, then better keep it, since some people state their pronouns as "he or she", per Tol. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody states their pronouns as such and that is a failure of understanding how the template works. The template checks if the user set a "he" or "she" setting. If it doesn't, the "he or she" text will be used. That isn't decided by the user you are talking about, but by the user using the template. So no, you are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: For reference, I have my gender intentionally unset on Wikimedia wikis; however, I do not wish to be referred to with third-person plural pronouns such as "they". I prefer "he or she" (but am also perfectly fine with either "he" or "she"). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are very privileged to be able to be perfectly fine with the only two options available there, being "he" or "she", other people aren't and they do not have the privilege of having an option of chosing something else. Since you do have the option and are fine with either, pick one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Gonnym: Let's please try to maintain a calm discussion. I do not wish to pick a single gender of pronoun, as I do not particularly identify with any gender. I'm fine with others using either feminine or masculine pronouns to refer to me, though I would prefer a construction of both gendered pronouns such as "he or she". I dislike gendered language and do wish there was a neuter third person singular pronoun for people (that is, not "it"); I believe that the best way to achieve this is with "he or she" and similar constructions. You say that users of this template
are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that.
With the same logic, somebody who refers to me with third-person plural pronouns is forcing me, who does not wish to be referred to as "they", to be referred to as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC) - It is extremely inappropriate to act as though you are the arbiter of who is privileged and to demand someone else change. Crossroads-talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Tol | Talk | Contribs 00:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Gonnym: Let's please try to maintain a calm discussion. I do not wish to pick a single gender of pronoun, as I do not particularly identify with any gender. I'm fine with others using either feminine or masculine pronouns to refer to me, though I would prefer a construction of both gendered pronouns such as "he or she". I dislike gendered language and do wish there was a neuter third person singular pronoun for people (that is, not "it"); I believe that the best way to achieve this is with "he or she" and similar constructions. You say that users of this template
- You are very privileged to be able to be perfectly fine with the only two options available there, being "he" or "she", other people aren't and they do not have the privilege of having an option of chosing something else. Since you do have the option and are fine with either, pick one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: For reference, I have my gender intentionally unset on Wikimedia wikis; however, I do not wish to be referred to with third-person plural pronouns such as "they". I prefer "he or she" (but am also perfectly fine with either "he" or "she"). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody states their pronouns as such and that is a failure of understanding how the template works. The template checks if the user set a "he" or "she" setting. If it doesn't, the "he or she" text will be used. That isn't decided by the user you are talking about, but by the user using the template. So no, you are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Replace with {{they}} and delete per Gonnym. The templates are only used in userspace and {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} are basically disrespectful of non-binary individuals. Strongly urge closing admin to disregard !votes by people who are pretending these are used in article text... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- process conversation refactored to talk page
- Alt merge into {{Gender}}. Changing my vote based on usage. It might have helped if the intended usage had been made clear by the nom. Bermicourt (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note If the consensus is to deprecate these templates, then the existing transclusions should be substituted (by the magic word) because otherwise there would be "they is" etc. Of course correcting the verbs is another option, but I don't think that would fall within what is allowed as WP:REFACTOR (someone's use of "he or she" rather than "they" itself could very well be a point of discussion). Also, I don't understand
if this is successful I am considering merging other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}
. I can't imagine a scenario in which we'd deprecate {{he or she}} etc. but not {{him or her}} etc., or vice versa. Why not nominate all of them now? Nardog (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- That is because their merge targets would all be different; I don't want to create an excessively convoluted TfD thread. If consensus is established here I'll most likely just WP:BOLD my way through the other ones. Casspedia (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are some templates which solve that problem already:
{{they are|Male username}}
→ "he is". User:GKFXtalk 18:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- That's not the problem. You can always simply use the magic word, as in
{{GENDER:Foo|he does|she does|they do}}
, to accommodate any verb (I'm the one who made that template after all). The problem is that to replace "he or she" etc. already used on talk pages with "they" would be misrepresentation of the record proscribed in WP:TPG. Usage in userboxes and other templates can, of course, simply be replaced with {{they}}. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the problem. You can always simply use the magic word, as in
- You're rules-lawyering this too much. When someone invokes (without substituting) they implicitly give permission for future changes. No "meaning" is changed by being respectful of another editors gender identification. If this bothers someone, they can always go and revise their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- We're perhaps coming from more or less the same place and reaching different conclusions. If someone, as you put it, made "a bad decision" on a talk page, I want the record to show that they made a bad decision. Nardog (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose anything that involves retroactively changing what someone said. If I say "he or she", then I meant to say "he or she" and retroactively changing it to "they" is not appropriate. I passionately detest the singular "they". If someone has self-identified as non-binary and prefers they/them, okay, fine. But requiring they/them to be used for all persons who have not self-identified a gender just in the off chance that one such person might be non-binary and we don't want to exclude them is ridiculous. --B (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well said. Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence, but you don't have to tell us whether you detest anything. You may, but keep it to yourself. Nardog (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- If people are free to say when they're "offended", why not when they "detest something"? It's pretty much the same thing. Okay I suppose it's get confusing if someone's "offended" by what someone else "detests" or someone "detests" others getting "offended"! Bermicourt (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep all- social issues aside, each of these templates produces different output depending on the referenced user's preferences, and the proposal is to replace some with templates that will render differently than was intended. It is not Wikipedia's job to force the use of one particular set of gender-neutral pronouns. The real problem underlying this discussion is that users currently can only select "male", "female", or "neither", and the templates follow that trinary (really a binary with an opt-out). If we really want to be more inclusive, that system should be replaced with one where the user can enter the pronouns they want to use, and then we can design templates around it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)- Also, per B and others, if the templates are going to be modified to produce a different result than was intended by whoever transcluded it, then all extant transclusions should be substituted before any changes are made, so as not to violate WP:TPO. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Templates, by definition, hand off some text rendering task to someone else and their judgement. This feigned ignorance during a TFD is really startling. Y'all act like a template has never been changed in 20+ years of Wikipedia... — Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Locke Cole: Yes; but the point is that users of these templates selected these templates specifically. They did not use the templates which would produce "they"; they used the templates which would produce "he or she", with the intent of producing "he or she". Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't care if they chose them "specifically". You can "specifically" make a bad decision, it does not change the fact that the decision was poorly made and you should have chose another method. What, do you suppose, would happen should the MediaWiki software ever add additional gender choices? These templates would be updated to reflect those new options most likely. If you're that hung up on not having your words changed later, WP:SUBST is your friend... — Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- If the software is reprogrammed to change the way that gender settings are handled then the templates that rely on that parameter will most likely just break, and then we'll need to discuss what to do with them anyway. That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion
Sure, that's it, just because you said so without a single logical reason behind it. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)- Well, even if it were the slightest bit likely we could convince MediaWiki devs to make a significant code change for entirely cosmetic reasons, we can't predict how they would implement it and so can't code a template now to handle that unlikely future development, so why does it matter to this discussion? Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
entirely cosmetic reasons
, and so we have yet another tone deaf response. It matters because such a change would necessitate changing these templates, and the entire reason we use templates is to make such changes easier. You're literally saying "don't change something" in something that is literally designed to be changed. — Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes, thank you, we agree on
such a change would necessitate changing these templates
. You seem to think my point is that we shouldn't change them now because we may have to change them later, which it's not. My entire argument was that we should not change the output of the "he or she" templates in past discussions, because it retroactively changes what those users intended to write without their knowledge or consent. While using "he or she" to refer to a nonbinary person can be malicious, we have a policy of assuming good faith which tells us that if someone used {{ he or she}} to refer to another editor, they were relying on the user having set a software setting which we know is woefully inadequate, absent very good evidence that their comment was intended to misgender (and that does happen, I've blocked editors for it). That is my rationale for not changing past discussions in this case. If we want to bring the templates together so that they're easier to change later, yes, I'm entirely on board with that, but that's only half of what's being proposed here. And if we want to propose adding more options to MediaWiki's gender settings, or completely overhauling that system to be more inclusive, I'll absolutely support that, but this proposal misses that mark by a wide margin - if it succeeds, a transgender editor will still only be able to select "male", "female", or "neither". Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, we agree on
- Well, even if it were the slightest bit likely we could convince MediaWiki devs to make a significant code change for entirely cosmetic reasons, we can't predict how they would implement it and so can't code a template now to handle that unlikely future development, so why does it matter to this discussion? Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Locke Cole: My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{ They}}, which was created (by you) soon after {{ He or she}} was. These templates are similar, but have different functions. The function of {{ He or she}} is to produce "he", "she", or "he or she" depending on the user's gender. The function of {{ They}} is to produce "he", "she", or "they" depending on the user's gender. The basic functions of these templates are different, and they are intended to be different. You say that templates
hand off some text rendering task to someone else
, but this hand-off is done with the assumption that the template will produce results which are similar to that which it originally did. If somebody intentionally used {{ He or she}}, that person did so with the intent that it would display "he or she" if the specified user's gender is unset. That intent should be respected. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- @Tol:
My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}
Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.created (by you)
And? Were you going somewhere with the fact that I created it? Please, don't stop there, I'm sure we're all very curious where you wanted to go with that. The rest is a lot of assumptions and perverting templates in a way that is incompatible with people willfully using them without substituting them, as has been explained to you previously. WP:SUBST is, and continues to be, your friend. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- @ Locke Cole: Yes, I'm sure we're all curious where I was going with that. [sarcasm](For the sake of it, I created {{User:Tol/G}}, which is similar to {{Gender}} but uses "he or she", "him or her", et cetera, instead of "they" and such. I'm certainly not neutral in this either!) It still stands that
the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}.
It may not have been their intention, and perhaps they would have used {{ They}} instead, had they known it existed, but they did not. I agree that substitution is for when one wants to keep something static. However, it remains that people (probably) used this template with the assumption that it would return the same result in the future (excepting any user gender choices — if somebody later sets his or her gender, the template would update). We even have {{ Non-free use rationale}} and {{ Non-free use rationale 2}}, two different templates that have the same purpose (but are somewhat different), as a clear precedent for having two similar templates that fulfill the same job in a different way. My central point, still, is that {{ He or she}} should definitely produce "he or she". Making it produce "they" would be as confusing as making {{ They}} produce "he or she". Template users made that choice whether they were aware of alternatives or not, and we shouldn't force them to use one or the other. Also: we shouldn't censor language; people (such as I) may want to use "he or she" instead of "they". Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- This isn't a matter of language, but more a matter of respect towards non-binary people than anything else. Considering how such a template would only ever be used in userspace, user talk space and template space, respect towards other editors supersedes everything else. Casspedia ( talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So now you've nominated my template for MfD. Really? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm done with pretending that it is okay to discriminate against non-binary people. This is perhaps the most common form of discrimination against non-binary people, which is why I'm so heavily against the use of he or she. Casspedia ( talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand, and have two hands." That statement is true, but probably discriminates against people with birth defects or amputations. It's still true. In a similar vein, "he or she" is perfectly fine. If you argue that using "he or she" is discriminatory against those who wish to be called "they", then how is using "they" not discriminatory against those who wish to be called "he or she"? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your failure to understand that the aforementioned is discriminatory is the root of the problem here. Saying The majority of humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand is fine, but claiming that all are like that is misleading. Plus, absolutely no one wants to be called "he or she" when referring directly to themselves. That's a nonsensical argument. Casspedia ( talk) 20:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Casspedia: I do. I don't identify strongly with either gender, and am fine with people referring to me as "he", "she", or "he or she". I also detest usage of "they" as a singular pronoun and may correct somebody who refers to me as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue, in this case, deprecating he or she as a means to referring to everyone would be the priority. Since the template calls a user's gender, it should at least be limited to users who have specifically declared themselves to be fine with binarizing terms -- keeping in mind that non-binary people must be represented in a non-binarizing way. I would also perhaps enabling the use of neopronouns using these same gender templates wherever applicable, since these seek to mitigate the singular-plural confusion which the singular they may entail. Casspedia ( talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Casspedia: It would be great if there was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. (I consider the lack of one to be one of the larger flaws in English.) Similarly, expanding MediaWiki software to handle more preferences would be optimal (but not something that the English Wikipedia community can do) — perhaps something like a checklist for whichever forms one is comfortable with. As for artificial pronouns, I would be fine with their inclusion but would prefer if at least one widely used pronoun was required (in subject form: "he", "she", "they", "he or she"/"she or he"). Language is messy, but fixing it takes a lot of effort. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per the above. It would be much simpler if MediaWiki provided an option for selecting pronouns the same way as license options; new pronoun options can easily be defined as such. However, those are just thoughts for another time. An example of a template using neopronouns could be he-she-xe, in a similar vein to {{ they}}. Honestly, at this point, I think using the alt merge proposal and redesigning {{ gender}} from the ground up to accomodate non-binary genders would be the best choice. Casspedia ( talk) 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Casspedia: It would be great if there was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. (I consider the lack of one to be one of the larger flaws in English.) Similarly, expanding MediaWiki software to handle more preferences would be optimal (but not something that the English Wikipedia community can do) — perhaps something like a checklist for whichever forms one is comfortable with. As for artificial pronouns, I would be fine with their inclusion but would prefer if at least one widely used pronoun was required (in subject form: "he", "she", "they", "he or she"/"she or he"). Language is messy, but fixing it takes a lot of effort. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue, in this case, deprecating he or she as a means to referring to everyone would be the priority. Since the template calls a user's gender, it should at least be limited to users who have specifically declared themselves to be fine with binarizing terms -- keeping in mind that non-binary people must be represented in a non-binarizing way. I would also perhaps enabling the use of neopronouns using these same gender templates wherever applicable, since these seek to mitigate the singular-plural confusion which the singular they may entail. Casspedia ( talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Casspedia: I do. I don't identify strongly with either gender, and am fine with people referring to me as "he", "she", or "he or she". I also detest usage of "they" as a singular pronoun and may correct somebody who refers to me as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your failure to understand that the aforementioned is discriminatory is the root of the problem here. Saying The majority of humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand is fine, but claiming that all are like that is misleading. Plus, absolutely no one wants to be called "he or she" when referring directly to themselves. That's a nonsensical argument. Casspedia ( talk) 20:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand, and have two hands." That statement is true, but probably discriminates against people with birth defects or amputations. It's still true. In a similar vein, "he or she" is perfectly fine. If you argue that using "he or she" is discriminatory against those who wish to be called "they", then how is using "they" not discriminatory against those who wish to be called "he or she"? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm done with pretending that it is okay to discriminate against non-binary people. This is perhaps the most common form of discrimination against non-binary people, which is why I'm so heavily against the use of he or she. Casspedia ( talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So now you've nominated my template for MfD. Really? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't a matter of language, but more a matter of respect towards non-binary people than anything else. Considering how such a template would only ever be used in userspace, user talk space and template space, respect towards other editors supersedes everything else. Casspedia ( talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Locke Cole: Yes, I'm sure we're all curious where I was going with that. [sarcasm](For the sake of it, I created {{User:Tol/G}}, which is similar to {{Gender}} but uses "he or she", "him or her", et cetera, instead of "they" and such. I'm certainly not neutral in this either!) It still stands that
- @Tol:
- If the software is reprogrammed to change the way that gender settings are handled then the templates that rely on that parameter will most likely just break, and then we'll need to discuss what to do with them anyway. That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't care if they chose them "specifically". You can "specifically" make a bad decision, it does not change the fact that the decision was poorly made and you should have chose another method. What, do you suppose, would happen should the MediaWiki software ever add additional gender choices? These templates would be updated to reflect those new options most likely. If you're that hung up on not having your words changed later, WP:SUBST is your friend... — Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Locke Cole: Yes; but the point is that users of these templates selected these templates specifically. They did not use the templates which would produce "they"; they used the templates which would produce "he or she", with the intent of producing "he or she". Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Templates, by definition, hand off some text rendering task to someone else and their judgement. This feigned ignorance during a TFD is really startling. Y'all act like a template has never been changed in 20+ years of Wikipedia... — Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, per B and others, if the templates are going to be modified to produce a different result than was intended by whoever transcluded it, then all extant transclusions should be substituted before any changes are made, so as not to violate WP:TPO. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one area where we should not be changing anyone's preferences. If users have the right to choose, we respect their choices however they wish to express it. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, precisely, if a user chooses a gender we don't recognize we should be respectful of that personal choice and not force the binary terms on them. Glad you agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Ivanvector; we should not be rewriting past conversations or changing anyone's choices no matter how much we disagree. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority (99+%) of people do fit into a gender binary (they don't identify outside of male or female), and some of them may consider "they" to be misgendering; we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS based on personal views. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- RGW is only applicable to mainspace and/or content namespaces; additionally, attempting to use an argumentum ad populum to dismiss the argument that he or she is trans-exclusionary is fallacious in itself. A template solely used in userspace to refer to users must be inclusive towards all users, not just 99%. If going solely by IAR, this template should have been instantly deleted owing to that. I'm struggling to believe that this even needs to be debated. Casspedia (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the rather large amount of (rather polarised) debate, it would appear that it actually does need to be debated. I'm even wondering if there's going to be an RfC for this at some point. Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- RGW is only applicable to mainspace and/or content namespaces; additionally, attempting to use an argumentum ad populum to dismiss the argument that he or she is trans-exclusionary is fallacious in itself. A template solely used in userspace to refer to users must be inclusive towards all users, not just 99%. If going solely by IAR, this template should have been instantly deleted owing to that. I'm struggling to believe that this even needs to be debated. Casspedia (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, not rewriting past discussions is a valid point. Adding an addendum to my !vote: For the 10 transclusions of this template in the talk namespace, subst and delete instead of merging. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as per nomination. Alternatively, delete and redirect to Template:Pronoun, Template:They, or whichever is deemed to be most appropriate. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hybrid alternate proposal: - there's a proposal above to convert all of these templates to wrappers to {{gender}}, which is a good idea for streamlining, but that template does not support "he or she" constructions so the proposal would still change the content of 12 years of conversations. I suggest wrapping all of the "he or she" templates to {{pronoun}}, and all the others to {{gender}}. That way the two versions of the pronoun templates (the gender-binary "he or she" set and the gender-inclusive singular they set) are both streamlined, and if a proper subsequent discussion determines that the gender-binary templates should be retired, it will be simple to subst-and-remove them. Also, should more options be added to the software in the future, there will only be one template that needs updating. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure when or how it became acceptable to treat others poorly here, I see WP:CIV is still policy, and that WP:NPA is still a thing. But just to throw it out there, consider this from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center - Gender Pronouns - What are some commonly used pronouns?:
Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals.
And there's more. "He or she" was borderline a decade ago, in this day and age it should be a no-brainer that it's unacceptable. Grammar wonks don't get to use their disdain for singular they as an excuse to marginalize or mistreat people. In article text? Sure, let's discuss it. When communicating respectfully with other editors on talk pages? Absolutely not up for debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- As an opposing point, this suggests to use "he or she", and to
not use "their" as an alternative to his or her
, but recommends rewriting the sentence to avoid these constructions if possible (which is in line with my view). It's not anoffensive slur
, and I consider it perfectly fine to use (though unwieldy). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- ... *sigh* are you seriously using a style guide for writing as an "opposing viewpoint" on how to deal with LGBTQ issues? A page that was published in 1994 (making it nearly thirty years old)? We're talking about dealing with other editors, not article content as I noted in my !vote above. Please stop being this tone deaf. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- As an opposing point, this suggests to use "he or she", and to
- Keep I can kind of see where this is coming from, but this would result in altering the context of previous conversions which is generally considered unacceptable. If a person said "he or she", they intended to say that regardless if you agree with the underlying implications of that phrase. 78.152.252.48 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} uses in discussions to avoid changing the text of past discussions, merge other uses per nom. The purpose of these template is to automatically use the pronouns that a user has configured in their preferences, with the option that {{he or she}} produces "he or she" for reading
Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions")
. However, "he or she" is not gender-neutral (as it only includes those who use he/him or she/her pronouns) meaning that {{he or she}} template does not fufill its purpose ({{he/she}} has the same issues). In contrast, {{they}} produces "they" (which is gender-neutral) for this case and can therefore be used instead. GreenComputer (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC) - Merge all with Template:Pronoun: Second choice is to redirect {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} to {{they}} and convert {{they}} to a wrapper of {{pronoun}}. JJPMaster 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with one that gives they when user hasn't specified that their pronouns are he/him or she/her. This is partially to show respect to people who may use they/them because we want to have a collaborative community, and it helps to be nice to each other. It is also partially because singular usage of they is grammatically-appropriate English, and a lot simpler syntactically than having a conjunction. I slightly prefer that they don't merge into {{gender}} or {{pronoun}} because those assume the editor knows a fair amount about sentence structures and grammar. It'd be an unnecessary barrier to usage. I do like JPPMaster's suggestion a lot as a work-around. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Gender unclear
- Template:Gender unclear (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Wikipedia articles with unclear gender (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)
Template appears unused and seemingly encourages non-compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language. The template discourages gender-neutral language and implies it should be removed. It also does not acknowledge that subjects may use neutral pronouns such as they, which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity would dictate editors use. Refer to template talk page for prior discussion. ExoticViolet (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Unused. ExoticViolet, if you want the category to be deleted. It goes under a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The instructions at WP:TFDHOW under Related categories explains
If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add [the Catfd template] after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale...
. The corresponding Category:Wikipedia articles with unclear gender category is exclusively populated by this template. Could you confirm whether it still needs a separate discussion? ExoticViolet ( talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)- The category does not need a separate discussion, as it will be speedy deleted as G8 if the template is deleted. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The instructions at WP:TFDHOW under Related categories explains
- Delete A subject's gender being unspecified is seemingly very rare and this template only focuses on he/him and she/her - per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language rightly means that this template should not be used on subjects which have no gender (ships, countries, trees, etc). It does not preclude the use of gender-specific pronouns on subjects which do have gender; chiefly people. The template should be updated to include "them/ they" style pronouns; this is not a deletion issue. The lack of current use is normal for a cleanup template, whose use on any given article should always be transient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of current use is not inherently an issue, yes. It is not clear to me that this template sees any regular use, transient or otherwise. In either case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language encourages us to prefer gender neutral language when it is clear and precise. In the unlikely event where a human subject is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia, without any clear indication of their pronouns, it would seem appropriate to use gender neutral language to refer to them. Such use appears to be promoted in the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay. ExoticViolet ( talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the entire content of MoS#Gender-neutral language:
"Use gender-neutral language – avoiding the generic he and generic she, for example – where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges). References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit. Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns."
It says absolutely nothing about articles on people, which is where this template is intended to be used, and where gendered pronouns are the norm. Are you seriously suggesting that the MoS mandates that we should not refer to Elvis Presley as "he" or Kate Bush as "she"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the entire content of MoS#Gender-neutral language:
- Furthermore your misunderstanding of the purpose of this template - and an example of its use - has already been explained to you, by User:Genericusername57, when you raised the matter in April, at Template talk:Gender unclear#Appropriateness of template given MOS:GNL:
"The template is used for biographical articles where the person's gender is known, but not communicated clearly by the article, e.g., Li Shouxin (politician)..."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of current use is not inherently an issue, yes. It is not clear to me that this template sees any regular use, transient or otherwise. In either case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language encourages us to prefer gender neutral language when it is clear and precise. In the unlikely event where a human subject is notable enough to be written about on Wikipedia, without any clear indication of their pronouns, it would seem appropriate to use gender neutral language to refer to them. Such use appears to be promoted in the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay. ExoticViolet ( talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I was about to suggest updating the template to add they/them pronouns, but then I realized any subject with substantial, notable coverage will have their pronouns quite apparent, making this a very unusual, specific problem. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's not the case, as the Li Shouxin (politician) example, quoted above, illustrates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Li Shouxin (Q16239737) on Wikidata has sex or gender (P21): male (Q6581097). As a one-sentence stub article, there is no need to use pronouns. There may be a case where there actually is ambiguous gender of a notable person, but it is probably very rare. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- This template has nothing to do with the case where the gender of a person is "ambiguous"; it is for when the article on Wikipedia leaves their gender unclear. As does the article on Li (whose gender value on Wikidata is, incidentally, uncited). That is why it is called "Gender unclear and not "Gender ambiguous", and why its content says "The gender of this article's subject is not apparent", and not "The gender of this article's subject is ambiguous". Your assertion that "there is no need to use pronouns" simply because the article is a short stub is baseless; indeed, the stub template on that article, like on all stubs, says "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Li Shouxin (Q16239737) on Wikidata has sex or gender (P21): male (Q6581097). As a one-sentence stub article, there is no need to use pronouns. There may be a case where there actually is ambiguous gender of a notable person, but it is probably very rare. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's not the case, as the Li Shouxin (politician) example, quoted above, illustrates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is partisan canvassing for this discussion, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I posted a similar request for input to the template author ( your) talk page, that of all recent (past ~12mo) editors ( 1) of the template, that of participants ( 2, 3) in the erroneous RFC discussion, as well as to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Notifying interested editors and projects whose scope the Template for Discussion falls in, is best practice per the TfD guidelines not canvassing. ExoticViolet ( talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notifying interested editors is indeed permissible, but I didn't simply say you were canvassing, I said there was partisan canvassing in a comment where you made the assertion that the template in question is "claimed to embody a bias against people of certain genders". Such partisan canvassing is expressly deprecated, bby the very guidelines you cite . Your response was to post a long and accusatory screed on my talk page falsely accusing me, in pointing this out, of making a personal attack. You also falsely accused me of making the claim of without evidence, despite me having linked to the section where you did so (and which I now quote). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I posted a similar request for input to the template author ( your) talk page, that of all recent (past ~12mo) editors ( 1) of the template, that of participants ( 2, 3) in the erroneous RFC discussion, as well as to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Notifying interested editors and projects whose scope the Template for Discussion falls in, is best practice per the TfD guidelines not canvassing. ExoticViolet ( talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for the simple reason that this isn't an issue. In the unlikely event that there's enough RS to write a bio on someone but the RS don't establish their gender, then the article should match that. If a cited RS establishes the gender but the article for some reason doesn't reflect that, WP:SOFIXIT. And if the cited RS don't establish gender but there's an RS somewhere out there that would, well, SOFIXIT still applies to an extent ("SOFINDIT"), but also, I'm not sure it really harms the encyclopedia to fail to note someone's gender, any more than it's an issue to not note someone's ethnicity, religion, etc., outside of maybe a few specific contexts like athletics... But I can't imagine a situation where the RS wouldn't note gender for someone in a gender-segregated field. (Note: I only became aware of this discussion because I have Andy's talk page watchlisted. (I auto-watch all pages that I edit.)) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary, largely per Tamzin above. When might this template be used? Here are the scenarios I can think of:
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is not reported in reliable sources. That's okay! Per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID, we refer to people using gendered words only if they reflect their gender identity/identification as reported in recent reliable sources. If it isn't reported, it follows that we should not refer to people using gendered words, i.e. should not do what this template suggests. Instead, we should use the singular they, a gender-neutral pronoun.
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported ambiguously in reliable sources. Incidentally, this happened with Tillie Kottmann, an article I created. The article ended up using the pronoun they even though Kottmann also uses she, it, and fae pronouns, and some reliable sources that are older and/or not in English use the pronoun he, because the newest reliable sources at the time of creation generally referred to them with they/them pronouns; this continues to be the case. That's because of the MOS guidelines mentioned in the previous bullet point as well as a general desire to avoid unnecessarily using multiple pronouns for one person in one article for the reader's sake. I see no use-case for this vague cleanup template in rare cases where gender is reported ambiguously, because either it's clear what gendered terms follow the MOS guidelines (WP:SOFIXIT if they aren't the ones being used already) or it isn't, in which case an editor should not do what this template suggests, instead defaulting to they/them pronouns per the previous bullet and intentionally leaving the subject's gender ambiguous because doing otherwise would be original research in addition to violating the relevant MOS guidelines.
- The gender of the subject of a Wikipedia article is reported clearly in reliable sources, but the terms used in the article are wrong or unnecessarily ambiguous. I would imagine that this is rarely the case, but assuming it's something that happens or has happened, this template still should not be used. That's because in this situation the problem is not ambiguity but incorrectness. Replacing mixed usage of they and he by only using one or the other solves ambiguity, but it doesn't solve the problem if the subject of the article is Michael Spivak, for example.
Wow, that got longer than I expected. Q.E.D., I guess. For disclosure, I came to this discussion from the article Anti-Defamation League via Pigsonthewing's talk page, but did not intend to hound that user, I clicked on the discussion because it looked interesting and am participating because it is. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 05:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your imagined scenarios are incomplete; and most assume that the issue relates to lack of clarity about gender in sources. This template was created for use-cases where the subject's gender is or may be unambiguous and determinable from reliable sources, but is not included in Wikipedia. Consider, for instance: The subject's gender is not specified in the article; sources are behind a paywall or ...sources are in a language other than English. See also the Li Shouxin, example given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I considered these possibilities, but that's where I come back to my question of "Why does it matter?" It doesn't matter to our readers; you can write a perfectly good article without ever noting someone's gender. Like I said, an article is no more incomplete without gender than it is without religion, ethnicity, etc. All useful to know, but far from critical. Gender is only relevant because we write in a (somewhat) gendered language. We want to avoid editors using gendered pronouns on someone whose gender is not immediately apparent. But we usually don't use amboxes just to keep editors from making bad edits. Instead we use hidden-text notes, editnotices, etc. And if it's about getting attention about the need for one specific bit of information, I don't see why gender should trump all the other things one might want someone to dig through paywalled/non-English sources for. Instead one can just use talk, or ask at a relevant projectspace page, same as with any other query. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- If gender is unambiguous in the most recent reliable sources but the article uses ambiguous gendered terms, the problem isn't ambiguity but rather incorrectness per MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID. If gender is ambiguous or not reported in reliable sources, the article subject's gender should be left ambiguous through the use of non-gendered terms per the same guidelines. That's why I'm arguing for deletion; in addition to Tamzin's explanation above, which I agree with, I just don't see how this template would be useful guidance to editors in either case. (Wow, I could've just written that in my !vote, it would've been much shorter!) ezlevtlk
ctrbs 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your imagined scenarios are incomplete; and most assume that the issue relates to lack of clarity about gender in sources. This template was created for use-cases where the subject's gender is or may be unambiguous and determinable from reliable sources, but is not included in Wikipedia. Consider, for instance: The subject's gender is not specified in the article; sources are behind a paywall or ...sources are in a language other than English. See also the Li Shouxin, example given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep we have the article Non-binary gender which discusses this, and we have the ever expanding List of people with non-binary gender identities that suggest that there is a use for this template. The idea that this isn't an issue is woefully out of touch with reality. As far as "unnecessary", well nothing on wiki is necessary, with the possible exception of the WP:5P. I think we'll have a greater and greater need for such a template as we progress. — Ched (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ched: Can you explain how you see this tying in to articles on nonbinary people? That seems to be the opposite of the contexts that have been discussed so far. If someone is established to be nonbinary, then their gender is clear. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how nonbinary is "clear" with regards to gender, but if you're content with that proclomation, that's fine. You may want to read Gender for clarification of my views, but I'm not here for any "did too .. did not" discussion. To each their own. — Ched ( talk) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Nonbinary" is a broad category, sure. But whatever nonbinary identity someone has said they have (even if it's as broad as just "nonbinary"), then that's not unclear. I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your response, and I'm still not entirely clear on what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- When the article content is of the form (and no more than) "Li Shouxin (Chinese: 李守信; pinyin: Li Shǒuxìn, born October 1954 in Hejian) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as party secretary of Shandong University since October 2011". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is Li nonbinary? My question to Ched is specifically how they see this template being used in the context of someone who is known to be nonbinary. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did I say Li is nonbinary? I said (emphasis added)
"When the article content is of the form...
. Your question was about the circumstance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- My question was as to
what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person.
(emphasis added). I understand the use case you describe with articles like Li's. I'm saying that I don't understand the use case that Ched is envisioning here with articles about nonbinary people. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes; that was your question; and my answer to that question was that it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person, in the circumstance that the biography of that nonbinary person is of the form of the example that I gave. I really don't see why you can't accept that I answered your question even if you don't agree with my answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because you didn't answer my question. I understand that your use case for an article like Li's works if Li is nonbinary, just as well as if they're binary male or binary female. But Ched seems to envision a usage of this template that is specifically for nonbinary people. That's what I'm asking about. I didn't expect you to have an answer to this; their comment doesn't seem to have much to do with the rationale you've put forward for keeping. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes; that was your question; and my answer to that question was that it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person, in the circumstance that the biography of that nonbinary person is of the form of the example that I gave. I really don't see why you can't accept that I answered your question even if you don't agree with my answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- My question was as to
- Did I say Li is nonbinary? I said (emphasis added)
- Is Li nonbinary? My question to Ched is specifically how they see this template being used in the context of someone who is known to be nonbinary. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- When the article content is of the form (and no more than) "Li Shouxin (Chinese: 李守信; pinyin: Li Shǒuxìn, born October 1954 in Hejian) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as party secretary of Shandong University since October 2011". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Nonbinary" is a broad category, sure. But whatever nonbinary identity someone has said they have (even if it's as broad as just "nonbinary"), then that's not unclear. I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your response, and I'm still not entirely clear on what circumstance you think it would make sense to use this template on the biography of a nonbinary person. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure how nonbinary is "clear" with regards to gender, but if you're content with that proclomation, that's fine. You may want to read Gender for clarification of my views, but I'm not here for any "did too .. did not" discussion. To each their own. — Ched ( talk) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ched: Can you explain how you see this tying in to articles on nonbinary people? That seems to be the opposite of the contexts that have been discussed so far. If someone is established to be nonbinary, then their gender is clear. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 18:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep To the extent the template needs some additions to encompass people who are nonbinary or do not want to provide a gender identity, that becomes a WP:SOFIXIT issue. The purpose of a template like this is to identify those biographies where there has not been any identification made. As such, it is a useful tool to identify articles that need additional reliable sources and expansion to present a complete picture of the individual discussed in the article. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep; SOFIXIT applies to the alleged problems with the template. The claim that the template is not necessary because editors should just "fix" the problem it identifies applies to literally any problem template; we aren't deprecating those, so it doesn't apply here. The claim that it's totally okay for an article to be ambiguous about someone's gender is personal opinion with which many others (including myself) and many readers would disagree. Gender (and sex) hugely impact one's opportunities, experiences in the world, and the meaning of one's accomplishments (think of the concern over the relative lack of women editors or about the first woman to do whatever). Gender and sex are major characteristics of the vast majority of people, and an article that avoids that topic is simply poorly written and should be fixed (or tagged for someone else to fix). Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Tamzin and Ezlev. GreenComputer (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Indic script needed
- Template:Indic script needed (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a deprecated maintenance template requesting indic script to be added to the lead. Per this 2011 RfC indic script shouldn't be used in this way however. It's been blanked since 2012 and currently does nothing. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also open to other outcomes here. {{ Script needed}} exist and perhaps it's warranted to keep this template as well, consensus can change after all. Even in that case I think the current ancient uses should be removed or at least checked to be appropriate. In my small sample a lot of the articles already had indic script in the infobox. -- Trialpears ( talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Much of the India-related articles here on the English Wikipedia use either a romanized version of Hindi or Indian English. The template calling for Indic script to be added could mean hundreds of languages. For example, there is already an Arabic script needed and a Hebrew script needed templates. Those are specific templates for a specific purpose. This template is too broad for a specific purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete because it's superfluous. {{Script needed}} performs the same function. From experience at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss, it's frequently difficult to figure out anything about what the script would be (even down to the still vague level of "indic"), and to then track down the right template. This would only be useful in the instance that someone: figures out that it's indic; doesn't figure out anything more specific; manages to find this template; and doesn't find {{Script needed}} or something similar. It is preferable to have fewer and more versatile templates to remember. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Defunct minor league baseball team roster deletion
- Template:Lancaster JetHawks roster (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Jackson Generals roster (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
{{Hagerstown Suns roster}}{{Charlotte Stone Crabs roster}}
Minor League Baseball underwent a significant reorganization in 2020-2021. Some teams have suspended operations and will not play in 2021. The rosters are therefore either outdated or contain TBDs that will never be replaced. Therefore they should be deleted. Mustangeagle (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all Hagerstown and Charlotte are defunct. Lancaster is still looking to return to pro baseball. Jackson is tentatively planning to start up its own league in 2022. If either Lancaster or Jackson resume play, the templates can be recreated. Otherwise, there's no need in keeping rosters for teams that don't have rosters of players. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't delete Jackson Generals. The stadium is open for 2021 and being used not by the Generals but by the displaced Winnipeg Goldeyes, but the people running it intend to, and are working on, getting a AA team again for the 2022 season to play as the Generals. 2600:1004:B120:85E5:1940:3733:EFEF:B65A (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all including the Jackson Generals. The team for now is defunct. There is no definitive answer if the Generals are coming back. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Str crop
- Template:Str crop (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Barely used (~300 transclusions) and redundant to {{#invoke:String|sub}}/{{str sub}}/{{#invoke:ustring|sub}} etc. Also the name is unclear, there is no reason to expect "{{str crop|12345678|2}}" to produce 123456 versus 3456 or 12 etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep part of a suite of templates. No valid reason to delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- That suite of templates is all redundant to {{ #invoke:String|sub}}, and redundancy is a valid reason to delete. I’m never going to TfD e.g. {{ str left}} because it’s so widely used and is perfectly clear in its meaning, but we don’t need to keep the whole suite of templates. The fragmented nature of that suite encourages unreadable code like
{{str crop|{{str right|{{{x}}}|y}}|z}}
rather than more sensible{{#invoke:string|sub|{{{x}}}|y|-z}}
etc. User:GKFXtalk 15:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- That suite of templates is all redundant to {{ #invoke:String|sub}}, and redundancy is a valid reason to delete. I’m never going to TfD e.g. {{ str left}} because it’s so widely used and is perfectly clear in its meaning, but we don’t need to keep the whole suite of templates. The fragmented nature of that suite encourages unreadable code like
Template:Astro price table
- Template:Astro price table (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused template, and seems like it's intended to create price catalogues against WP:NOTCATALOG. User:GKFXtalk 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - one usage is in an old sandbox, where it is said that the template didn't work out and was abandoned. This is evidently an old experiment that failed. Hog Farm Talk 15:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete A bunch of error codes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Namespace detect showall/test1
- Template:Namespace detect showall/test1 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
No need to keep a test like this around as a separate template. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The most pointless. Not even a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment it isn't a separate template, it is a template subpage. It is a subpage of {{Namespace detect showall}} -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right. I meant that's it's not a template because all it says is "template". Regardless of subpage or not. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not useful, the testcases are at {{Namespace detect showall/testcases}} --- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
May 28
Template:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory
- Template:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Appears to be based largely on original research. Or maybe we all really believe it is perfectly legal to rape animals in, for example, New Mexico and West Virginia? This entire content area seems to suffer from OR by people who may have more than just a casual interest in the topic. This may technically qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G5 as the creating user is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but the details are unclear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Too much OR. Exactly the same issue as the mainspace article. Beeblebrox, will this page be deleted as well if the template is deleted? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it will. See WP:CSD#G8 * Pppery *it has begun... 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very well, my delete vote still stands. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 03:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unsourced. If anything, there are 24 other templates on Animal rights by country or territory that need scrutiny, all with similar content and many of then unsourced: –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{World laws pertaining to animal sentience}}
- {{World laws on animal cruelty}}
- {{Animal rights at the UN}}
- {{World laws on battery cages}}
- {{World laws on beak trimming}}
- {{World laws on killing cats for consumption}}
- {{World laws on killing cattle for consumption}}
- {{World laws on chick culling}}
- {{World laws on killing dogs for consumption}}
- {{World laws on foie gras production}}
- {{World laws on killing horses for consumption}}
- {{World laws on shark fishing}}
- {{World laws on stunning animals during ritual slaughter}}
- {{Legal status of whaling}}
- {{World laws on killing animals for fur}}
- {{World laws on cosmetic animal testing}}
- {{World bullfighting bans}}
- {{World laws on cockfighting}}
- {{World laws on dog fighting}}
- {{World dolphinarium bans}}
- {{World circus bans}}
- {{World laws on goose pulling}}
- {{Legality of primate use in scientific research}}
- Delete per nom and per WP:OR. And yes, that topic area could use scrutiny. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this isn't original research, nor does it appear inaccurate, even if the sources aren't actually cited. According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, zoophilia is indeed legal in New Mexico and West Virginia. (Laws against the sexual assault of animals) This might need a giant [citation needed] tag, but deletion? No. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a work of fiction, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legality of bestiality by country or territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Under 13 Australian Championships
- Template:Under 13 Australian Championships (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Only linked to one article which is redirected to the mainspace article. The rest of the article is red links which only link to the template. The mainspace article is also under question for notability and concerns over self-published sources. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete provides no useful navigation. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
May 27
Template:Under 15 Regionalliga Süd
- Template:Under 15 Regionalliga Süd (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
I fail to see the point of this template. Under-15 football is nowhere near a relevant part of the football world. Geschichte (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, overkill, just links between parent clubs, no need for it. GiantSnowman 13:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Geschichte, will you nominate the two other Under-15 templates as well, Template:Under 15 Bayernliga Nord and Template:Under 15 Bayernliga Süd? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Template isn't all that useful. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-thumb2
- Template:Uw-thumb2 (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Using thumbnailed images in an infobox isn't really the kind of behavior that would escalate to a block. I think you would be rightly laughed out of WP:AIV for being an anal SOB if you considered that to be misbehavior worthy of an administrator's time. See previous discussions 2016 November 22#Template:Uw-thumb4 and Template:Uw-thumb3 and Template:Uw-thumb2 Schierbecker (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment UW-THUMB2 is also incompatible with {{uw-thumb}} which is not a template warning about placing thumbnails in infoboxen, instead it's only about formatting of thumbnails -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- NOTE there also exists {{uw-thumb1}}, will you also be nominating that for deletion ? It can't stay where it is, as a level-1 warning with implied escalation available. Also it's confusing with the existence of {{uw-thumb}} a different and incompatible warning. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be a single-issue notice without escalation, so it should be moved and re-worded accordingly. Schierbecker (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The question is whether the correct approach isn't just to fix the infobox, and tell the editor "hey, I've fixed your infobox. Is that what you meant?" The templates imply that the editor who added the image or caption using the wrong syntax should go and fix it, while it is much easier for an experienced editor to fix it. — Kusma ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should be a single-issue notice without escalation, so it should be moved and re-worded accordingly. Schierbecker (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Level 1 and 2 of this template can be useful. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- For...? Schierbecker (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Template:Uw-thumb1 should be deleted as well. Both templates no longer fit their original intended purpose. I don't think a warning about thumbnails really makes any sense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, for this type of misunderstanding that is unlikely to be vandalism, you need to get the user to tell you what they want to do with their edit, not warn them about disruptive editing. And if you can tell that a user wants to add a caption and therefore uses the thumb syntax, you should not send them templated warnings, but just help them by adding the caption. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's a tracking category at Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images for this, if anybody feels like helping newbies learn infobox syntax :) — Kusma ( talk) 08:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
May 26
Template:Scotland-railway-routemap
- Template:Scotland-railway-routemap (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and obsolete. Function replaced by {{UK-railway-routemap|cat=Scotland}}
. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Elements.css
- Template:Elements.css (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This template displays a link to elements.css. Elements.css was replaced by elements.less in March. This template is only used in a handful of places anyway, and it's now obsolete. Where it is used now, it could be easily replaced with {{MediaWiki source|mediawiki.skinning/elements.less}}
—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Obsolete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Qonja
- Template:Qonja (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Transcluded only in Lets Celebrate, not even the artist here has an article. Including a number of related articles doesn't make this necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Template has mostly italicized text and the "Let's Celebrate" article is not even linked to the template. And the mainspace subject, Qonja, doesn't have an article, therefore lacks notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - in agreement with the nominator, not even the artist has an article. versacespaceleave a message! 22:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Old discussions
May 25
Template:RegionalAccreditors
- Template:RegionalAccreditors (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a defunct categorization; the U.S. Department of Education has eliminated the distinction between "regional" and "national" accreditors and now refers to them only as "institutional" accreditors. (A case could be made for creating a new "institutional accreditors" template and redirecting this template to it.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional Support: Only if a new institutional accreditors template with redirect created. These are important organizations to the U.S. educational system and I think that warrants a new navbox. Given the growing trend in corporate HR departments to re-evaluate the true necessity of four-year degrees, accreditation is part of the story of how such degrees are supposedly quality assured, so there is a
probably aneed for greater common knowledge about these types of organizations and which ones are considered legitimate. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CommonKnowledgeCreator: How is this: Template:Postsecondary Institutional Accreditors in the United States? ElKevbo ( talk) 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ElKevbo: Excellent! Don't love all the red-links but, hey, that's our battle as Wikipedians. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CommonKnowledgeCreator: How is this: Template:Postsecondary Institutional Accreditors in the United States? ElKevbo ( talk) 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
May 24
Template:Constlk
- Template:Constlk (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Constituency link (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a simple template, used to create links to constituencies of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. It is transcluded on about 300 pages.
Every constituency article uses a standard disambiguator "(UK Parliament constituency)"
, so the template just adds the dab and pipes the link:
e.g. {{Constlk|Moray}}
→ Moray
These article titles have been stable since 2006, so there is no need to keep them wrapped in a template. All current uses should be substed, which in the example above will expand {{Constlk|Moray}}
to [[Moray (UK Parliament constituency)|Moray]]
I have no strong view on whether the template should be kept, or tagged as always-substitute. It is not widely used, but if somebody finds it useful then it seem to me to be a bit of tossup whether to keep it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (Preceding two sentences struck because discussion revealed how the ambiguity of these titles can be resolved only by destroying the brevity which is their raison d'etre. I now see no alternative to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC))
- Note: I have just found Template:Constituency link, and added it to this nomination. It offers identical functionality, but was created in 2006. It is used in only 11 articles. Its slightly more verbose name has the same problem of massive ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment if kept it needs to be renamed, since the UK is not the only country in the world. rename to {{UKconstlk}}, replace all instances, and delete the current name. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very good point, but {{UKconstlk}} is insufficient disambiguation. Within the United Kingdom, there have been in the last 100 years constituencies for at least eight different parliamentary chambers or Assemblies:
- The House of Commons of the United Kingdom, at Westminster
- The House of Commons of Northern Ireland, at Stormont 1921–1973
- The House of Commons of Southern Ireland, in Dublin 1921–1922
- The Scottish Parliament, in Edinburgh 1999–present
- The Senedd, in Cardiff 1999–present
- The European Parliament, 1979–2020
- The Northern Ireland Assembly, 1973–1974, 1982–1986, and 1999–present
- The London Assembly, 2000–present
- This template serves only the first item on that list, i.e. House of Commons of the United Kingdom at Westminster ... but its massively ambiguous name could apply to any of them. So if kept, it should be renamed to unambiguously describe its actual function: Template:Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link or Template:House of Commons of the United Kingdom constituency link.
- However, the verbosity of an unambiguous title destroys the brevity which is the sole source of the convenience sought by its creator @ Charles Matthews. Since there is no way of squaring that circle, the remedy is deletion. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, the creation of the template dates from 2013, and as far as I know none of the other corresponding templates has been set up. This is more like a pre-emptive strike, than a "very good point" (from an IP editor who has been here a week). Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, you're a clever man. So why does your reply raise the red herring of the comment being by an IP, but evade the problem I identified: that removing the ambiguity in the title creates verbosity which destroys the brevity that prompted you to create the template in the first place? -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the naming of the template, it could be {{ westconstlk}} (concise form) at need. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do I really need to point out how "west" is an ambiguous abbreviation, so {{ westconstlk}} remains ambiguous as well as deeply obscure? -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the naming of the template, it could be {{ westconstlk}} (concise form) at need. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, you're a clever man. So why does your reply raise the red herring of the comment being by an IP, but evade the problem I identified: that removing the ambiguity in the title creates verbosity which destroys the brevity that prompted you to create the template in the first place? -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, the creation of the template dates from 2013, and as far as I know none of the other corresponding templates has been set up. This is more like a pre-emptive strike, than a "very good point" (from an IP editor who has been here a week). Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I created it, indeed a simple template, as a time-saver. It saves me time. I saw it then, as now, as a legitimate use of the template system. It's just a macro. I would say "not broken don't fix". No case made so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, if it's just a macro, why not subst it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: As far as I know, the onus is on the proposer. If someone wants to make a bot job of replacing it, I don't care. In typical text like "MP for Lostwithiel, Bossiney and Camelford" using {{constlk}} is convenient and you'd not be making it more convenient, but less. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, I strongly disagree that an obscure and ambiguously-named template is more convenient for anyone other than the editor who uses it as a personal macro instead of simply pasting the dab from a clipboard manager. The effect of the usual piped link is clear is the page markup, which the template is not.
But thank you for not opposing substing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- See my comment that a fresh start to a deletion discussion would have been clarifying. But thank you for the strike-through. Adding {{Constituency link}} also identifies a redundancy, which is valuable also. I think you might have notified User:Adam37 about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- My metric here is my keystrokes. My time. My volunteer time. It is potentially useful for anyone who doesn't want to type "(UK Parliament constituency)" (28 keystrokes). You bring in other considerations. I rest my case. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, you would have fewer keystrokes if you used a clipboard manager, so deletion creates no burden on your time. However, an obscure and ambiguously-named template is a burden on other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, my workflow and use of technology is really my business rather than yours? Closing admin please note. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, you chose to make your workflow an issue in this discussion. Having made that choice, please have the civility to refrain from attacking me for responding to the flaws in your claims about your workflow. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, my workflow and use of technology is really my business rather than yours? Closing admin please note. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, you would have fewer keystrokes if you used a clipboard manager, so deletion creates no burden on your time. However, an obscure and ambiguously-named template is a burden on other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, I strongly disagree that an obscure and ambiguously-named template is more convenient for anyone other than the editor who uses it as a personal macro instead of simply pasting the dab from a clipboard manager. The effect of the usual piped link is clear is the page markup, which the template is not.
- I made my time an issue. I'm working on another wiki right now, having created s:Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1886/Wingfield-Baker, Richard Baker as one of a batch. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. You made your time an issue, so other editors are entitled to reply that your own personal ambiguous template is not needed to save your time, because alternative approaches are available which save you more time, and which avoid littering articles with your personal macro. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: BHG identified an issue with the naming of the template which is clearly an issue. Having ambiguous template names in article is always bad as it makes the editing of other editors harder as they now also need to investigate what it does. Having the title be clear makes it longer, which makes it less useful as a fast template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments: Nothing is clear. I have nominated this discussion at WP:CR because we'd do better with a fresh start.
- If the template is substituted, the disambiguation issue as formulated by Gonnym goes away.
- If 67.70.27.180 was unaware of that, which seems possible, my comment was scarcely irrelevant.
- If BHG says "But thank you for not opposing substing it", why does she also say "the remedy is deletion"?
- So far we have my keep vote. If this is a deletion discussion, can we please have a rationale based on WP:TFD#REASONS? Preferably on a fresh page.
- My attitude to subst is that "subst:" is six more keystrokes. wikt:half a loaf is better than none. It might be better to discuss that, than treat Charles to a tech interview 1990s-style based on a trick question. As the OP wrote "if somebody finds it useful then it seem to me to be a bit of tossup whether to keep it". Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews, in regard to your three numbered points:
- 1) and 2) Substing does not resolve the ambiguity problem. Substing current uses leaves us with the problem that the ambiguous name invites misuse.
- 3) I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you are being intentionally disingenuous when you write
If BHG says "But thank you for not opposing substing it", why does she also say "the remedy is deletion"?
. I thanked you for not opposing substitution because that is at least some improvement, by removing the existing uses. I still prefer deletion, because after replying to you I considered the IP's point about ambiguity, and I realised that resolving the ambiguity would destroy the brevity which is the template's raison d'etre. That made me shift my view away from the ambivalence about deletion which I had expressed in the nomination. My reasoning is clearly set out above in my comment of 09:24, 24 May, which you chose to ignore in favour of moaning that an IP had identified the ambiguity. It is particularly disingenuous of you to quote from a part of the nomination where my reasoning has explicitly been superseded due to do things I learned in discussion. I will now strike that part of the nom. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both Here's a reason based on WP:TFD#Reasons:
The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
. This template violates the template namespace guidelineTemplate function should be clear from the template name [...]
, and any altering of the template to be in compliance with that guideline (such as BrownHairedGirl's proposed move to {{Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link}}) would defeat the point of this template existing entirely. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- And why do you say that? I use Template:Person categories all the time as {{ l}} substituted. My point #1 was that subst would make that whole line of argument go away. I think you will have a bad time if you extend your reasoning to Template:HMS, another abbreviated "typing shortcut", by the way. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, that pointer to another ambiguously-named template is a classic "other crap exists" argument. It's the daft notion that one unfixed problem justifies not fixing every other similar problem. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It was also an illustration of where the logic leads. But since I anyway have no problem with having {{ constlk}} moved to {{ Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link}} leaving a redirect, could you tell me what your problem with that is? In terms of WP:TFD#Reasons. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, do I really need to explain to you that an ambiguously-titled redirect breaches WP:RFD#DELETE #2?
- Well, yes, you are clearly assuming the scope of that guideline extends to template space. A new one to me. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, your insistence on WP:TFD#Reasons is misplaced. That guidance explicitly says {{ Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here}}. So TFD will allow deletion on the basis of a consensus here that each of these templates cannot avoid being either 1) named ambiguously, or 2) so verbosely-named that its raison d'etre is destroyed. So far, that seems to be the emerging consensus, and if he closer determines that's the outcome, it is a valid reason to delete. — BrownHairedGirl 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
- Well, yes, but, but. You do need the rationale for the first point to delete the redirect, and I don't see that, and if the redirect has standing then the raison d'être is good in my view. That is simply for moving the template to a verbose name. Anyway we'd have a cleaner process if the template was moved, and then the deletion of the redirect could be at RfD.
- But the compromise has always been that substing is required. As you pointed out, it is not something I opposed, though it was in tension with the raison d'être. It does not undermine the raison d'être. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews: I do not presume to know your motives. But I do note that if your intention was to deploy an attrition strategy, then your repeated obfuscations and your desire to start a second discussion at another venue about your own personal macro would be an effective way of WP:Gaming the system. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- And I am very surprised that you are making such a stand on your personal macro when a simple alternative is available to you. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are many surprising things about this whole discussion, frankly. You could have had my view on {{ constlk}} for the asking. If you rely on consensus here, I hope there will be sounder process and logic than we have had so far. If you really think "ambiguous" template redirections are to be deprecated, across the board, that is a major can of worms in my view. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, the surprising aspects of this dicsusssion are your repeated obfuscations, evasions, and misrepresentations, and your nasty little effort to persuade the closer to draw adverse conclusions from the fact that I responded to your own decision to make your workflow an issue.
- Your comment hat
You could have had my view on {{constlk}} for the asking
is particularly bizarre. You have expressed views at great length here, and your implication that I erred in some way by bringing this straight to TFD is pure WP:OWNership. (Hint: it's not only your view that matters. See WP:Consensus.) -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- Good grief. WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL. Voting at 1 keep, 1 delete. Wikipedia:Third opinion or suchlike is indicated here. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, Charles, take responsibility for your actions. If you play those games then don't cry "uncivil" and "agf" when being called out on your misconduct. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good grief. WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL. Voting at 1 keep, 1 delete. Wikipedia:Third opinion or suchlike is indicated here. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are many surprising things about this whole discussion, frankly. You could have had my view on {{ constlk}} for the asking. If you rely on consensus here, I hope there will be sounder process and logic than we have had so far. If you really think "ambiguous" template redirections are to be deprecated, across the board, that is a major can of worms in my view. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, do I really need to explain to you that an ambiguously-titled redirect breaches WP:RFD#DELETE #2?
- Fair enough. It was also an illustration of where the logic leads. But since I anyway have no problem with having {{ constlk}} moved to {{ Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link}} leaving a redirect, could you tell me what your problem with that is? In terms of WP:TFD#Reasons. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Charles Matthews, that pointer to another ambiguously-named template is a classic "other crap exists" argument. It's the daft notion that one unfixed problem justifies not fixing every other similar problem. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- And why do you say that? I use Template:Person categories all the time as {{ l}} substituted. My point #1 was that subst would make that whole line of argument go away. I think you will have a bad time if you extend your reasoning to Template:HMS, another abbreviated "typing shortcut", by the way. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Allegations: alleging things does not make them true. I'm not impressed. I've answered you on canvassing on my User Talk. Charles Matthews ( talk) 03:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Charles, I am unimpressed by your canvassing, as well as by the rest of your misconduct here. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dudes, the Brown Haired Girl is going to be right here... She just is. And I can't and wouldn't disagree with her. A loose necktie (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: to offer a more peaceful solution for Charles Matthews, make the template a subst always template and move it to your user space. There you can name it whatever you like and still keep the functionality you want for editing. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be fine by me. A userspace template which is always substed avoids the problems identified above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fine with me as well, although I note that
{{User:Charles Matthews/x|Foo}}
(relying on User:AnomieBOT's TemplateSubster task to do the substing), is only two characters shorter thanFoo (UK Parliament constituency)|
(using the Pipe trick). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete having substed. Seems to have served its purpose of saving minutes of time in lists. And long enough. As an aside a totally unambiguous name is not needed; the argument C. Matthews makes about HMS is a great example; UK still has a very clear meaning next to constituency, a natural English-language meaning; only a strained lawyer looking for a loophole would reach for a lesser meaning. Branding the admitted snap and grab done by HMS as crap is disrespectful and rather a long-winded philosophy. Some reach for total disambiguation others realise that is a tired fantasy. Many long words themselves have many a fanciful meaning and become soon over-used and mis-used the sooner you bandy them about. Sorry for the obiter but it is a very strong belief on that score I hold. Simplicity & graphic fairness my law school would approve, linked acronyms too; total disambiguation no. I have small government, be-one-of-the-people beliefs. Orwell & Alice in Wonderland refers. It's for the better. Shorter.- Adam37 Talk 20:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep both, possibly rationalize and/or move with redirect. As Charles argued, this template is a useful shorthand for a very common disambiguator. I'm not saying substitution is inappropriate, but I would like to argue that it is unnecessary. Usually the main reason to delete shorthand templates is title ambiguity; in this case the title is ambiguous (what set of constituencies?) but nobody has suggested an alternative use for this template title. If Charles wants a shorthand template, he can have it. Deryck C. 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- For transparency, it would have been better if you had stated that you got a personal message from Charles Matthews regarding this discussion, which was not in a neutral tone. --Gonnym (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, here is the edit[2] in which Charles Matthews WP:CANVASSed Deryck Chan.
Deryck: on the substance, why on earth would you want to keep two template with identical functionality? There is not a single character of difference in their output.
As to ambiguity, the problem is not that the template title has an alternative use. The problem is that the title does not accurately describe the function of the template, which creates a risk of misuse. For example Almond Valley is a constituency in the UK, but it is not a UK Parliament constituency ... and a template whose title doesn't clarify the actual purpose is likely to be misused: see{{Constlk|Almond Valley}}
→ Almond Valley.
Consider also cases where two constituencies share the same name. For example, Alasdair Allan's constituency is Na h-Eileanan an Iar ... but while{{Constlk|Na h-Eileanan an Iar}}
creates a bluelink, it's the wrong bluelink: Na h-Eileanan an Iar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- I'm responding only to the substance of these two redirects - what has been said about canvassing has been said and I make no excuse. One template uses parameter {{{1}}} whereas the other uses {{{constituency}}}, hence my suggestion to "rationalize". As for ambiguity between different types of constituencies in the UK, this is no different from the point about possible shorthand ambiguity with constituencies in other countries. But no alternative use of the shorthand has been put forward so I don't see any pressing need to delete the shorthand. Deryck C. 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Deryck, why this focus on
no alternative use of the shorthand
? The problem is not some competing use for the title. The problem is that as I illustrated above, the ambiguity of the shorthand invites unintended misuse which will create errors such as{{Constlk|Almond Valley}}
→ Almond Valley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Deryck, why this focus on
- I'm responding only to the substance of these two redirects - what has been said about canvassing has been said and I make no excuse. One template uses parameter {{{1}}} whereas the other uses {{{constituency}}}, hence my suggestion to "rationalize". As for ambiguity between different types of constituencies in the UK, this is no different from the point about possible shorthand ambiguity with constituencies in other countries. But no alternative use of the shorthand has been put forward so I don't see any pressing need to delete the shorthand. Deryck C. 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I've read the conversation and tried finding a compromise but it seems this discussion needs a firm result. The template name is unclear and ambiguous, having it in article text is the worst possible outcome as other editors won't know what it does. Moving it to a new title which makes it clear is a possible outcome, but then that title is longer then just writing the actual title. Leaving a redirect is also something I oppose, as the IP pointed out, the UK isn't the only place in the world with a constituency and as BHG pointed out, moving it to a name with UK is also unhelpful as that can mean a number of different UK ones. --Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the middle part of your comment - I think the shorthand has value, but if we don't keep the shorthand then we should delete the whole lot, since there is no meaningful, unambiguous shorthand that is shorter than typing out the expanded wikitext with piping. Deryck C. 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deryck unless someone can identify such a meaningful, unambiguous shorthand (and get some sort of consensus that it really is both meaningful and unambiguous), then I think that discussion of it is a distraction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually there could perfectly well be a worldwide and all times {{electoral district link}} with two parameters, the second being the electoral district name. Make the first a number. Use as subst:edlk.Charles Matthews (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Charles Matthews: Apart from the obvious usability barrier of requiring editors to learn some numbering system (or even requiring them to learn the ISO country codes), the idea of global template is not viable because not all countries have a consistent naming system for constituencies/electoral districts. Also, any such system would be highly complex because it would need to include constituencies for sub-national parliaments (because there omission would be confusing), and also some sort of error-checking.
- The only countries that I am aware of for which en.wp has a consistent naming system are Ireland and the UK (there may be others, but I haven't spotted them). Canada does not always add a dab, and India uses a frustratingly wide variety of dabs.
- The complexity of any such system seems to me to completely disproportionate for the issue at hand. A quick search usually finds any extant constituency article very easily, and in the case of the parliaments+assemblies in the UK and Ireland, the standardised disambiguators remove the need for lookup.
- AFAICS, only one editor uses either of these templates, so I need to expand the coverage of a concept for which there appears to be only one customer. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Perhaps you do not understand that this would (a) remove the extensive discussion of disambiguation which is clouding the technical issue here, and (b) would constitute a single template that would be expandable at need, with the addition of a single line of code for each new class of electoral districts. In other words an incremental system. I commend it here because it would fold in constlk to get started, supplying model code. Use cases occur every time someone wants compile a list of electoral districts. Please reconsider. There is no need for anyone to learn any numerical code not relevant to their current needs, and the base template code would be the reference. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, Charles, perhaps you do not understand that using templates to add a disambiguator will work only if there is a consistent disambiguator ... which for most countries, there is not.
- Perhaps you also do not understand that since you are the only editor who has expressed a desire to use such a template, you are advocating the creation of a solution to a non-problem. Everyone else seems happy to just find the name of the constituency article in the same way as they would find the name of any other article. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there are many things that I do not understand about templates. If the problem is more complex, then complexity can be addressed from a baseline. Your form of answer suggests that there would be some further use cases on such a baseline.
- I was going to ask you, since you do emphasise the "personal" nature of {{ constlk}}, about the database work you did, before dubbing it my "personal macro". You helpfully said at the start that it is used on about 300 pages, and that is too many to go through by hand. Is this claim you make evidence-based? Has a query been run to detect other editors who may have added it?
- ..."the only editor who has expressed a desire to use such a template"? Is that a fair comment on the discussion so far? There has been comment on meeting the concision point within constraints. I offer a technical proposal.
- Look, and I was intending to put this elsewhere, we should distinguish the "X should die" aspects of what you are saying, which is a fairly common sort of argument that can become oppressive too easily, from the scope points, and the personalia. It is not a "non-problem" to find a concision-oriented template of a certain kind that satisfies desiderata brought up here. You don't like it - fine. Here we are at "Templates for discussion" having a discussion more complex perhaps than anticipated, and I have thought about WP:TFD#REASONS #1 "can't be altered". Well, can be altered. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Charles, I have done a lot of work on making templates, some of then very complex.
- On the basis of that experience, and on the basis of my knowledge of the naming conventions (or lack thereof), I have concluded that it is not possible to make the sort of wider template you suggest, and I have explained why.
- Sadly, you have chosen to dismiss all of that as a
don't like it
objection, and similarly to dismiss my points about the fundamental redundancy of a template whose sole function is to add the same few characters each time. When an editor offers detailed reasons for objecting, your dismissal of that asdon't like it
is at best a rude misrepresentation. Being as gentle as possible, your choice even now to dismiss my detailed evidence as "X should die" comes across as an unpleasantly aggressive attempt to deny the reality of what I have written. Your decision to describe this straw man as "oppressive" is a doubling-down on the denialism, and it is at best thoroughly uncollegial. - It's every easy for you to assert as a mantra
can be altered
. But that is nothing more than an unevidenced assertion, which entirely ignores all the ways in which I have shown that alteration causes problems of viability. In summary:- making a new name (even in shortened form) which is both meaningful unambiguous, reduces the character saving to such a tiny amount that the overheads of a template are unjustifiable
- turning it into a multi-purpose template would be complex, would be viable in only a few cases, and would not solve any actual problem of editors seeking or apparently needing such a template. That's an expensive solution in search of a problem.
- Making such an assertion in the face of the evidence is at best wishful thinking, and at worst an attempt to divert discussion away from the evidence.
- Finally, I call it your "personal macro" because all of the evidence available supports that:
- you yourself have described it as your macro
- nobody else at this TFD has expressed a desire to use it
- the editor who you canvassed to the discussion expressly based his support on solely on your use
if Charles wants a shorthand template
- The template has very low usage. There are 1,920 Westminster constituency articles, with a rough average of ~350 incoming links. That's about 670,000 links, of which only 328 use these templates. That 0.05% usage is evidence of very low demand.
- No, I am not going to run wikiblame on each of 318 pages to determine if anyone else has ever used it. And your desire for such detailed evidence comes across as an attempt to create an unreasonably expensive evidential test to deflect attention from the evidence of no expression of interest, and low usage. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- PS: here is data I sampled to estimate a very rough average of the backlink count for constituency articles: Na h-Eileanan an Iar: 566; Salisbury: 563; Arfon: 199; Redditch: 188; Truro: 346: Lancaster: 358; Huddersfield: 288; Islington North: 555; Preston: 608.
- From those numbers, I estimate 350 to be a very rough average of the number of backlinks per constituency article. If the dataset included all 1,920 constituency article, I think that the overall average would be in the range 300–400. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- My side of the story is on my User talk, for those who find it interesting. (tl;dr is pushback against prosecutorial rigmarole, but off-topic for this page.) The short version on "personal macro" is you decided it was a good stick with which to beat the template and me. More of said rigmarole. Oppressive. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I posted on the substance of deletion proposal, and Charles Matthews has yet again replied with absolutely nothing on the substance, just a bogus accusation of oppression. This diversion from substance to bogus claims of victimhood has been Charles Matthews's modus operandi throughout what should have been a fairly simple discussion.
- I came here to seek community consensus on a proposal to delete a template which I believe is at best pointless, and at worst mildly disruptive. Sadly, from the outset Charles Matthews took a WP:OWNership stance and a WP:BATTLEGROUND posture. That is demonstrated both in his failed procedural scams which I documented below [3], and in his statement here
a good stick with which to beat
: Charles has from the outset treated this deletion proposal as a personal attack on him and TFD as an inappropriate venue to discuss a template, and these two false premises are how he justifies his GAMEing and his bogus claims that providing evidenced reasons to delete a template is "oppressive". -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- My side of the story is on my User talk, for those who find it interesting. (tl;dr is pushback against prosecutorial rigmarole, but off-topic for this page.) The short version on "personal macro" is you decided it was a good stick with which to beat the template and me. More of said rigmarole. Oppressive. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually there could perfectly well be a worldwide and all times {{electoral district link}} with two parameters, the second being the electoral district name. Make the first a number. Use as subst:edlk.Charles Matthews (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deryck unless someone can identify such a meaningful, unambiguous shorthand (and get some sort of consensus that it really is both meaningful and unambiguous), then I think that discussion of it is a distraction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the middle part of your comment - I think the shorthand has value, but if we don't keep the shorthand then we should delete the whole lot, since there is no meaningful, unambiguous shorthand that is shorter than typing out the expanded wikitext with piping. Deryck C. 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- What about moving to Westminsterseat. The Redistribution of Seats Acts 1885 was good enough for Chartists and Reformers; it should be a good enough noun for us too. To hell with upper-class sophistry.- Adam37 Talk 19:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Adam37: that's the most terse abbreviation so far which isn't ambiguous. However, I am not so sure that it is meaningful to editors who are not politics wonks.
- Also,
{{subst:Westminsterseat|Foobar}}
is only 7 character shorter than{Foobar (UK Parliament constituency)|]]
. There seems little point in keeping a "shortcut" which is barely shorter than the full thing. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I have no opinion concerning the template in question (feel free to read that as "I don't care", really). But I will say, for a discussion which so far seems to boil down to "It's useful" / "It's not useful in name/usage", there seems to be a lot of heat with little light. In particular, the ad hominum attacks, and accusing others of malevolent motivations really needs to stop. Please discuss the content, not each other. If this continues, any uninvolved admin, may take preventative actions/apply sanctions to address the disruption. I believe you all care about this topic under discussion, just please do so civilly. - jc37 12:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note. Since deflections from substance have been raised, I note that there are at least 5 separate incidents in which Charles Matthews has unsuccessfully sought procedural ruses to derail this deletion discussion of a page which he created:
- 09:37, 24 May 2021[4]: Charles Matthews invites the closing admin to draw adverse inference from my comment on his workflow:
my workflow and use of technology is really my business rather than yours? Closing admin please note
. However, my comment[5] was a direct response to Charles Matthews's own decision to make his personal workflow the sole issue, at 09:09[09:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)]:My metric here is my keystrokes. My time. My volunteer time. It is potentially useful for anyone who doesn't want to type "(UK Parliament constituency)" (28 keystrokes). You bring in other considerations. I rest my case
. That's attempted procedural entrapment. - 10:07, 24 May 2021[6]: Charles Matthews makes a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests posted only 9 hours after the discussion opened.
The request was dismissed[7] by User:Pppery. - 17:05, 24 May 2021[8]: Charles Matthews makes an attempt to shift the discussion to RFD:
we'd have a cleaner process if the template was moved, and then the deletion of the redirect could be at RfD
- 17:05, 24 May 2021[9]: Charles Matthews objects to the deletion discussion taking place at TFD. He says that I should have made a personal request to him rather than seeking consensus at XFD:
You could have had my view on {{constlk}} for the asking. If you rely on consensus here
. Classic WP:OWNership, and apparent rejection of WP:Consensus. - 19:19, 24 May 2021[10]: in his fourth attempt to challenge the venue, Charles Matthews asks admin Deryck Chan to close the discussion and move it to MFD. Charles's request to Charles mentions his post at WP:CR, but does not disclose that the request at WP:CR had been rejected. Deryck Chan wisely declined the request to close or move venue.[11]
- However, Deryck Chan then unwisely decided to make a substantive contribution to the TFD discussion[12] in which Deryck did not disclose that he had revived a non-neutral notification. His comment was a clearly personal endorsement of Charles
If Charles wants a shorthand template, he can have it
.
Deryck later made what might be read as a kindof indirect apology for the not disclosing the canvassing[13]:what has been said about canvassing has been said and I make no excuse
.
In discussion on his talk, Charles Matthews claims to have been contacting Deryck solely in an admin capacity, but seems oblivious to the fact whatever either of them claims to have intended, the combined effect of his actions and Deryck's was the same as canvassing: Charles recruited a !vote.
- However, Deryck Chan then unwisely decided to make a substantive contribution to the TFD discussion[12] in which Deryck did not disclose that he had revived a non-neutral notification. His comment was a clearly personal endorsement of Charles
- 09:37, 24 May 2021[4]: Charles Matthews invites the closing admin to draw adverse inference from my comment on his workflow:
- Note to that on his talk, Charles Matthews has defended his various attempts to derail the consensus-forming process [14]:
Saying a TfD discussion should be somehow hermetically sealed by non-canvassing requirements is wonkery
. - I cannot recall ever seeing admin making such sustained and unrepentant efforts to WP:GAME the system as Charles has made here. Some of my responses along the way have been firm, but such sustained WP:GAMEing needs clear responses. And that's before I get onto all the rest of Charles's misrepresentations etc.
- Feel free to collapse the above, but it should be on record. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- If this is your response to what jc37 said ("In particular, the ad hominum attacks, and accusing others of malevolent motivations really needs to stop. Please discuss the content, not each other."), it should indeed be on the record and not be collapsed. — Kusma ( talk) 23:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kusma, it is my reply to jc37's comment
there seems to be a lot of heat with little light
. I documented how the heat has been created largely by an extraordinary series of attempted procedural scams. I hope that this scamming and disruption will stop. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kusma, it is my reply to jc37's comment
- If this is your response to what jc37 said ("In particular, the ad hominum attacks, and accusing others of malevolent motivations really needs to stop. Please discuss the content, not each other."), it should indeed be on the record and not be collapsed. — Kusma ( talk) 23:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)] this of any relevance or use to this discussion? doktorbwordsdeeds 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I encounter these types of shorthand templates often; they're an editor convenience and they do no harm. I do not understand how on earth so much drama resulted above from people who should know better. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mackensen: this one is:
- a minor covenience to the (apparently lone) editor who uses it to save typing a few characters
- an inconvenience to other editors who find it in markup, where its presence is less transparent than a direct link
- a trap for unwary editors who may misuse the template because of its ambiguous name
- I have documented above how this became a drama because the template's creator adopted a WP:OWNership stance and decided from outset to create drama. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- "(apparently lone)" hh hmm I exist! I would't have edited the template unless I quite liked using it at the time! I think if my workaround solution could be brought in then peace and concision would exist in total harmony.- Adam37Talk 20:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:TV Fool
- Template:TV Fool (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:TVQ (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Mvcg66b3r was removing both Templates from many Network affiliate articles, and I can see why, since TV Fool and TVQ are considered Inactive sites just like TV.com. Because of all this, and me removing the Templates too, both templates needs to automatically deleted by SporkBot on many Other Network affiliate articles that still has this template. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Feels more like a promotion for a website. But it also leads to a dead link which renders it useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- TVQ has a lot of transclusions that need manual replacement (it's been on the way out in external link sections generally because of the inclusion of infobox functionality that can link to the FCC LMS record). You can't switch from TVQ to FCC-LMS-Facility without adding the facility ID to the template syntax for each use, and we have a lot of translator lists still needing an overhaul for repack and for that changeover. It should be kept, but TV Fool should be deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: if the template should be deleted after the transclusions are replaced, then the WP:TFD/H is still the correct result. There are a lot of templates that need that treatment and when they are placed there it promotes other editors to help out. --Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the first, replace transclusions for the second then delete per Sammi Brie. Not sure if the replacement is 1-1 with another external link template, or if the replacement need to be in the infobox. Hopefully Sammi can shed more light on that. --Gonnym (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TV Fool, Speedy Keep TVQ: No idea why TVQ is even included. It's used in every TV station page on the site. Absolutely zero reason why TVQ should be removed since it has has a link to the station's FCC license. Are we being punked? Pinging Mlaffs, Bearcat, Tdl1060, Stereorock, and Rudy2alan (congrats on 31,000 edits, dude!). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the first, replace and delete the second: as Sammi Brie noted, there are a massive number of infoboxes that will need to be updated/transclusions of TVQ removed manually. Quite a chunk of work, but it makes sense given the FCC's move to LMS essentially makes the template results unreliable at best and increasingly useless overall. In my younger, highly-active days, I could probably have power-gnomed my way through it in a few days, but I'm not that man anymore and I'm okay with that. Will happily pitch in if that's the final call though. Mlaffs (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only. While it's true that we're moving away from TVQ due to changes at the FCC site that have led us to change how we link to those records, that process is not actually done yet — as of right now, TVQ is still directly in use on several hundred TV station articles, and thus can't be deleted until after the changeover is complete. If somebody wants to actively take on the task of getting that project done, then we can delete TVQ as a deprecated template — but as long as the project is still in progress, TVQ can't be deleted yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only per Bearcat.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete TVFool only per Sammi Brie and Bearcat. Template:TVQ can be considered for deletion after being replaced with something like Template:FCC-TV-Station-profile (also callsign based) or Template:FCC-LMS-Facility (which would require a change to using the facility ID). —50.53.23.14 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Many of the transclusions can't be replaced with the former because only full-service and Class A licenses have public files to link to. A lot of the uses of TVQ are translator lists, which also need updating for repack and other purposes, like KUTV#Translators. I have been doing these sporadically but there are some sources that need improvement and better data views needed to continue. TVQ isn't as bad as it once was (they started to have it pull data from LMS, finally — it used to be that for WWJE-DT it had the wrong owner, calls and other details completely), but there is some serious virtue in having the main query be facility ID-based. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: That is exactly why I added the "or" and the reference to the LMS linking template. One major benefit is that facility IDs never change but callsigns can and do change (albeit usually slowly). Another benefit is that facilities (included in LMS and CDBS, etc.) include more than just TV service stations, including stations for AM and FM radio, etc. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Many of the transclusions can't be replaced with the former because only full-service and Class A licenses have public files to link to. A lot of the uses of TVQ are translator lists, which also need updating for repack and other purposes, like KUTV#Translators. I have been doing these sporadically but there are some sources that need improvement and better data views needed to continue. TVQ isn't as bad as it once was (they started to have it pull data from LMS, finally — it used to be that for WWJE-DT it had the wrong owner, calls and other details completely), but there is some serious virtue in having the main query be facility ID-based. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Gonnym/Mlaffs. 1) I am skeptical that the second template needs keeping at all given that the infobox does similar work these days. Regardless, 2) a decision to delete it now without replacement does not mean it is removed exactly now at TFD. It will be added to TFDH as noted for someone to work on replacement with the appropriate other links or templates. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno: Sometimes a TV query is needed without an infobox — translators of other stations that don't deserve their own article or multi-station network pages (e.g. Kentucky Educational Television). Also, the infobox would need logic improvements to generate an LMS link but not a station profile link for stations with calls that end in -LD or -D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: Not to mention several others too like cancelled licenses (most of which have had their callsigns changed to start with "D"; these are almost never notable and likely have little to no place in Wikipedia, however). These still have articles and LMS data exists to document such. —50.53.23.14 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Izno: Sometimes a TV query is needed without an infobox — translators of other stations that don't deserve their own article or multi-station network pages (e.g. Kentucky Educational Television). Also, the infobox would need logic improvements to generate an LMS link but not a station profile link for stations with calls that end in -LD or -D. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment You can download a tsv file with the facility ids and callsign. This makes (semi)automatic replacement possible. I don't know if there are cases where {{TVQ}} still should be used but dealing with the vast majority of transclusions should be fairly simple. If all of them should be removed it should definitely be placed in the holding cell to make sure it isn't forgotten and to attract attention from template editors. --Trialpears (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
May 23
Template:Cites wikimedia
- Template:Cites wikimedia (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Unused and overly-specific cleanup template. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Can be very useful, its just that not many people use this template 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @LightningComplexFire: uh, no one is using this template. I don't think this is a common enough issue to merit its own cleanup template. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe it could be replaced with an inline cleanup template? I can't imagine an entire article relying on Wikimedia sources, but individual sources might need to be tagged. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jochem van Hees: we already have it and it's used a lot: {{ Circular reference}} – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah you're right, I didn't notice that one. Then I'd also say delete this one in favour of {{ Circular reference}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jochem van Hees (talk • contribs)
- @Jochem van Hees: we already have it and it's used a lot: {{ Circular reference}} – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused fork of the already existing {{Circular}}. In addition to Wikipedia, I've never ever seen any other Wikimedia project being cited, except for Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Circular needs a slight rewrite if we want it to apply to content from Wiki* directly. Right now it is documented as applying to external content citing Wiki* which we have referenced. Izno ( talk) 14:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
May 20
Template:Medical cases chart
- Template:Medical cases chart (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Only the wrapper template is being nominated for deletion, not the underlying module. This wrapper template tends to add about 300 kB to the post-expand include size of a page versus directly invoking Module:Medical cases chart, out of a hard limit of 2 MiB. (That value tested on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Switzerland medical cases chart but broadly similar everywhere.) That is one of the main reasons why so many COVID articles have been exceeding the PEIS limit.
Since this template is not intended to be used in article wikitext directly, a wrapper does not need to exist for ease of editing etc., and in fact it makes editing harder by introducing a mysterious error message that many editors will not have even been aware was possible. I already replaced a number of uses at the start of the month but we might was well remove the lot and turn this template into a soft (untranscludable) redirect to the module. User:GKFXtalk 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Will trust you on that. No objections if all current uses are appropriately converted. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is transcluded in 127 articles, none of which exceed the post-expand include size (the only mainspace page exceeding that limit at the time I write this comment is COVID-19 pandemic in Chile, which doesn't use this module at all). Additionally, many of the templates that use Module:Medical cases chart are single-use and should therefore be substituted and deleted (the purpose of the template namespace is to
store [...] Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages
per Wikipedia:Template namespace, and single-use templates fundamentally fail that purpose), whereupon there will cease being a post-expand-include-size disaster (since {{medical cases chart}} would add the same 300kb that the single-use template currently does). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)- Selection bias: the reason the pages currently using this template are OK is because I’ve initially focused on cleaning up those which were broken. I would rather remove a wrapper which does nothing except risk creating further problems. It is reasonable to keep large quantities of data in a separate page to avoid creating articles with unwieldy amounts of markup, and you would need to establish consensus before saying they should all be substed and deleted. User:GKFXtalk 10:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment instead of being deleted, it could be made non-functional by being a documentation point, hosting a navigation point to the module and documenting its use; thus allowing other editors to access the module units from more familiar template space landing point -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yep that sounds great, I proposed a "soft redirect" for that purpose but I’m flexible on how it gets implemented. User:GKFXtalk 15:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Straight delete. One module/template for purpose, not two. Given the insanity of these articles, that should be the module. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
May 18
Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose
- Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
There is zero consensus for establishing an overly-specific wording for how to write the aggregate score that Rotten Tomatoes has for a film. For a few years now, there has been an egregious cookie-cutter approach where only one or two editors go around constantly to update the scores and to overwrite the existing prose into their own version. This template is an extension of that flaw. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perharps before deleting this we should have an RfC and see if there can be consensus, either for this wording, some other wording, or no specific wording. —El Millo (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comments complaining about a "cookie cutter approach" suggest there is not even any consensus that consistency would be a good thing. -- 109.78.203.76 ( talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete that discussion doesn't need to happen before deletion; even if everyone is happy with one fixed wording for this - which we shouldn't be, forcing it one way can be awkward and generally only hatnotes are homogenous, why introduce a rule for phrasing something one way only for this - there is no need for a template to produce that wording. It's a single sentence, and not typing it out will confuse editors unfamiliar with the practice (whether they're wanting to edit it or not). Does anyone use it? What's the functional purpose? Kingsif (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Article text should not be stored in templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add that I still support deleting this even after the argument for keeping raised below, on the ground that that argument consists of fundamentally disagreeing with the merits of Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines point 1 without making any attempt to argue that rotten tomatoes is not normal, and is thus outside the scope of TfD. Furthermore, the suggestion about Wikidata would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, and it makes no sense to keep templates in order to make it easier to ignore consensus. * Pppery *it has begun... 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen enough templates with article text that I question how much consensus that line has. And the Wikidata RfC established (contentiously) that there is currently too much vandalism/other problems there for it to be used in certain ways. That's very different than establishing that it will never be used in that way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'll add that I still support deleting this even after the argument for keeping raised below, on the ground that that argument consists of fundamentally disagreeing with the merits of Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines point 1 without making any attempt to argue that rotten tomatoes is not normal, and is thus outside the scope of TfD. Furthermore, the suggestion about Wikidata would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, and it makes no sense to keep templates in order to make it easier to ignore consensus. * Pppery *it has begun... 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Stuff like that doesn't need to have its own template. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and others. Chompy Ace 10:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. It should be noted that Template:MC and Template:MC film also exist and serve the same function. Οἶδα (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the direction this discussion is going in is a mistake on several levels. First, the existence of this template does not force any particular wording, as its use is optional, so editors are free to ignore it. If particular editors are mass-editing to insert this template against consensus, that's a behavioral issue that should be addressed on its own terms (I'm not familiar enough with the situation to comment beyond that). Second, standardization is often good. Readers become accustomed to certain aspects of Wikipedia style over time, and when articles are similar, it makes it easier to navigate unfamiliar pages because they know what to look for. Third, templating allows for optimization. When a format is applied over hundreds of pages, it becomes worthwhile to refine small details like whether to use % or "percent" that probably would never have been considered at the level of an individual page. It's particularly advantageous for sensitive areas like critical reception, as it helps us remain neutral—when this template is at an article, it's unlikely to be changed to
Film did extremely well at Rotten Tomatoes, where critics gave it a very positive 68% fresh rating.
Fourth, removing the template would hamper future improvement efforts. To see what I mean here, look at the example of census data at WikiProject Cities: a long time ago, a bunch of census info was added to city pages, but because it was done via copy-and-paste, rather than templates, updating and improving it turned from a relatively straightforward task into an arduous saga. The same sort of thing could happen here. For instance, it's perfectly plausible that at some point Wikidata will be able to mass-import RT scores on a regular basis. If this template exists, plugging those in to the transclusions will be easy. If not, it'll be basically impossible. Deleting a template like this is pretty irreversible—you don't have to agree with me on all of the points above, but if any of them resonate, take a pause before rushing to delete this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- The template dictates prose, not just scores, which would be a separate argument if that was distinct from the presentation. We are not talking about {{ RT score}} templates inside sentences, which could be fine that way. However, there has never been a consensus on how to present Rotten Tomatoes prose, but a certain handful of editors keep overwriting others' versions with their own cookie-cutter non-neutral approach. This violates WP:OWN in forcing specific wording across multiple articles. It's impossible for others to be "free to ignore it" if we have lone wolves who are obsessively ready to perpetuate the wording they own everywhere. Do we even have other inline templates like this that control prose on such a massive scale? Why do you support WP:OWNership of how Wikipedia's text is presented? Erik ( talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is it really a "behavioral issue" if editors replace article text with an information-equivalent template that's widely used? I don't think you'd be very successful challenging those edits on a case-by-case basis. If someone feels strongly opposed to the edits, they'll get reverted, but the default is that they'll remain. Therefore if someone objects to seeing jarring cookie-cutter article text spreading across the wiki, then the place to make that argument is absolutely here, not on a case-by-case basis. In other words, your first point isn't so much a reason to keep as it is a possible policy if the consensus ends up being keep. .froth. ( talk)
- Keep per above and for future consistency. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. ภץאคгöร 10:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Zpierson01 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Pppery, or make this transclusionless by having it auto-substitute by bot. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I've never used the template, but I check out virtually every film I consider streaming, and as a reader I find the consistency of language very useful. -- Peter NYC (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- delete or make it subst only per above. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{subst only}}, otherwise delete. I think it's jarring and offputting to see formulaic use of the same article text in many places. If someone's willing to do the bot work, I suggest making the template subst only. Additionally, while out of scope here, I think it would be a good idea to gauge consensus for an informal policy similar to WP:MATH: "converting from a format to another one must be done with stronger reasons than editor preference." So no replacing existing article text with {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} unless it represents an actual improvement to the existing prose. .froth. (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for now as per the above points. Could switch to delete when there has been a proper discussion about repetitive text being stored in templates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)
- @Emir of Wikipedia: There has been a
proper discussion
; it's at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace/Archive 3#RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates?. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)- That was over half a decade ago and with less participants that this discussion. Maybe it is time for a new discussion. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Emir of Wikipedia: There has been a
- More info needed: How would this affect pages with the template? Even if they are changed to plain text with the exact 'cookie cutter' text, maintenence in the future may be harder. Some kind of conversion into wikidata may be desired. Despite the accusation of 'cookie cutter' text on wiki articles, I never found it distracting. There are only so many ways to describe the same event. I speculate that pushing on this point too hard will lead to questions of what cookie cutter text is okay/not okay. Similar articles in the same field tend to have similar wording in my experience. I would speculate that election results are similar for every election. To me, this is a 3-part question of "what cookie cutter text is okay across wikipedia", "what to do with Rotten Tomatoes info in film pages", and "whether or not to use a template (instead of an infobox or something else) if RT is desired". I feel the tone of the discussion thus far is too speedy given the thorniness and seeming lack of consensus on these separate questions. Anonymous-232 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Rotten Tomato scores are a useful part of film articles, and it makes sense to have a standard description explaining what Rotten Tomatoes is, and to have the scores presented in a standardised way. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Pppery. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or subst-only. Article text should be easy to edit. The use of a template obfuscates how to edit it and is unneeded. It is not important to have the exact same wording in every case, so long as the information is presented clearly. Editors of each individual article should decide what exact wording best flows with the article to accomplish that goal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I'm persuaded by the arguments put forth by Sdkb. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Sdkb and Uses x. Don Cuan (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Sdkb. — Labdajiwa (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
May 13
Template:Auto archiving notice
- Template:Auto archiving notice (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Talk header (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Auto archiving notice with Template:Talk header.
This nomination is part of an ongoing effort to consolidate and simplify talk page banners to combat banner blindness. Kudos are due to Aza24 and several others for helping prompt it. {{Auto archiving notice}} has existed since 2007, and it is a good candidate for merging (1) because it uses an entire banner to communicate what is really only one piece of important information, the auto-archiving period; and (2) because that piece of information would be fully appropriate in {{Talk header}}, so there is a ready merge destination. A mockup of what these would look like merged can be viewed here at the talk header testcases page. It's not fully functional yet, but the final implementation can be completed subsequent to this nomination. The new design highlights the period (e.g. "7 days") while moving other less important information (e.g. the bot doing the archiving) to the tooltip, where it can still be viewed by any editor who cares about the details or is unfamiliar with auto-archiving and wants to figure out what it is. Nearly all of the 9700 pages with the auto archiving banner already have a talk header, and for any remainder it should not be a problem to add it as all pages with auto-archiving have at least moderate traffic. Once completed, this merge will mark a solid step in our efforts to reduce the distracting clutter at the top of so many talk pages, helping draw editors' attention to the most important information instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support—when I see things like this, it becomes clear that it is too easy, and too often that we clutter the talk page to the point where important notices (arbitration, controversial etc.) are completely indiscernible. Here is a step in the right direction. This solution allows the notice to preserve the information, but minimizes any distracting or space-taking qualities. Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I don't have much to add other than that maybe there should also be
|archive_bot=
parameter to match the parameter of the {{Auto archiving notice}} template. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Support reasonable merge. No reason to have a separate banner for this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)On second thought, weak oppose. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)- Support makes things way simpler, plus the Talk header banner already has an archive index --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support {{Talk header}} will have to be added to a significant amount of talk pages but I don't see an issue with that. On the other hand there are many places where {{Archives}} is used to display the archive list and talk header would be redundant in that case. Would removal of {{Archives}} be the solution in those cases? --Trialpears (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hell no. Consider the use of {{ Archives}} and {{ Auto archiving notice}} on user talk pages, where {{ Talk header}} is unwanted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given that talk headers are the by-far de facto standard for active talk pages, I find it extremely unlikely that talk pages that warrant automatic archiving would not warrant a talk header. Aza24 ( talk) 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I second Aza24 in that pages which have automatic archiving almost certainly need Template:Talk header as well. I deliberately chose to use it on my user talk page. Frankly, I didn't know about Template:Auto archiving notice until this discussion, and it would be good for Template:Talk header to include this. Bibeyjj ( talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given that talk headers are the by-far de facto standard for active talk pages, I find it extremely unlikely that talk pages that warrant automatic archiving would not warrant a talk header. Aza24 ( talk) 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hell no. Consider the use of {{ Archives}} and {{ Auto archiving notice}} on user talk pages, where {{ Talk header}} is unwanted. Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose These have nothing to do with each other. Bad programming practice to have multiple unrelated functions in the same code. Also: the test cases indicate an error; an archive box is displaying when there are no archives. Remove the archive box from the talk header template instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, the talk header template already contains a bunch of different functions. Programming exists to serve users, not vice versa, and the best result for users is to not have an entirely separate box for just the one piece of auto archiving information. We can structure the underlying programming however we want, but that should be the end result.
- Re the test cases error, I'm not quite understanding what you're referring to, but the prototype is just a prototype, not something that's supposed to be fully functional. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: I do think these templates should be merged and it is important to condense talk page banners (see: Template:Banner holder), but I don't like the example provided; I think the example's archive text is too difficult to see at a glance due to text-clutter in Header box. Curbon7 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hawkeye7; not all pages that have archives are talk pages. Some of them have discussions on the base namespace page instead. Talkheader is not designed for user talk pages, since it is not about discussion of editing the userpage. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the list of those pages, all of them do include the {{ Archives}} template. Perhaps {{ Auto archiving notice}} could be merged into that one as well? ― JochemvanHees ( talk) 16:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That seems to make more sense. Archive templates merging with archive templates and not talkpage notice banners. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well my suggestion is to merge it into both. Adding {{ Archives}} to all pages that have archives doesn't solve anything. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 22:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: is it an idea to add {{ Archives}} to this TfD? ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 22:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jochem van Hees, looking at the way this is going, I think the likely outcome is that for pages with {{ talk header}} it'll be merged into that, and for pages with {{ archives}} it'll be merged into that. This TfD should not be about the debate that seems to exist over where archives should go; it'd be a lot better to just agree we should get rid of auto archiving notice and then have a separate discussion to let the talk header and archives partisans battle it out in a dedicated space. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- That seems to make more sense. Archive templates merging with archive templates and not talkpage notice banners. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the list of those pages, all of them do include the {{ Archives}} template. Perhaps {{ Auto archiving notice}} could be merged into that one as well? ― JochemvanHees ( talk) 16:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would support if these were joined in main space. However not all uses of the archive notice are in mainspace which results in the unnecessary inclusion of the talk page header (e.g. in user space, project space etc.), contributing to template clutter. So I do not support a merge at present. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tom (LT), the total number of transclusions of the auto archiving notice in WP-space is currently only seven. It would be an utter shame to have this nomination regarding thousands of pages be foiled by such a tiny edge case. But it's true we can't just ignore it, so here's what I'd propose. First, let this go through, handling all the existing talkspace transclusions. Then, create a new template based on the existing {{ Auto archiving notice}} code for use exclusively in non-talk spaces and which displays a warning/error if used in talkspace. That niche template could be applied to the seven project-space pages, taking care of their needs. Does that sound alright? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- We could do that, but it would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to reduce the number of templates in use. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ Sdkb
There are hundreds of translcusions in user talk space. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC) - @ Sdkb Do you mean by "non-talk spaces" all namespaces but namespace 1 or just all the even namespaces? I support this if my first assumption is correct. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- I think users should have greater flexibility in their own space, so if allowing the successor template to be used in user talkspace would help, that's fine by me. I'd want it kept out of all the other talk spaces, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tom (LT), the total number of transclusions of the auto archiving notice in WP-space is currently only seven. It would be an utter shame to have this nomination regarding thousands of pages be foiled by such a tiny edge case. But it's true we can't just ignore it, so here's what I'd propose. First, let this go through, handling all the existing talkspace transclusions. Then, create a new template based on the existing {{ Auto archiving notice}} code for use exclusively in non-talk spaces and which displays a warning/error if used in talkspace. That niche template could be applied to the seven project-space pages, taking care of their needs. Does that sound alright? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support If it'll get rid of unnecessary clutter, I'm in. ~ HAL333 02:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I think that consolidating these things is a really good thing. It condenses the information in a solid way. I also feel the same way Aza24 does, where there exist too many talk page notification templates that you just... glaze over the important info. SWinxy (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support adding the functionality of {{Auto archiving notice}} to {{Talk header}}. It will enhance transparency for readers and save the extra step of adding the notice manually. But keep separate {{Auto archiving notice}} template for talk pages that don't use {{Talk header}} for some reason, as is done with {{Archives}}. Many talk pages use both {{Talk header}} and {{Archives}} redundantly. I make the effort to reduce such clutter manually when I see it. I think the same can happen in this case.--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Re: the proposed template layout: I think it would be simplest to copy the existing output of {{Auto archiving notice}} onto a new line inside the yellow area, below the search bar. That should also ease any shock to users who are used to the current setup. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)- I'd prefer not to create the possibility of redundant usage, as has happened with archives—there are quite enough gnoming tasks available already without us adding to the pile. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Correct and delete. Agreed with the sentiment that it is redundant and belongs nearest the archives search bar. However if the intent is to reduce banner blindness, I think this loses the forest for the tree: Start discouraging the bloated, unhelpful, and overused {{talk header}} if you want to reduce blindness. I'd wager that users more often look for an {{archives}} box (nearest the text) than they find the archives search box buried beneath all the talk header banners. It'd be nice if there was some usability testing to this effect. So, yes, merge this banner notice's info into any relevant template with a search bar but don't lose sight of the actual root problem—use the existing archive search template on each talk page and don't just slap a {{talk header}} on each of those articles if it's not already there. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 04:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC) - Support these two definitely could do with being together to make talk pages smoother --K. Peake 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support replacing uses on mainspace talk pages but oppose full merging. I see this as a benefit for compacting banners, but replacing uses of {{Auto archiving notice}} should only occur once all behavior (including specifying the bot) can be copied over. I oppose replacing all uses of {{Auto archiving notice}} with {{Talk header}} automatically, but do support automatic replacement on mainspace talk pages only. I'd also support making {{Auto archiving notice}} usable only on non-talk pages and user talk pages, with a warning if it is used elsewhere. This would ensure that users can keep their usages on their talk pages and ensure that {{Talk header}} is not needed on non-talk pages. As such I oppose a full merge, as I would want to see this template be kept but limited to non-talk pages and user talk pages, but support replacing uses selectively. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- ^Support this (my second choice would be a simple merge as proposed). I completely support the goal of merging these templates for mainspace talk pages, which will help improve the stated problem of cluttered talkpages/banner blindness. However, there's no reason to take away {{Auto archiving notice}} if users/projects prefer to use it on their own talk pages. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now: The nominator does not even mention the functionality of {{Archives}}! The statement
that piece of information would be fully appropriate in Talk header, so there is a ready merge destination
is demonstrably erroneous. Is this a back-door way of implementing everything into one mega talk header? I nominally support the idea to reduce clutter, and arguably Auto archiving notice is redundant, but this seems to rush head-long into a second, bigger headache. Please first fully resolve which functionality is to be served where, and make sure each such place (such as Talk header or Archives or perhaps other related templates) fully 100% supports every parameter. The problem of not being able to easily copy across all parameters from one place to another is definitely a bigger problem than talk header clutter. Know why? Because clutter can be fixed on those pages where editors see it as a problem. As I said, I don't dislike the core idea, it's just that this proposal is limited and incomplete. I will probably change my not-a-vote once the nominator expands the proposal to take the above into account. CapnZapp (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)- The parameters currently used at {{ auto archiving notice}} are
|age=
,|bot=
,|botlink=
,|dounreplied=
,|index=
,|page=
,|small=
,|target=
and|units=
.|small=
is obviously not applicable for {{ talk header}}, archive index links are already given in the lists of archives (for some reason it can't be manually specified though which should be fixed), target is once again unnecessary since the list of archives is given. The functionality described with|dounreplied=no
is not used by the bots anymore and should be removed.|page=
is barely used but|display_title=
fills the same role for talk header if I am implementing this merger these would be dealt with manually.|botlink=
can be used to link somewhere other than the bots user page. This isn't desirable for the current bots but was at times used to link User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto instead of User:Werdnabot or User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo instead of User:MiszaBot. A merger is a prime oppurtunity to make sure the bot parameters actually are correct and would fix the remaining uses of obsolete bots being specified. Worth noting though that the current suggested implementation does not have a link to the bots userpage which I think is fine. That leaves the most important parameters:|age=
,|bot=
, and|unit=
. These currently have an "archive_" prefix in the sandbox version, but I've also added the old names as aliases for backwards compatibility. I hope that satisfies the parameter part of the comment at least. -- Trialpears ( talk) 13:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The parameters currently used at {{ auto archiving notice}} are
- Trialpears: First off, please don't bring parameter support into this discussion. If you wish to merge two templates, fine. If you wish to add support for new parameters or remove obsolete ones, fine. But don't conflate one discussion into the other - that just allows editors to sneak in changes under the cover of support not-votes for a different thing. Second, you too talk as if {{ Archives}} doesn't exist - when there are parameters implemented there that has not (yet) reached Auto archiving notice; it is going about it the wrong way to add incomplete functionality to Talk header. CapnZapp ( talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- CapnZapp My impression was that you wanted to know exactly how all relevant parameters were to be handled. (
Please first fully resolve which functionality is to be served where, and make sure each such place (such as Talk header or Archives or perhaps other related templates) fully 100% supports every parameter.
) My intention was to give a full rundown of all parameters that are used in {{ Auto archiving notice}} to make sure that {{ talk header}}100% supports every parameter
when warranted. I did forget about {{ Archives}} though (thanks for telling me!) which does have|minthreadsleft=
which should be incorporated into {{ auto archiving notice}} and {{ talk header}}. I have now done this in the sandboxes. - I would usually take discussions about implementation details like this after the TfD was closed pausing to make sure that changes have consensus if anyone raises queries or objections, but my impression of your comment was that you wanted to start such a discussion now. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- CapnZapp My impression was that you wanted to know exactly how all relevant parameters were to be handled. (
- Trialpears: First off, please don't bring parameter support into this discussion. If you wish to merge two templates, fine. If you wish to add support for new parameters or remove obsolete ones, fine. But don't conflate one discussion into the other - that just allows editors to sneak in changes under the cover of support not-votes for a different thing. Second, you too talk as if {{ Archives}} doesn't exist - when there are parameters implemented there that has not (yet) reached Auto archiving notice; it is going about it the wrong way to add incomplete functionality to Talk header. CapnZapp ( talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion, they can be merged and it'll look a lot better. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support merging. Auto archiving notices are extremely niche, and they don't deserve an entire banner for themselves. For the editors that still need them, they're still here, just not taking up a sizable percentage of screen real-estate now. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just FYI, this is not a vote. ― JochemvanHees ( talk) 22:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- JochemvanHees, there's nothing wrong with "per nom" !votes. They're a lot better than !votes that make redundant points and cause discussions to spiral to extreme unreadable lengths. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sdkb As an alternative take, yes, there's something wrong with "per nom" !votes, precisely because they literally just add +1 to something that isn't supposed to be a vote tally. Which is exactly what the linked essay explained. You are obviously free to argue these discussions should be counting votes for/against the proposal, which is what you are effectively saying when you say there's nothing wrong with "per nom" votes. Just an observation. Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 11:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- JochemvanHees, there's nothing wrong with "per nom" !votes. They're a lot better than !votes that make redundant points and cause discussions to spiral to extreme unreadable lengths. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just FYI, this is not a vote. ― JochemvanHees ( talk) 22:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I just remembered that there was some prior discussion here as well, so linking that for completeness, and courtesy pinging Terasail, the only editor who commented there but hasn't yet here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support pr nom and Aza24 example is the reason why. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support with adding a link to the archive bot page. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Could I get a precise description of how {{Auto archiving notice}} would be merged in the following talk page situations? You can fill in the blanks, if you like.
- Only {{Talk header}} exists:
- Only {{Archives}} exists:
- Both {{Talk header}} and {{Archives}} exist:
- — Goszei ( talk) 00:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I refactored to add numbers, hope you don't mind. {{u|Sdkb}} talk
- For (1), we'd move the information to display through talk header rather than the present banner, as displayed in the testcases. For (3), if there's redundancy (i.e. two archives boxes), we'd probably want to fix that by removing {{ Archives}}. If there's not redundancy, or for (2), that's trickier. Of the roughly 9700 pages with auto-archiving notice, roughly 1400 don't have talk header; choosing randomly from the list, Talk:Naples is representative. Speaking just personally (not characterizing the nom), I'd say that since every page with auto-archiving is at least mediumly-high traffic, it'd be fine for them to have talk header—it's a very useful template for newcomers, particularly the "for discussing improvements to" line which clarifies WP:NOTFORUM. But I see that some editors oppose having talk header on some pages, and the aim here is certainly not to force talk header on pages that don't want it. So we could easily decide to just have {{ Archives}} handle the display of the auto archiving period for those pages. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- For (3) no we most definitely do not. There are editors trying to move bot param info out of Talk header and into Archives precisely because that is what saves space (since Archives can float to the right of the TOC). Best regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, the point is not to take up less space, but to reduce the number of boxes right? ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 22:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I support the initiative as proposed, and hope it is the beginning of a larger talk page cleaning initiative. — Goszei ( talk) 21:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- For (3) no we most definitely do not. There are editors trying to move bot param info out of Talk header and into Archives precisely because that is what saves space (since Archives can float to the right of the TOC). Best regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- For (1), we'd move the information to display through talk header rather than the present banner, as displayed in the testcases. For (3), if there's redundancy (i.e. two archives boxes), we'd probably want to fix that by removing {{ Archives}}. If there's not redundancy, or for (2), that's trickier. Of the roughly 9700 pages with auto-archiving notice, roughly 1400 don't have talk header; choosing randomly from the list, Talk:Naples is representative. Speaking just personally (not characterizing the nom), I'd say that since every page with auto-archiving is at least mediumly-high traffic, it'd be fine for them to have talk header—it's a very useful template for newcomers, particularly the "for discussing improvements to" line which clarifies WP:NOTFORUM. But I see that some editors oppose having talk header on some pages, and the aim here is certainly not to force talk header on pages that don't want it. So we could easily decide to just have {{ Archives}} handle the display of the auto archiving period for those pages. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support because there are circumstances under which one would prefer using solely Auto archiving notice w/o Talkheader. A good idea would be to implement the features of Auto archiving notice into Talkheader and use that as a default, instead of merging them altogther. Casspedia (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support The proposed new design makes a lot of sense, and helps cut down on the clutter substantially. Though effectively, this is adding functionality to {{Talk header}} and then {{Archives}} would be deprecated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support No comment.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a very bad idea to merge templates simply because they are commonly - but not always - used in the same articles and pages when the two templates serve very different functions. This will not make things easier for readers and editors; it will make them worse. ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- ElKevbo, I mostly agree with you in theory. For archiving, we're trying to wrangle a situation that is very far from the ideal. For starters, we have multiple auto-archiving bots, rather than just one. Adding on to that, the actual auto-archiving instructions are not in {{ Auto archiving notice}}, they're in either User:MiszaBot/config or User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis; the notice is just a notice that is (hopefully) synced with the actual instructions. Hopefully someday we'll get to a point where we have a single template that both includes the instructions for the bot and displays the configuration at {{ Talk header}} or {{ Archives}} or elsewhere as appropriate. But for now, getting rid of the separate banner will be a step forward in terms of end display to users, and we'll still be able to pursue the ultimate end goal. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Talk header is used on many pages that don't use archiving,
in addition the archiving template deletes the functionality of the header.Starspotter (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)- Starspotter, for pages that use talk header but don't auto-archive, they simply wouldn't add the relevant parameters and the header would display without any "auto-archiving period" notice. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "deletes the functionality", so you'd have to clarify. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for explaining. Starspotter ( talk) 19:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Starspotter, for pages that use talk header but don't auto-archive, they simply wouldn't add the relevant parameters and the header would display without any "auto-archiving period" notice. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "deletes the functionality", so you'd have to clarify. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, having this would make articles/talk pages less clunky and full. creamepuff 🏹 (talk • contributions) 02:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom and others, maybe this is the start of a talk page de-cluttering movement. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 14:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think the archiving ought to be split out of the talk header. The talk header is meant to provide help concerning talk page guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with {{ archives}} - Merging is the right idea, but to the wrong target. The talk page notice and the archive notice serve completely different purposes. Instead, add the notice text to {{ archives}} Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is a saying, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Here is such a case. This move would serve no purpose and would make it more difficult for editors rather than the opposite way around.BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the nominator explained why it is "broke" and does serve a purpose? Currently the box is part of a larger problem, namely banner blindness. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 13:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Consolodating information so that all relevant parts of archive information are less spread across multiple banners is an advantage, reducing the spread of related information being seperated on a page. Terasail[✉] 13:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support the consolidation per the original rationale. An actual merge is probably not the solution, since pages that currently have both will need one removed, and there's probably these edge cases that require the current archive notice. The arguments about programming good practices have nothing to do with the UX. A subtemplate or submodule can be used where needed to modularize the code, that's a choice separate from the desired user interface. MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Auto archiving notice are majoritively not placed directly below talk header. Talk page that I have visited that following such format: talk header, deletion/translation/merger templates, wikiprojects, then archiving notice. In addition, I don't see why there is a need to merge either when it isn't broken. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strongly support adding It would be great to have the duration of the archive (and maybe the minimum threads) in the talk header instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like auto archiving notice doesn't actually handle any display of minimum thread settings, which is a little odd as that's actually useful information that we probably want to appear. It could be expressed succinctly within talk header, such as:
Auto-archiving period: 7 daysmin: 4
. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like auto archiving notice doesn't actually handle any display of minimum thread settings, which is a little odd as that's actually useful information that we probably want to appear. It could be expressed succinctly within talk header, such as:
- Oppose per Hawkeye. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support removes clutter and folds in well, per the sandbox. ProcSock (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't agree with the "banner blindness" hypothesis as presented. Jusdafax (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, as a clear case for consolidation has been given. This would simplify the use of talk page templates. The test cases seen like a reasonable adjustment to Template:Talk header. Bibeyjj (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support, if it cleans up and makes things easier, I'm in. ☎️ Churot DancePop 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support; I've always thought Template:Talk header felt like clutter. Anything that can reduce the clutter without removing the benefits that some users find from the banner seems like a good idea. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. Reduces maintenance overhead and confusion, net positive. Reviewed the oppose !votes when deciding how to !vote myself and found them to be incredibly unconvincing. -FASTILY 22:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. {{Talk header}} is a great template that combines many common talk page banners. Adding {{Auto archiving notice}}'s information to it (and impressively, in a way that does not increase its size) seems like a good improvement. I looked at the mock ups and they look good. Good idea all around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Sure, add the {{Auto archiving notice}} functionality to {{Talk header}} so that the separate template may be removed from the 580K pages using {{Talk header}} – but don't require pages with only the {{Auto archiving notice}} to add {{Talk header}} clutter. The archiving templates aren't the problem causing banner blindness. It's all the boilerplate policy&guideline links anyone who's been around for more than a month should be familiar with that's causing blindness. wbm1058 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oddly enough after searching the more limited {{ Auto archiving notice}} usage (<10K pages), I had trouble finding a single page where {{ Talk header}} wasn't used. But I did find pages where {{ Auto archiving notice}} was colllapsed under an Other talk page banners heading. So, counterintuitively, merging will make it more visible. It would be nice to have all info regarding archives residing in the same neighborhood of Talk Banner City. So, supporting without qualification. wbm1058 ( talk) 19:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: So here is where I see an issue: e.g. Talk:Satan. It has an {{ Archives}} box, which is in the same neighborhood as {{ Auto archiving notice}}. Can you also merge the same look into this template as well? This may be needed for pages that have {{ Archives}} but not {{ Talk header}}; I think any redundancy is harmless. Also can you retain the blue link to User:lowercase sigmabot III, which leads to the instructions. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I spoke to how we could handle pages like Talk:Satan in some other replies; in short, yes, that's an option.
- Regarding retaining the blue link, it'd be nice to find some way to do that, but the mixture of link and tooltip as with your edit here looks pretty odd to me and may make it harder for casual readers to find the info in the tooltip. So I'd prefer to have just the tooltip—editors advanced enough to want to adjust talk page archiving settings are also likely advanced enough to know how to find it. My second choice would be to have something like this, with a link over a question mark:
Auto-archiving period: 7 days (?)
. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support: I think consolidation is worth it, at least in some namespaces. (Side comment: It might be worth it to display information about the archiving period when archives don't yet exist, if the archive period is set up, though.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - This is a good incremental improvement to a mishmash of archive notices. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support the mockup looks great. Talk page headers are already overwhelmed, so this is a good improvement. Thanks for working on this. Legoktm (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Thrakkx (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom, specifically Sdkb's solution "First, let this go through, handling all the existing talkspace transclusions. Then, create a new template based on the existing {{Auto archiving notice}} code for use exclusively in non-talk spaces and which displays a warning/error if used in talkspace. That niche template could be applied to the seven project-space pages, taking care of their needs." GeraldWL 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support in mainspace per the above discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC) - Oppose Please can we avoid this move towards the all singing all dancing {{talk header}}. I understand that some people are disgruntled with visitors to high traffic talk pages being met with a screen and a half of templates but these moves are going to end up meaning that pages that need one or two templates (perhaps a small page needing a find source template) will have to opt for the massive talk header that seems to be on course to take up a screen of space itself. This expands the size of talk header (even the ones without an archive list incorporate a large 'search archives' box) - the poposers mention that almost all of the pages with auto archiving notice also feature talk header, but what of vice versa? Indeed Auto archiving notice can display as a small box on the right hand side where it is barely noticeable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- If there are no archives then that archives search box should indeed not be there, but you can fix that with the parameters. Also, if you look at the testcases, this change also doesn't make the archives part of the talk header any larger than it is now. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 12:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Super Strong Support - per nom Ian9087 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - This seems like aggregation of functionality for no real benefit or functional sense. I'm all for the reduction of banners on talk pages, but this seems like a bad way to go about it. Better solutions would include: Adopting better policies and guidelines for the banners, when they're added, their size and format, etc; more use of editnotices for things that appear on many talk pages; better coding and component templates to make things merge better naturally. The problem is nobody agrees on the specifics, so consensus never evolves. Trying to get it done via merging into a talkheader that does everything seems like a broken approach to a broken situation. All that said, I don't feel that strongly about it. (Full disclosure: I've edited heavily on the talkheader template in the past.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support : Per nom, as well as the fact that merging these templates would significantly de-clutter the top of talk pages, particularly if there is important discussion going on on said talk pages. Also, as an aside, I do use the talk header template on my talk page, but I don't use Auto archiving notice because I feel it would clutter my talk page. Merging these two templates here would be quite helpful. --DL6443 (Talk/Contribs) 00:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Banner blindness, indeed. Schierbecker (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This is an elegant solution in the best traditions of Wikipedia. It's good to see that some attention is being given to identifying and addressing such issues. SilkTork (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The example displayed at Special:Permalink/1023267364#Plain is a very elegant way to display the needed information while reducing the amount of banner messages on the page, both in the discussion page's source code and in the visible output. "Auto-archiving period: 7 days" – that's all we need. There is no need for the current full-size auto archival notice if this elegant way exists to convey the same information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Taking a second look, I too think that's the best and simplest option for readers. No extra space needed (unless the number of archives gets really big). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support - talk page banners need drastic reductions - really an information page should hold nearly all the crap - talk pages are for talking about the article. ɱ (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I joined WP just over 6 months ago, and that auto-archiving notice was really helpful. Otherwise, if you leave a topic for a few days and it suddenly gets archived, it implies to a new user that the discussion was decided to be unimportant. If you don't know that a lot of small Wikipedia functions run off bots, it seems like it was a deliberate choice. It would deter me from re-opening that discussion, because it's hard to tell what constitutes consensus in WP and for all I knew, that could count. Although, it would be useful if the auto-archiving notice and the list of archives were in the same place - I would prefer that the list was placed under the notice rather than the notice moved into the header. Because honestly, to me the talk header was the clutter. I did also have a comment on the example header, this obviously isn't part of my actual response to the TfD, but feedback in case it does get used. The note about auto-archiving likely wouldn't get noticed by new editors, and even if it was, the bot's documentation would've been confused me. The owner of it refers to it archiving on their behalf, which really would've reinforced the idea that it was a choice by a person to archive that topic. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Hal333. I was initially opposed but I believe this move makes sense. Sean Stephens (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support with a single proviso: there's a tooltip thing on the word "period" in the new 'archives' section that mentions the name of the bot that will do the archiving. Can we change that to something like 'an automated account' or 'by a bot' or something? That would be more useful for new editors, who don't know who or what a lowercase sigmabot III (or whatever) is; and, less of an issue, it would save a server hit if we ever got a different bot or process to do the archiving and had to change the template again. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I hope that the word "automated" in the tooltip will communicate that it's not a human doing the archiving, even if new users won't know what lowercase sigmabot is. Some experienced editors may care which bot is doing the archiving because they have slightly different behavior (and ultimately, I hope that someday we merge them into a single ArchiveBot). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Vulphere 12:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per nom as it seems like a sensible move.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- For mainspace talk only, I support adding the functionality of {{auto archiving notice}} into {{talk header}} - it nicely does the purported job of reducing the number of banners in place on talk pages. However, I fairly strongly oppose removing {{auto archiving notice}} entirely; there are many usages of this template in places where {{talk header}} isn't the most ideal - user talk pages being the main one I'm thinking of. stwalkerster (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
May 10
Wikipedia article challenge templates
- Template:WPASIA10k (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPCan10k (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPEUR10k (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPLA10k (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:WPUKIR10k (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a follow-up TfD to the nomination of {{WPUS50}}, which was nominated for merging into its related WikiProject banner. The rationale used in that nomination was to reduce the number of banners at the top of talk pages. The proposal here is the same: to merge these banners into their related WikiProject banners in order to minimize banner usage while still retaining the relevant information. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
12 May Update to answer some of the questions below: the intention here is to condense multiple banners into one banner (example). As the initial proposal stands, yes, this would mean on pages without a {{WikiProject Europe}} would mean turning {{WPEUR10k}} into that template. As an alternate option (floated but not heavily discussed at the US50 discussion) these templates could be merged into {{WPBS}} itself, similar to how |blp=yes
triggers a specific banner; this would eliminate the "but there's no specific banner" or "there are duplicate banners" issue, while still decreasing the total number of banners on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question Which would "the project" be for WKEUR10k which collects articles related to many different European countries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, which I guess would be the project. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never used that. When I write an article about a German topic, I assign Project Germany, but not Europe also. The challenge would not appear then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- That template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, which I guess would be the project. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose to all of these except WPCANADA, per Gerda. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with parent project banner It helps organize the challenges and show progress. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support I'm the editor who has been implementing the {{WPUS50}} TfD even in that case many pages aren't tagged with {{WikiProject United States}} but one of the state banners. It is plausible to add it to all relevant WikiProject banners if so desired. It will require some work but it isn't too bad. The end result will be preferable to the status quo since it better prioritize what information is important to readers. --Trialpears (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps this would be for another discussion, but I thought I'd mention the similar Women in Red edit-a-thon banners. It seems that they date to about the same period. Some are listed at Template:WIR and follow the sequence {{WIR-1}} through {{WIR-198}} and there are also some by year. (Presumably they could be merged into WikiProject Women, and perhaps also make WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women artists, etc., task forces of the parent WikiProject Women – that would reduce a lot of clutter as I sometimes see three or four WP women's banners on a biography.) – Reidgreg (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those were recently TFDd unsuccessfully but do also need cleaning, at least to use the WIR banner as e.g. task force parameters. Izno ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to be part of the relevant country/continent's Wikiproject banner. This is what we've done for many other templates e.g. Women in Red. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge all to WP banner to reduce talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please see above question, which you can perhaps answer: project Europe is not what an individual article would call, therefore I see the clutter only increasing if instead of the current template (which is in around 6,000 articles heading towards 10,000), we'd have to include project Europe on top of the individual country (or countries). Readers will frown if we call project Italy AND project Europe. I also find it neat to see exactly from which articles this precise template is linked, vs. where some template Europe will be linked. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, since the challenges are not necessarily part of the projects. Also, Gerda's point about Europe is very valid. I didn't even know there was a Europe project, and I've been writing about European subjects since I joined Wikipedia. Yakikaki (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, I think. (NB I created one of these, {{WPASIA10k}}) Have I understood correctly?: the proposal for pages that transclude {{WPEUR10k}} is that to reduce the number of templates on the page we remove it and instead add {{WikiProject Europe}}? And that we're already doing the same operation for {{WPUS50}}? This seems to be pointless make-work. Most of the clutter on talk-pages is usually ... you know, talk, and that can be dealt with by archiving where necessary. Oh, and watchlist clutter is a thing, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt, Vami IV, Yakikaki, and Justlettersandnumbers: I have made an update and (somewhat of) an alternate idea/proposal. Does this information potentially change your opinions? @Aknell4, Trialpears, Reidgreg, Joseph2302, and SandyGeorgia: is this alternate proposal a reasonable compromise? I'll keep an eye on this page so I don't necessarily need a ping to the discussion on reply. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: This is what I was referring to when I said "merge". I would be in support. -- Aknell4 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Do I get it right that you mean something like "EU10k=yes" in the banner shell. Yes, and then what? What would the display be? For "BLP=yes" we get a fat entry, so how would it really reduce clutter? ... or just a link to the challenge in question? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- That can in theory be hashed out later, but my initial thought would be a sentence or two at the bottom of the shell giving the current text of the current banners (e.g.
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!
). Alternately (though unlikely that a page would be in more than one of these challenges) it could give a note similar to {{ Old moves}}, saying "this page was part of the following challenges:" and then list them. Primefac ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- A {{Challenge history}} or {{Editathon history}} banner that collects these sounds like a good option to me, if there are enough similar events (otherwise, not sure where the clutter is). Some of the WikiProject banners have an awful lot of parameters as it is and wading through the documentation can be a chore to itself. (If this is too much work, though, I don't mind if {{WPCan10k}} is deleted, as it never really caught on.) {{Article history}} already has Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and collaboration of the week (both defunct). {{Educational assignment}} is probably best on its own, though sometimes I see multiples of that which could be consolidated. – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Primefac. Turning these into a parameter of the banner shell seems preferable to the previous suggestion. I suppose another possibility might be to start a Wikiproject Challenges, and include that in the banner shell where appropriate. I've really no idea how many of these challenges there are, or how many of them have a dedicated template. I collected the templates I knew of in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates, but for all I know there are others too. {{ The 100,000 Challenge}} shows a good number of challenges; I'm not sure whether that template is limited to those created by Encyclopædius, or if other similar challenges have been started by other editors or projects. It could be that a rather wider discussion than this might be indicated, but to be honest I think we've all got more important things we could be getting on with. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- FYI: The Challenge series are listed at Template:The Challenge series invitation navigation bar (not all of these have talk page templates). There is some overlap, like the Nordic and European challenges, the US challenge which has several sub-challenges, and the non-geographical Video games challenge. – Reidgreg ( talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Primefac. Turning these into a parameter of the banner shell seems preferable to the previous suggestion. I suppose another possibility might be to start a Wikiproject Challenges, and include that in the banner shell where appropriate. I've really no idea how many of these challenges there are, or how many of them have a dedicated template. I collected the templates I knew of in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates, but for all I know there are others too. {{ The 100,000 Challenge}} shows a good number of challenges; I'm not sure whether that template is limited to those created by Encyclopædius, or if other similar challenges have been started by other editors or projects. It could be that a rather wider discussion than this might be indicated, but to be honest I think we've all got more important things we could be getting on with. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- A {{Challenge history}} or {{Editathon history}} banner that collects these sounds like a good option to me, if there are enough similar events (otherwise, not sure where the clutter is). Some of the WikiProject banners have an awful lot of parameters as it is and wading through the documentation can be a chore to itself. (If this is too much work, though, I don't mind if {{WPCan10k}} is deleted, as it never really caught on.) {{Article history}} already has Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and collaboration of the week (both defunct). {{Educational assignment}} is probably best on its own, though sometimes I see multiples of that which could be consolidated. – Reidgreg ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- That can in theory be hashed out later, but my initial thought would be a sentence or two at the bottom of the shell giving the current text of the current banners (e.g.
- Support for the alternate merge option. That is an excellent solution and I wish I'd thought of it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gerda Arendt. It's not desirable to use a wide-range project like {{WikiProject Europe}} when there is a country-level one available. I don't want to bloat the banner shell with many options either (the alternative proposal). But discussing a separate template for these is due. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a comment copy from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 8. As a botop, I think using the expression
|WPUS50=
will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
and{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion,{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
is better than{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - I do not want this anywhere near WPBS as that is not the point of that template. I would much rather merge these to the related projects where relevant. These don't need to be merged to Europe specifically per Trialpears; the most specific related country project will also do for me. If the topic is from or related highly to Germany, merge to the Germany banner. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as with the US one. The template says:
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge"
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge is a subpage of the project. So I don't know how it can be said the same article is not "of interest to" (per {{WPBS}}) the same WikiProject. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC) - Oppose - Rather the opposite, we need more templates for the other Challenges. These templates help bringing more editors to these Challenges, and they help expand this Wikipedia. Deleting or merging would be counter-productive.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't participate but I see the value the challenges bring, and this would reduce the impact. Mostly, this seems to me to be trying to solve a non- or rarely existing problem. Further, linking to WikiProject Europe would be irrelevant, as previously commented - this project is in fact rarely interacted with by most editors. Nor does linking to the nearest country project, say, as the challenges and the WikiProjects don't directly co-work much, though the Country WikiProjects do benefit. SeoR (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
May 7
Template:Convert to transclusion
- Template:Convert to transclusion (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
- Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)
This is a minor issue and how the page is structured behind the scenes does not matter for readers for who it is unnecessary and potentially confusing clutter. No new editor will make Labeled section transclusion their first project invalidating that argument. I would suggest either moving it to the talk page like {{Image requested}} and some other templates with improvement suggestions or possibly just deleting it. I'm more inclined towards the former, but both are fine and should be on the table (hence the TfD). --Trialpears (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to talk page. It's a valid tag, but per nom there's no need to present it to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Move to talk page as many more cleanup tags should be, per Sdkb. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete template, moving message to talk page. I'm not sure there is added utility in having a dedicated template for this on talk pages. Editors should either do the transclusion, or propose it for discussion in an ordinary talk page section. Is transclusion considered too onerous for editors, and so we need a mechanism for them to flag it for more experienced editors? (If so, I'm more inclined to direct them to Tea House or similar technical request board.) Is someone likely to pay attention to Category:Pages needing conversion to transclusion? Since the usage of this template is so small, I can volunteer to delete the template transclusions and add talk page messages to affected pages. I propose an ideal talk page message for no specified section would look like this edit. Please ping me if you'd like me to do this task. Daask (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with Daask's proposal. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Daask's proposal looks like the best option. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think there's potential use in having the template, even if it's just preloaded text to be placed in talk page messages. Transclusion is still a relatively young concept on Wikipedia, but its use has been growing, so there's potential for the tag to be applied more widely in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess you mean section transclusion is still relatively young, because transclusion... is not. -- Izno ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Haha yes, thanks for clarifying. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess you mean section transclusion is still relatively young, because transclusion... is not. -- Izno ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- As per Daask's proposal. We have a team of editors fixing old transclusions from a decade ago that have errors....last thing we need is this being done all over....best have experienced editors talk about this first.Moxy- 02:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I may as well add that I am fine with Daask's proposal. --Trialpears (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: First, there is consensus that this template should not be used in the article space, but opinions are mixed on whether it should be converted to a talk page banner, text to be used in discussions, or simply deleted outright. Relisting to get further opinions on the matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli and Sdkb: Are you fine with Daask's proposal? --Trialpears (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- It would not be my first preference, no; see my comment at 02:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Completed discussions
If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.
Tools
There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.
- Template linking and transclusion check - Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from/to a template
- WhatLinksHereSnippets.js - user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
- AutoWikiBrowser – Semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
- Bots – Robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently four bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT - substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot - general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT - general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
Closing discussions
The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.
To review
Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- For anyone looking to review these, check out User:Bradv/Scripts/WhatLinksHereSnippets.js, which expands the template usage when using "what links here" - this way you can see if {{ wt}} is being used by itself (and can be left alone) or is nested inside another template (and thus has to be modified per the discussion). Primefac ( talk) 02:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- See discussion at Template_talk:Lang#Wikt-lang,_wt,_and_language_tags about how the merge is being dealt with. Primefac ( talk) 23:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 October 25 – Wt - For anyone looking to review these, check out User:Bradv/Scripts/WhatLinksHereSnippets.js, which expands the template usage when using "what links here" - this way you can see if {{ wt}} is being used by itself (and can be left alone) or is nested inside another template (and thus has to be modified per the discussion). Primefac ( talk) 02:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - remove icon for a minimum of non-confirmed users, but no prejudice against wholesale removal if necessary.
- ProcrastinatingReader Did you come to any conclusions with regards to this one? I was going around reinventing the wheel when I noticed Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 185. To me it seems like the issue is that we want to place autoconfirmed-show on the mw-indicator-pp-default div, but per the rule in MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css that will cause it t be displayed as a block instead of inline which may cause issues. I guess the solution then is to add another instruction to make it inline again but since the block declaration uses !important we got an issue. I'm not up to date with regards to the css priority rules to find the best way to handle this, but I guess I could find out if no one else here knows. -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2020 October 25 – Pp-move - ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 November 17 – Dashboard.wikiedu.org_assignment
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Don't delete Template:Column/styles.css as it is not part of this template (and should probably be renamed).
- This is the basic gist. It won't work for columns 6-10 in Columns. The set wherein it won't work is currently 0. --Izno (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found that sometimes a mix of replacements would be good. See this change as an example. In other news, basically the only cases left to deal with are 2 and 3 columns, as I have sorted everything with more. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scratch the news, I just filed phab:T271071. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Down to article space col4 and lower. I'm working my way down from the top. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just 2/3 cols now which is apparently the vast majority of use. Sorted out some regexes so here we go! --Izno (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Down to col2. Some 600 in mainspace and another 700 elsewhere. Article, Elsewhere --Izno (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
2020 December 20 – Columns - ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 December 19 – Hover_title
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- SMcCandlish What's the status of this one? I feel like you're the person with the best grasp of what needs to be done and if you could implement it that would be lovely. -- Trialpears ( talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's been on hold (since no one else is working on it). I think where I got in the sandboxing is about as good as it's going to get. I did solicit further input and analysis, and will have to check again, but I don't think there were further improvement suggestions. I'll probably need to set aside an entire day to pore over it all again and re-test. And that day is not today. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
2020 December 19 – Tooltip - SMcCandlish What's the status of this one? I feel like you're the person with the best grasp of what needs to be done and if you could implement it that would be lovely. -- Trialpears ( talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Implementing the partial deprecation is going to be a humongous curatorial undertaking. There are currently 3,410 articles in Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter. For some of these, the use of the template is inappropriate and may just be removed or replaced with another template that better matches the inferred intent of the editor who placed it there. For many cases though, the explanation for the template's placement was not provided in its
|reason=
parameter, but was given in the edit summary, and an accompanying talk page discussion was started but was not linked with|talk=
. So, this is likely to involve some digging each time. Is there any way we could get help from wikiprojects? For example, we could intersect the above category with each of the topical subcategories of Category:Articles needing expert attention and then post the resulting list on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject. – Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)- Just posting a "Please help clean this up in your topic area" instructional at wikiprojects' talk pages would probably get much of it done, especially if there's an implication that any problematic instances of this template after X date are simply likely to be removed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
2021 February 9 – Expert needed - Implementing the partial deprecation is going to be a humongous curatorial undertaking. There are currently 3,410 articles in Category:Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter. For some of these, the use of the template is inappropriate and may just be removed or replaced with another template that better matches the inferred intent of the editor who placed it there. For many cases though, the explanation for the template's placement was not provided in its
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 1 – Operabase
To merge
Templates to be merged into another template.
Infoboxes
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 March 18 – Infobox_German_railway_vehicle
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Pigsonthewing, a mapping for the params would help for this. I don't know anything about trains, but here's what I've figured out so far:
2020 March 18 – Infobox_locomotive
Param mapping |
---|
mapping = { # Header / misc 'boxtype' => nil, # only support boxtype = 'locomotive' 'Farbe1' => nil, # color 'Farbe2' => nil, # color 'Baureihe' => 'name', 'Abbildung' => 'image', 'Name' => 'caption', # General 'Nummerierung' => '', # "Number(s) allocated to the vehicle(s)" 'Hersteller' => 'builder', 'Baujahre' => 'builddate', 'Indienststellung' => 'firstrundate', 'Ausmusterung' => 'retiredate', 'Anzahl' => 'totalproduction', 'Wheel arrangement' => 'whytetype | aarwheels', # ambiguous? which one is it? 'Achsformel' => '', # same as above 'Gattung' => '', # some form of class (eg "S 37.19") 'Spurweite' => 'gauge', 'Höchstgeschwindigkeit' => 'maxspeed', # Wheels (should wheelbase sub-params be used in [[Template:Infobox locomotive]]?) 'Laufraddurchmesser vorn' => 'leadingdiameter', 'Laufraddurchmesser hinten' => 'trailingdiameter', 'Laufraddurchmesser außen' => '', # Outer carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives 'Laufraddurchmesser innen' => '', # Inner carrying wheel diameter, Garratt locomotives 'Laufraddurchmesser' => '', 'Treibraddurchmesser' => 'driverdiameter', # Weight, dimensions and Axles 'Leermasse' => 'locoweight', # "Total weight of vehicle when empty" 'Dienstmasse' => 'tenderweight', 'Reibungsmasse' => 'weightondrivers', 'Radsatzfahrmasse' => 'axleload', 'Höhe' => 'height', 'Breite' => 'width', # Steam traction / cylinders 'Zylinderanzahl' => 'cylindercount', 'Zylinderdurchmesser' => 'cylindersize', 'Kolbenhub' => '', # "[[Piston stroke]] - I think current template requires this to be |
- A number aren't documented in Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, others I can't figure out the proper mapping. Those would be any empty with '' or with comments left after #. This also isn't a complete list of all params, just a handful I found were common across ~5 transclusions I checked. I imagine a mapping of these should be enough to handle the majority of templates, and rest can be done by hand. Would appreciate a hand filling in the blanks, and checking over the mappings made. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Please see User:Slambo/DE infobox. Does that answer your questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, thanks for that! Yes, it fills in most of my list. Some further params didn't match up, so I made some educated guesses. There's a number which need to be added to {{ Infobox locomotive}} on that list (ignoring the train infobox for now). Perhaps it's faster to just add the most common ones, as I think a number aren't used. Some adjustments to existing params would help too (eg I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox locomotive for a change to cylindersize).
- Besides the ones that need to be added/adjusted, an immediate issue that pops up to me is that the page maps 'Brennstoff' to 'fueltype', but a number of pages use this param as if it were 'fuelcap' instead, e.g. DRG Class 05. Also, is "Wheel arrangement" necessarily always Whyte and never AAR?
- Also pinging Slambo, since you have more experience with this template (and can edit it), if you'd be willing to add/adjust those parameters to infobox locomotive? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Please see User:Slambo/DE infobox. Does that answer your questions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- A number aren't documented in Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, others I can't figure out the proper mapping. Those would be any empty with '' or with comments left after #. This also isn't a complete list of all params, just a handful I found were common across ~5 transclusions I checked. I imagine a mapping of these should be enough to handle the majority of templates, and rest can be done by hand. Would appreciate a hand filling in the blanks, and checking over the mappings made. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 June 3 – Infobox_reality_talent_competition
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- To the helping editor, per the TfD, because there are some parameters that overlap, some that are new, and some that are not needed, the result of each parameter from "reality talent competition" into "reality competition season" is as follows. Please ping if there are any issues (and remove this table if its inclusion here is inappropriate): - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 June 3 – Infobox_reality_competition_season
Parameter comparison | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{ Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{ infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac ( talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Whatever had {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{ Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{ Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through
|module1=
. If I can help define or clarify anything for you to help you with the bot, let me know. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)- Doing...TheTVExpert ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Whatever had {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} will ultimately now need to have {{ Infobox television season}} as the infobox proper, and the {{ Infobox reality competition season}} as a child/subbox through
- I'll have to re-think the usage of the bot, though... {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} is an infobox proper, while {{ Infobox reality competition season}} is designed as a child/subbox. Some might be easy enough to convert into an {{ infobox television}} usage, such as at Singapore Idol, but in places like World Idol it will need merging into the main IB. Primefac ( talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thank you! Let myself or Gonnym know if you have any questions. I hope my table above will be useful in figuring out what needs to be kept, replaced, or outright deleted. And as Gonnym said, the new parameters are all ready to go once the merge has been made. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Soon as my other bot run finishes I'll get on it. Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Template updated with the new parameters, just need to convert old uses now. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've written some regex for AWB but my problem is that I don't know how (or even if it's possible) to set a whole row as a conditional check. Currently this fails if the template isn't written in this exact order. Any ideas? @Primefac: have any ideas?
Find: \{\{Infobox reality talent competition\n.*\|.*name.*=.*\n.*\|.*logo.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*logo_alt.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*first_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*last_aired.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*judges.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*coaches.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*host.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*cohost.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*broadcaster.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*competitors.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*finalsvenue.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*num_tasks.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*image.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*caption.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-name .*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-origin.*=\s?(.*)\n\|winner-genre.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*winner-song.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-name.*=\s?(.*)\n.*\|.*runner-image.*=\s?(.*)\n\}\}
Replace: {{Infobox television season\n| image = $1\n| image_alt = $2\n| module1 = {{Infobox reality competition season \n | host = $7\n | judges = $5\n | num_contestants = $10\n | winner = $15\n | runner_up = $19\n}}\n| network = $9\n| first_aired = $3\n| last_aired = $4\n}}
--Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oof, that's a bit nuts. I'll try to dig into that regex soon, but I'm starting to think that using an AWB module to save, store, and modify those parameters to convert the template use might be the best way forward. The other thing we should probably do is find out where the template is used alongside {{ infobox television}}, since we shouldn't convert it to "season" if that's there (instead, just folding it in). Primefac ( talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac ( talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Favre1fan93: I've made a substable wrapper in the sandbox based on your wrapper. Go to any transclusion, plug a /sandbox on the end (or change to {{ Infobox reality talent competition/sandbox}} if it's using a redirect) and preview. This should be how it looked pre-wrapper. Then chuck a subst: in front and preview, and this is how it'd look being substed. By my eye, testing on a couple of pages, this all looks correct, however the winner's national origin isn't being mapped in the wrapper (Gonnym?). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a word, yes; I think cleaning up post-merge will be easier than all of the complex silliness above. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Right after I make my list of things to do... Primefac ( talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to turn it into a subst-able wrapper, however I don't know how if it achieves the acceptable results here. Primefac has looked at specific cases above it seems, so he may be better placed than me to answer that part. But if it works, that makes achieving the merge easier than regex-hell. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Template substitution isn't my strong side so if you know how to do it, then I'm all for it. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym and Primefac: maybe an oversimplification, but since {{ Infobox reality talent competition}} is now converted into a full wrapper, can't we just subst it? (after cleaning it up for subst, ofc)? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym: is there consensus to remove the various parameters removed in the current wrapper? See eg pages in Category:Pages using infobox reality talent competition with unknown parameters, for example The X Factor (British series 11) when previewed with the sandbox version (which will show the old template v before your wrapper convert). It seems like many labels missing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Wrapper created, will cvt for final subst after a week or so. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
2020 November 28 – Infobox_Manchester_Metrolink_station - ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 December 7 – Infobox_Indian_state_government
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 December 7 – Infobox_government
- Template wrappers to merge with {{Infobox court case}}
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 20 – Infobox_English_case
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 20 – Infobox_US_court_case
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 20 – Infobox_U.S._Courts_of_Appeals_case
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 20 – Infobox_New_York_COA_case
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 21 – Infobox_United_States_federal_proposed_legislation
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 21 – Infobox_U.S._legislation
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- I am able to come up with the desired end navbox (which should just be the list of the first section titles) but I do not know how to get all the content back into the article itself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): What do you mean by "get all the content back into the article itself"? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, listify the majority of the contents (either in the article or in a separate list). --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): WP:NOTPERFECT. Pick a home, pick an appearance, and WP:JUSTDOIT. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): WP:NOTPERFECT. Pick a home, pick an appearance, and WP:JUSTDOIT. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, listify the majority of the contents (either in the article or in a separate list). --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): What do you mean by "get all the content back into the article itself"? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
2020 August 2 – Signaling_peptide/protein_receptor_modulators - I am able to come up with the desired end navbox (which should just be the list of the first section titles) but I do not know how to get all the content back into the article itself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 16 – Indian_PSU
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 March 16 – Public_Sector_Undertakings_in_India
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 6 – Godzilla-related_media
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 8 – Biden_presidency
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 8 – Joe_Biden
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 20 – ATP Masters Series tournaments
Link templates
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 6 – IOC profile
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 6 – Olympic Channel
Other
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player
- Into {{Talk header}}:
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 October 4 – Friendly_search_suggestions
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Should be easy enough to remove the vast majority since {{talk header}} already has the links. A bot is basically required though. Primefac, would a general TFD implementation BRFA be quick if I filed one or would there be questions about the need for a forth bot doing this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonably quick, probably, but this is one of the ones I was going to look at this week and I can bump it to top priority. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, then I'll leave it to you! There are others waiting. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pages with Talk header (~3600), pages without (~19k). The former will be removed and the latter will be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a few that are used in sections on a talk page as a part of a conversation. These may warrant some extra attention. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting point. I'll make sure they're always preceded by a template, which should minimize the number of non-standard uses that trip. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Please note that the {{Friendly search suggestions}} (FSS) template has several search options that are not existent in the other templates that were discussed at the TfD. Consensus at the TfD discussion seems rather clear that "all" were to be merged into the Find sources template (e.g. the multitude of "Merge all, add {{Find sources}} into {{Talk header}}" !votes), after which, the Find sources template would be added to the Talk header template. The latter has already occurred, but the FSS template links are still nonexistent. A lot of thought and work went into the FSS template, so it sure would be a shame if those valuable search links got lost in the mix somewhere. North America1000 16:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- While I slog through the slow process of replacing uses, you are more than welcome to merge the content per the discussion (it's not necessarily a one-editor show). If you don't do so by the time I finish the orphaning, I will do so before deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It seems relevant to link in a discussion NA1000 had with myself and Trialpears prior to the comment above, here. I'll repeat simply for the record that I'm not sure there was a consensus to add in a dozen more links, at least on the basis of that discussion. It was an undiscussed detail at the time, however, so I guess people can make up their own opinions on the matter. To not disclose that conversation above when repeating their interpretation of my own close, and then request someone else make the edit without disclosing the conversation to them, is probably forum shopping, however. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- User talk pages are not particularly "forums", as in Wikipedia namespace areas, they're user talk pages, and I went there to discuss why the Friendly search suggestions template was being prematurely removed from talk pages before any merge occurred. Bottom line is that consensus at the TfD discussion was to merge, not to selectively merge, and not for the closer to later come along and decide via WP:SUPERVOTE to then delay the merge per their own personal opinions, ignoring the consensus that occurred. Fact is, I feel that the closer should have refrained from closing the discussion entirely and !voted instead, since they now appear to be against the merge from actually occurring.
- At the talk page discussion linked above, ProcrastinatingReader stated
"If, instead, you're not asking for my interpretation on the close (as the closer) and are instead just asking for something to be done, then note that I'm not standing in your way. I haven't touched the merge for months and am not currently implementing it. So I guess you can ask Trialpears, or edit the template {{Find sources}} yourself if you wish. I'm not standing in your way, objecting to that change, or saying I'll be reverting it."
. How on earth could my post here then be considered as "forum shopping"? It certainly is not. It is commentary about a proper merge being performed. Simply put: WP:CONSENSUS was to merge, not to delay the merge. After the TfD discussion, users eagerly removed the {{ Friendly search suggestions}} template from article Talk pages, and unfortunately, now only very rudimentary search options are available to those that perform research to improve articles. - Another matter is that the search options presently remaining are dumbed-down almost to the state of when the Find sources template was first created in 2007 ( perm link). The merge should occur 1) per the consensus, and 2) because all of the innovation that went into improving search options over the course of years will go down the drain, in favor of the present dumbed-down version of the template. Moving backwards and providing inferior search options does not improve Wikipedia, it deteriorates it. North America1000 23:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's forum shopping (or asking the other parent, or whatever terminology you wish to use) because you asked the person doing the merge and got an answer, asked the closer and got an answer, presumably didn't like both answers, and then asked an admin giving your own interpretation again, without disclosing the interpretation of the closer and the person doing the merge. Of course, you're free to ask anyone else to look into it (or use your own advanced permissions and take responsibility for the edit yourself?), but you can't seriously say it's not forum shopping to go down a list of permission holders until one makes the edit unknowing of the history that wasn't disclosed to them. ProcSock ( talk) 06:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- You've got this terribly wrong. You state
"and then asked an admin giving your own interpretation again"
The matter was discussed at Trialpears talk page and here. Primefac, the admin you appear to be referring to, has already stated here over a month ago (28 March 2021 UTC) that they will eventually perform the merge, before I even came along. Since Primefac has stated that they eventually perform the merge, I posted above initially as a friendly reminder for the FSS template to be included in the merge as per the consensus at the TfD. I have not contacted any other admins, as you incorrectly state above. This is a bizarre statement. I didn't even notice that Trialpears has template editor rights until I read your post directly above. There is no mythical list of users I am contacting based upon their permission levels, and I resent being unjustly accused of something I have not performed. I initially contacted Trialpears to ask them why they were removing the FSS template from talk pages. The user's permission levels has nothing to do with any of this; I would have asked any user the same question. For full disclosure, I also messaged Primefac on their talk page, thanking them for replying here and stating that it's unlikely I'll be able to perform the merge myself ( diff) (because it appears that Lua skills are necessary). Also, I am allowed to state my opinion here and elsewhere. You're making a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill here, and I won't be responding further here about your armchair allegations. There is no forum shopping, and normative communication is allowed. I again reiterate that you should not have closed the discussion since you have a personal opinion about the scope of the merge, and you should have !voted instead. Good day. North America1000 04:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- You've got this terribly wrong. You state
- It's forum shopping (or asking the other parent, or whatever terminology you wish to use) because you asked the person doing the merge and got an answer, asked the closer and got an answer, presumably didn't like both answers, and then asked an admin giving your own interpretation again, without disclosing the interpretation of the closer and the person doing the merge. Of course, you're free to ask anyone else to look into it (or use your own advanced permissions and take responsibility for the edit yourself?), but you can't seriously say it's not forum shopping to go down a list of permission holders until one makes the edit unknowing of the history that wasn't disclosed to them. ProcSock ( talk) 06:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems relevant to link in a discussion NA1000 had with myself and Trialpears prior to the comment above, here. I'll repeat simply for the record that I'm not sure there was a consensus to add in a dozen more links, at least on the basis of that discussion. It was an undiscussed detail at the time, however, so I guess people can make up their own opinions on the matter. To not disclose that conversation above when repeating their interpretation of my own close, and then request someone else make the edit without disclosing the conversation to them, is probably forum shopping, however. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- While I slog through the slow process of replacing uses, you are more than welcome to merge the content per the discussion (it's not necessarily a one-editor show). If you don't do so by the time I finish the orphaning, I will do so before deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Please note that the {{Friendly search suggestions}} (FSS) template has several search options that are not existent in the other templates that were discussed at the TfD. Consensus at the TfD discussion seems rather clear that "all" were to be merged into the Find sources template (e.g. the multitude of "Merge all, add {{Find sources}} into {{Talk header}}" !votes), after which, the Find sources template would be added to the Talk header template. The latter has already occurred, but the FSS template links are still nonexistent. A lot of thought and work went into the FSS template, so it sure would be a shame if those valuable search links got lost in the mix somewhere. North America1000 16:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting point. I'll make sure they're always preceded by a template, which should minimize the number of non-standard uses that trip. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a few that are used in sections on a talk page as a part of a conversation. These may warrant some extra attention. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pages with Talk header (~3600), pages without (~19k). The former will be removed and the latter will be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, then I'll leave it to you! There are others waiting. --Trialpears (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonably quick, probably, but this is one of the ones I was going to look at this week and I can bump it to top priority. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2020 October 4 – Find_sources_notice - Should be easy enough to remove the vast majority since {{talk header}} already has the links. A bot is basically required though. Primefac, would a general TFD implementation BRFA be quick if I filed one or would there be questions about the need for a forth bot doing this? --Trialpears (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 January 16 – WPUS50
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 January 16 – WikiProject_United_States
Meta
- Merge with Template:Infobox Chinese
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2017 April 7 – Infobox name module
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2017 May 26 – Infobox East Asian name
- 1.5 years later I've taken another look. The merger itself doesn't look toooo bad but I'm really not a fan of adding "Infobox Chinese" to tons of articles not related to China in the slightest. The 2019 RM didn't go too well though and it's perhaps best to try to at least partially take a look at the (imo not so relevant) things cited as issues in the RM. These are adding support for some other major languages which is currently partially or completely missing (Arabic, Hebrew, Urdu if I'm not mistaken, Greek and probably a few more). The ordering support is also somewhat lacking which would be a pain to fix if it wasn't a module. I'm not particularly trilled about taking it on but I'm not a fan of having this ancient merger around indefinitely either. Trappist the monk you seem like the obvious person to ask since you both developed the module and is the language guru, but it's completely understandable to not want to touch this. -- Trialpears ( talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, I wrote Module:Infobox multi-lingual name to consolidate multiple various templates (with all of their unique peculiarities) into a single source. Then I wrote a long long document describing the things that should be done to make the whole mess more sensible. Alas, I lost that document as the result of a catastrophic computer failure which was perhaps serendipitous because of the drama the would inevitably arise – you know how wikipedians hate hate hate change because oh my god the sky is falling. In retrospect, I came to realize that the better solution is to restart as a fresh design beginning with a whole new specification. If the fresh design is any good it can organically take over from existing infoboxen without drama. I have done nothing to advance that because, as you can see, it appears that wikipedians are more-or-less happy with the crap template that I wrote. And, it appears, that wikipedians couldn't give two hoots about merging the two infoboxen because nigh on four years since the tfds and here the merge lingers... Better to declare the merger dead and get on with life?
- — Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the name - keep in mind we can create any number of useful redirects if adding "...Chinese" to something that isn't is a problem. That being said, if it gets built into a location-neutral module, it would make so much sense to rename the main template (wink wink). Primefac ( talk) 13:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a mess right now but I think the problem isn't that people don't care but that there are very few people who feel confident enough with both the lua and the languages to take it on and the few who do either don't want to get involved in the drama side or are simply busy elsewhere. I think I may deal with it after I've finished the mergers I've started but then there won't be any huge improvements to the module but rather just what's required for the merger. No matter what a second RM is coming. -- Trialpears ( talk) 14:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of this board is to implement the merger. If there are improvements made along the way that's great, but they're not a requirement and (not that this is the case for this merge) shouldn't hold up a merge. Primefac ( talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- That the merge hasn't completed in 4 years surely means that it's reasonable to consider whether or not the original merge is still relevant. If we do continue with a merger, it seems perfectly reasonable to change the target to be called something like Template:Infobox multi-lingual name, using Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, rather than using the name of a language that isn't pertinent to many (most?) transclusions — the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_name_module shows me some Chinese but also a bunch of Japanese, French, Spanish and Italian films. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @OwenBlacker: I tried renaming at Template_talk:Infobox_Chinese#Requested_move_23_September_2019. More likely than not I will get to this during the summer so at least it shouldn't get to five years. I don't really see much that would have changed people opinions on this template. Not much has actually happened on this front. -- Trialpears ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- That the merge hasn't completed in 4 years surely means that it's reasonable to consider whether or not the original merge is still relevant. If we do continue with a merger, it seems perfectly reasonable to change the target to be called something like Template:Infobox multi-lingual name, using Module:Infobox multi-lingual name, rather than using the name of a language that isn't pertinent to many (most?) transclusions — the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_name_module shows me some Chinese but also a bunch of Japanese, French, Spanish and Italian films. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of this board is to implement the merger. If there are improvements made along the way that's great, but they're not a requirement and (not that this is the case for this merge) shouldn't hold up a merge. Primefac ( talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2020 November 28 – Old_move
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Module version created. More information at Template talk:Old move#Module and merger. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 November 28 – Old_moves - ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 8 – Blocked_sockpuppet
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 8 – Sockpuppet
To convert
Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- This one has 572 that match
insource:/\{\{loc\}\}/
, with no template parameters. Those seem like a straightforward conversion to {{ Country study}}. Then the remaining 110ish templates with parameters could be cleaned up separately. Could probably get AWB in bot mode to do the 572. Does that sound like a good idea? Should I try to get a bot flag to help with that? – Novem Linguae(talk) 06:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- I can get it, just never had the time or inclination to pick apart the various uses. I've set up a tracking category to find the non-parameter uses, so once that populates I should be able to knock it out fairly quick. Primefac ( talk) 21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I worked a bit on this a while ago, probably going a bit beyond what is strictly necessary when filling in parameters. It's worth noting that (countarary to the docs) that Kazakhstan and many other countries don't have their own country studies but are combined to something like Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan or Indian Ocean : five island countries. Also worth noting that these were made between 1988 and 2015 meaning that you may have weird situations with both the Soviet Union and Russia having country studies and there being plenty of other former countries to consider. I've also seen quite a few already broken links. My point being that care should be taken to make sure the links are correct and point to the intended target. -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can get it, just never had the time or inclination to pick apart the various uses. I've set up a tracking category to find the non-parameter uses, so once that populates I should be able to knock it out fairly quick. Primefac ( talk) 21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
2020 October 22 – Loc - This one has 572 that match
- I recommend using standard {{cite encyclopedia}} citations and converting these to footnotes (rather than generic endnotes) as we go. I have pre-made encyclopedia citations for all country studies, plus a page with comparisons using Earwig to the relevant country studies here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies/Reference fixing. Example edit here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) 2021 May 22 – Authority_control_Q
To substitute
Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.
- None currently
To orphan
These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).
- None currently
Ready for deletion
Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.
- None currently