Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 10 November 12 >

November 11

edit

Template:ANI

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:ANI-notice after subst'ting extant uses. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly hasn't been used for years. Few transclusions within now long-archived discussions, most recent of which was 2008. Unclear practical purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Video games A-class assessment initialize

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7 Izno (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG no longer does A-class and has not used the class in a long time. The initialize template is also basically a duplicate of {{la}}, and the preload is also basically a duplicate of initialize. Izno (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sandbox subpages

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. WP:G7 Izno (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with a trivial wikitext implementation. Izno (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is a leftover of nested old code.   ManosHacker talk 06:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Volcanoes Barnstar

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:The Volcanic Barnstar. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual barnstar per WP:B2G, and WP:VOLC uses Template:The Volcanic Barnstar as the official barnstar. Jerm (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Talk header preload

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Substantial opposition against deletion, or a "merge" which results in the discussed functionality being removed. Future nominations may have more luck focusing on a merge which retains functionality, possibly with a mockup. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Talk header preload into Template:Usercomment.

Word-for-word identical; and both wrappers of {{tmbox}}. Colour/style changes can and should be handled by a switch-parameter. Or simply replace then delete the former template, which is little-used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{talk header preload}} uses a customizable preload template to help ensure users sign their comments. It also has an archive box with a search. The larger "Start a new talk topic" link is intentional, but otherwise the styling differences aren't important. If you manage to keep this functionality intact in {{usercomment}}, great, otherwise please move {{talk header preload}} into my userspace before deleting it. This template has been battled tested to work well for new users. Courtesy ping to Excirial, who I think is who inspired me to make it, if my memory serves correct. @I dream of horses, QEDK, AntiCompositeNumber, and LuK3: you may be interested in this discussion as well. — MusikAnimal talk 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be "battled tested to work well for new users", but with just 32 transclusions (fewer than five for each year of its existence) how many of them encounter it? Furthermore, it may pre-load text if the user selects the "Start a new talk topic" link, but it does nothing of they select the "New section" tab. How can it help new users, to train them to use a "Start a new talk topic" link that they will not find on the vast majority of other talk pages? For anyone with experience of interface design, user-training or teaching, that's a glaring anti-pattern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know, I'm just speaking from experience. I don't do nearly as much recent changes patrolling as I used to (though coincidentally I opened up Huggle for the first time in a long while yesterday!), but all I can say is this template worked wonders for me, which is I moved it from my userspace to the template space. Again I think Excirial was the one who asked me about it, or maybe I copied the system from them, I don't remember. The large "Start a new talk topic" link I think is what did the trick. Prior to this system I had a lot of manual cleanup I had to do. Users would write at the top of the talk page, or at the bottom without a section title, etc., and of course never signed.
      It won't really hurt me if the template is deleted, as I'll just move it back to its original home in my userspace, but I do think it serves a purpose separate from what {{usercomment}} currently does. I of course have no reservation against merging them if functionality is kept intact and usage is just as simple.
      The situation will probably change in the coming year once DiscussionTools is deployed. Until then, this template is the best solution I've encountered. — MusikAnimal talk 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What MA said.   --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speaking as a deletionist myself: There are new users who encounter my talk page who could very well be unintentionally bitten if Talk header preload is deleted or unthoughtfully merged. Just look at my talk page now, and you'll see at least one user who quite likely would've been rendered unable to seek assistance without a template to preload a comment. The lack of transclusions is a reflection of a lack of awareness, not a lack of usefulness. The question we need to ask ourselves is not"Should we delete or merge this template?" but rather "How can we increase its' use?" I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally don't keep templates - especially not seven-year-old templates - that are barely used on the basis that someone might use them in the future. If this functionality were needed - and no evidence is provdid to suggest that it is, or even that there is a popular demand for it - it should be added to MediaWiki. Feel free to open a Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in use. If you think a merge is feasible, I'd invite you to carry it out. Otherwise, this nomination fails WP:TFD#REASONS. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AntiCompositeNumber makes a good point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect {{Talk header preload}} to {{usercomment}}, because {{Talk header preload}} not only is redundant to {{usercomment}} but also looks ugly. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I was tempted to !vote keep based on the latitude we traditionally allow in userspace, but looking at these templates, the preload one is really just a fork of {{usercomment}} that uses non-standard styling and adds the preload when one clicks on the new discussion button. The preload functionality can and should be introduced as a parameter to the main template, and the non-standard styling should be moved into userspace (or introduced as parameters if we really want to get fancy). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:The Barnstar of Recovery

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per its description at Wikipedia:Barnstars#Barnstars, this barnstar seems to be just a slightly more specific version of the rescue barnstar. Since barnstars are substituted, deleting it shouldn't affect any existing instances, but going forward, I think the rescue barnstar is sufficient. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Navbox x-word

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Rough consensus here is for deletion. Editors believed either that it shouldn't be on articles and is inappropriate for dab pages, or that the topics are not closely connected and/or are redirects. If navigation between these is desired, alternate methods are described at WP:CLN which may be suitable, such as a list or category. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE - half are redlinks that will probably never be created, a lot of them are disambig pages, and others like H word for Hell, or I word for I (pronoun) are either very uncommonly used or make little sense. This is not an encyclopedic navbox Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 09:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Link to previous discussion. Certes (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were used on the actual pages, then it could have been fixed and kept, but it's not. The dab pages, which are the only ones which are actually titled "x-word" do not use this template as it was removed. For other targets, it should not be placed on redirects to sections. --Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm skeptical that even if, per Gonnym, the N-box were on all the "X-word" pages that this would be viable, because the topics are not actually related. They're simply coincidentally called something similar, because English's patterns of word-mincing are limited. There's no connection between, say, the F-word and the N-word as far as their underlying topics go, nor between the history of the phrases "F-word" and "N-word". It's like having a navbox for J. Lo, ScarJo, K-Fed, Benifer, and Branjolie simply because they're similar patterns of truncated-portmanteau nicknaming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proper encyclopedic terms are "Bennifer" and "Brangelina" (not Benifer and Branjolie). Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for pinging me. When I became aware of the way in which multiple contentious words use the same initial to euphemise, sometimes with confusing results, I sought advice on how to link them, and received and acted on a suggestion which turned out to be contentious in its turn. It's all covered at the April 2020 discussion, as kindly linked by Certes. I don't disagree with anything written above, but my concern remains the same: that our readers, many of whom use English as a second language, are alerted to this curious linguistic phenomenon. It isn't random words that are Xified (to coin a phrase) in this way. Generally, they are words that raise painful emotions, either because they refer to a slur (e.g. the W-word --> wetback --> illegal immigration) or something inherently bad (the C-word --> cancer). As an encyclopedia, we should elucidate this "class of Xified words". What better solution could be found, if the navbox (which I was advised to use) is not the appropriate way? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is mentioned briefly at Euphemism#Phonetic modification. Perhaps that could be expanded. Certes (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I'll consider possibilities. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 16:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AlanM1 since you suggested this editor create this template (& are a TE), do you have any comments? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and put them back on the x-word pages. I support Carbon Caryatid's position that they are related as a linguistic phenomenon. If the 10 redlinks are objectionable, and are not likely to be used, I have no objection to their removal. Years like 1523, days like April 14, etc. have (sometimes multiple) nav tools to other date articles, so there is some precedent for navigation among members of not-quite-tightly-related classes. (Pinging Uanfala as the only other commenter in the original discussion) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to ping: my view is that it's alright for this navbox to be placed on dab pages (notwithstanding the strong adversative knee-jerk reaction of many of the dab style regulars), but it will be out of place in most articles. – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2018 IPL match 1

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. On the surface there is a weak consensus to subst and delete this template, but the opposition is (validly) concerned about potential updates/corrections/etc not being properly synced between pages (it does happen occasionally). Additionally, this template is one of 60 for 2018 alone (with another 60 for 2019 and 2020 each), and it doesn't make sense to subst/delete a single template in a series without considering all of them. In order to account for these issues the templates in the 2018 group should be batch-nominated to determine the outcome of the entire series (2019 and 2020 can be included in that nomination or batch-nominated separately as the nominator(s) see fit). Primefac (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template with very low uses. Every template in Category:India cricket templates titled "Template:[Year] IPL match [n]" has no more than 3/4 transclusion & in future, those template won't be transcluded into any other arctles. we should "subst:" them & then delete. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to note (somewhat in response to Dee03) that the current precedent is to delete low-transclusion templates such as this and replace them with section transclusions (see for example this discussion).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and place content in the pages on which this template is used. To my understanding, a template for article content is used for convenience: It enables the same chunk of content to be reused repeatedly indefinitely, and means that if said content requires tweaking no one has to go through all the times it appears on Wikipedia to get them to match up. I do not see a reason to use it to describe the outcomes of matches such as these since they appear on all the pages that require them as is, and their content is fixed; there is no need to tweak it. They are unlikely to need any further modification nor to be reused on future articles, so devoting template space to them is inappropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zeke, the Mad Horrorist; no point in having a template for static information. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's static until it isn't. And section transclusions for this particular case seems unclear since it's many fixtures in the same section. Fact is that it is reused data, that is intended to be kept in sync, and so I'm not sure substitution is the cleanest result. It removes it out of templatespace for the sake of principle, but it does increase the maintenance barrier. Perhaps just move the templates to articlespace (as a sub-page) if people are really bothered. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_11&oldid=1091625003"