Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31 edit

Template:Panel buildings 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, but simplify. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panel buildings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty navigation template (no links on pages about buildings), only WP:NAD. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see about a dozen or so links to articles about types of panel buildings or about terms for them. True, it could do with a bit of simplification so that it doesn't look like a glossary. Uanfala (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

simplify so it's not a glossary. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2016 (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:Lang-zh 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 merge, but make sure no functionality is lost and try to retain backward compatibility. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-zh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Zh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lang-zh with Template:Zh.
These seem to do the same thing. "zh" seems to be more popular and sophisticated, and is associated with Module:Zh, though previous discussion claims language templates are generally moving to the lang-* style. (In which case the merge should go in the other direction?) -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious merge. Clearly, Template:Zh is more powerful and more used (37678 transclusions vs. 1635). Most uses of Template:Lang-zh seem to be for simply the Chinese characters, which is easy enough to do in Template:Zh. But for those that use the other two parameters for transliteration and literal meanings, those need more careful remapping – especially since Template:Zh supports a whole lot of transliteration methods. So this is a lot of work to get merged. Caorongjin (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If the 2 templates do the same thing for mapping Chinese characters and Template:Zh is much more powerful than Template:Lang-zh and can do everything it can do and more, which all seems to be the case, then it would be a good idea to merge them. If they are successfully merged then this will never be an issue again, whereas if we do not merge them, this issue will probably be raised again in the future. So merging it now rather than later and getting it done is the best way to resolve this issue for good and avoid this same debate happening again in the future. If it takes a lot of work to merge, so what, I am sure there are people here willing to do that work who can do it. --Yetisyny (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge. It looks straightforward enough to do. Most of the uses of {{Lang-zh}} seem to be only for Chinese, and I suspect the vast majority of the rest map their other parameters to pinyin and literally in {{zh}}. The few exceptions should be easy to find and fix manually. I did something similar in merging {{zh-full}} so would be happy to take care of this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lang-zh will still be kept as a redirect right? Otherwise it will break consistency with all the other {{Lang-x}} templates. For those all I have to do is add the language code at the end and hopefully I won't need to hunt down individual templates for each language. Note also that {{lang-ja}} still exists despite there being better {{nihongo}} templates. Opencooper (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the redirect persists at lang-zh and the uses of that template are adequately handled in the merged one. On a side note, I find lang-ja more intuitive than Nihongo template – I typically use lang-ja for names in biography leads and gobbling up the bolded article subject name, the Japanese script, the Latin translation, and the date of birth into code on the very first line is off-putting to users, to say the least. SFB 01:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the other direction. It's important {{lang-zh}} continue to function as documented at Template:Lang/doc; it is part of a site-wide template system. The {{Zh}} template is a superset of its features, and need not exist as a separate template, or at that name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- how would that work? {{zh}} has far more functionality than {{lang-zh}}, so merging the former into the latter would mean massively expanding {{lang-zh}}, essentially making it into {{zh}}. Changing all its uses to work like {{lang-zh}} would be far more disruptive than the other way as {{zh}} has 20 times as many transclusions. Considering that, and the opposition to merging into {{zh}}, I am changing my !vote to oppose – best to keep them separate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But merging {{zh}}'s functionality into {{lang-zh}} would create inconsistency with the rest of the lang-xx templates. An editor who is aware of the extended functionality of this particular template will be naturally inclined to expect it in the others. Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lang-zh per standard; we may want to free up the short name later —PC-XT+ 02:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty imagining why we would want to merge away a template with over 37,000 transclusions in order to free up the short name for later. Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just mentioned it in case a merge does happen, not meaning it as a reason to do the merge, which would be too WP:CRYSTAL. I supported this thinking the proposal would follow lang- standards, with extensions based on zh, as in some other lang- templates, but if that won't happen, my !vote makes no sense. zh could stay the way it is, for that matter, if lang-zh is changed to use the module, but only if it doesn't make the module too complicated —PC-XT+ 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure why Template:it redirect to Template:it icon, but zh to lang-zh?! merge cautiously or changing them all to lang-zh. Matthew_hk t c 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These templates are distinct and belong to different systems. The lang-zh template needs to stay as part of the simple lang-x family while zh is its own thing. Merging them would create more trouble than it is worth, both in terms of code and in the ways they are actually used. Consistency within the lang-x family is more important than redundancy in the simplest use case. — Opencooper 18:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: nearly the same. 333 -blue 09:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Opencooper (and JohnBlackburne's revised !vote at 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)). This template is rather more complicated than the Template:Lang series (of which I am a strong supporter). Similarly Template:Korean and Template:Nihongo are more complex. That these languages all use East Asian scripts with multiple transcription methods (some of which have political implications) means that the standard structure used by the Template:Lang-x series simply isn't sufficient. I would weakly support moving Template:Zh to overwrite Template:Lang-zh and adding a redirect, so that the functionality from {{zh}} is kept but with a name consistent with the Template:Lang-x series. (Similarly I would oppose a merge of Template:Korean but would weakly support it being moved to overwrite Template:Lang-ko.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments above (especially that, whichever way the merge is done, it will create inconsistencies within the wider lang-xx family of templates) and the fact that I haven't so far seen a compelling reason to go to the enormous trouble of merging the two templates. Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Huangdan2060 (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, very similar template with very similar functionality. --Emphrase 14:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge if feasible, functionality is basically the same. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the ground that it is a template for more than one language (It is designed to be use for all languages inside the Chinese macrolanguage family) C933103 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @C933103: Whether you're referring to {{zh}} or {{lang-zh}}, how is this supposed to be a negative? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 12:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jc86035: I am referring to {{zh}}, and the reason provided is to oppose merging {{zh}} into {{lang-zh}}. As for the {{lang-zh}} one, I think it can still be useful for people who rarely add/edit Chinese-related content into wikipedia, but familiar with adding content that include different languages, to do so in a simple way that are more familiar to them, and thus lang-zh should also be keep, unless it can be coded in a way that allow people keep using the regular lang-x template parameter to call the zh template via lang-zh template. C933103 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @C933103: I see what you mean, but there aren't any parameter name conflicts. There would likely be some resistance towards making |2= (transliteration) an alias for |p= (pinyin, most widely used), but it's not particularly difficult to just change the parameter name for all uses of {{lang-zh}} in any case. (AnomieBot can substitute templates automatically.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me 15:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jc86035:, I mean, changing the codes in {{lang-zh}} into calling template:zh so that unawared user can simply use
        {{lang-zh|Chinese ideographs|pinyin|lit=lit}}
        in the article in the future while the code actually call {{zh}}.
Merge (by moving {{zh}} to {{lang-zh}}), similar functionality. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:02, 10 September 2016 (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:Decdeg 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Decdeg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{#invoke:Coordinates | dms2dec | {{{4|{{{hem|}}}}}} | {{{1|{{{deg|}}}}}} | {{{2|{{{min|}}}}}} | {{{3|{{{sec|}}}}}} }}. (It's a little hyperbolic to say "only has 1,600 uses", but the module has well over a million.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To any editors with the appropriate permissions, please add the TfD tag to the top of the template within noinclude tags. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Done —hike395 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Call Lua code directly. {{Decdeg}} is called by many templates (e.g., {{convinfobox}}, which is called by infoboxes such as {{Infobox mountain}}). It would be quite disruptive to simply delete. We can simply have this template be a thin shell around the Lua code. For more details, see 2012-era discussion at Template talk:Decdeg#Call Lua code directly?, and Template:Decdeg/sandbox. —hike395 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's obviously shorter and easier to write {{decdeg|0|7|48|W}} than {{#invoke:Coordinates|dms2dec|W|0|7|48}} and besides being more intuitive, the order of parameters is more natural. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2016 (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:Post-nominals/NZL-cats 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-nominals/NZL-cats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:TEMPLATECAT, the note above (it seems we all forgot about it), and this prior discussion. Schwede 66 09:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2016 (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 Mathematics 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 for merging. On the other hand, there's no consensus against redirecting Template:WikiProject Mathematics to one of the two other templates, which may very well address some of the concerns. Such a discussion should take place on Template talk:Maths rating, probably as an RFC with notification of the WikiProject. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Mathematics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maths rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Maths banner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging

As noted in my request of August 2015, which came to nothing, the non-standard use of these templates is problematic for editors wishing to tag mathematics-related articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WikiProject tags, by definition, are up to the individual wikiproject. The previous request was in the correct forum - the WikiProject talk page. That is where this kind of thing should be decided. If other editors outside the project find the templates problematic to use, those editors could just avoid placing the templates, and let the Wikiproject handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why, a year ago, I made a request there. There was agreement, nothing happened, and so a wider discussion is appropriate. And no, WikiProjects don't "own" templates, but are expected to "play nice" with the rest of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikiprojects do have their own say about their internal tagging of articles. If a project decides to use a system different than other projects, that is fine, because tagging is a project-by-project activity. When you made the request a year ago, there was no consensus to change the template (evidence: it didin't change!). Posting here instead the second time seems like it may be a kind of forum shopping. Have you notified the project about this nomination? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the clarification. This is not an attempt to prevent the project from "[having] their own say about their internal tagging of articles". It is about the templates used outside of their project space. Please do not confuse lack of action with lack of consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You still had not given the proper notice to the Wikiproject, so I have posted a notice on the project's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason not to merge these, and given that, the name to match with the other projects on Wikipedia. I am personally and perpetually confused about the correct banner, and about why this appears to be non-standard relative to just about every other WikiProject banner (besides, perhaps, WikiProject BLP). Merge these and have the single template use the standard Template:WPBannerMeta. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like no one bothered to follow up on my question the first time this question was raised regarding Jitse's bot. That seems far more useful than any particular choice of template style. It seems to me that the reason WPM did things differently is because of this bot. If the bot is dead, and there is no equivalent service, then I don't myself see any reason this template cannot be migrated into the more standard one. (However, I should say that I almost never use these templates in WPM or any other project, so my opinion must be weighed very lightly.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. It does not seem that all of the implications have really been considered. It is strange that User:Mathbot was never raised in this discussion, as that bot serves the function that other Wikiproject Banners usually serve. It seems to me that, if there are to be structural changes in the way WPM manages the articles under its scope, then this is the wrong forum for that discussion. The correct place would be WT:WPM, and the role of Mathbot's automatic cataloguing of articles weighed against the benefits of using user-placed banners. Until then, I do not see any clear advantage to migrating WPM's ratings system over to the more generic Wikiproject Banner template, and this proposed change has the potential for incompatibility problems in the current WPM ratings system, which is maintained by Mathbot. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a discussion. It is where the implications are supposed to be discussed. It is not a vote. As noted, there was a discussion at WT:WPM; it came to nothing, hence a discussion in a more widely-populated forum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and the role of Mathbot is still not clarified in this "discussion". So I oppose the proposed change. It seems like a better discussion, where you will get feedback from others who are more knowledgeable about Mathbot is far more likely to take place at WT:WPM rather than here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's really only one thing I care about in this discussion, and that's that the "priority" field be maintained. Most similar banners call it "importance"; this is a very bad choice in mathematics (probably in many other fields for similar reasons, but math is the one I care about). It requires marking specialist topics as "low importance", which is ... provocative, though I understand the context in which it is meant.
So while I agree with CBM that this is the wrong forum, I'll go along with it, as long as we keep "priority". --Trovatore (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most projects actually have support for both, due much to the same reasoning, and the only reason one is used over the other is because bots aren't allowed to make cosmetic edits. :D --Izno (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue best taken up at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Council, as it applies to all project banner templates, not just this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, well see then, there's the rub. The math project made the decision to support "priority". The math project was entitled to do that, even if it means using a non-standard template. I oppose this merge if "priority" is not supported. --Trovatore (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ with "priority" a possibility, change to Support. Trovatore brings up a good point--"priority" was decided by consensus and I personally agree it a superior way of describing what is meant. I edit articles that are included in different wikiprojects, and don't seem to have much trouble navigating the different banner types. Unless there is some particular accessibility issue I am missing, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trovatore and Mark viking: As I noted above, "priority" alone shouldn't be sufficient to cause grief, since we can add that as a parameter (alias) trivially. Please review the Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment documentation. I do not know why Andy didn't simply look up the documentation to assuage you instead of pointing you to the meta banner talk page. --Izno (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the pointer to the appropriate documentation. So if I read the docs right, we can specialize the meta-template to use "priority" rather than "importance". That satisfies my criticism, and hence changes my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)0[reply]
    - The parameter alias is one of three issues. The other two are getting the template to actually show "priority" on the talk page, and the third is to populate the appropriate categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The comment by Redrose64 at 13:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC) would seem to indicate that, so long as the template is set up only for "priority" and not importance that "priority" will be the only thing displayed. I have not verified the functionality myself. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. These are not the same thing! The maths-banner does NOT require an article rating, and thus is appropriate for categories, and inappropriate for articles. By contrast, the maths-rating has slots for both rating and for historical tags, etc. If you did merge them, you'd have to invent some awkward syntax to handle both cases, which is just asking for trouble and confusion. The third banner -- the wikiproject banner, is used in fewer than 60 places, almost exclusively in archived talk pages and a smattering of old, outdated user talk pages. Not one single article-space page or article-space talk page uses it. It would be crazy to go back and "fix up" these old, arcane, archived pages to use a new, modern, corrected template.
I am also strongly concerned and disturbed by the proposition that tagging is "problematic". I take this as a code-word meaning "it will become easier for non-mathematician editors who like to pilot bots all day long to go and damage maths-rating tags". Over the last decade, I've watched these bots and the people who pilot them cause a fair amount of damage to articles, and leave behind a wake of argumentation, bad blood, bans and arbitration proceedings. It is fundamentally a bad idea to encourage this kind of behavior: if you want to tag a math article, and you are a sufficiently competent mathematician to understand the topic of the article, then go tag it by hand. Its easy. Its not confusing. Its not "problematic". If you are not a mathematician, and/or are piloting a bot, and get confused by this process, then just leave the thing alone. You aren't contributing anything positive to the article or to WP. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, the reason for requiring a rating in maths rating is now deprecated, since (as far as I know) mathbot no longer keeps track of articles under the scope of the project. If that is correct, then this is actually a reason in support of a merger, because it would allow all articles falling under the scope of WPM to be tagged without necessarily assessing them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked maybe a month ago, and the mathbot seemed to be working just fine. Based on the numbers it generated, I got the impression that maybe 2-5 math articles get a template added every week, and that another 3-7 bump up in rating every week, usually from stub to start, sometimes from start to C. Based on my activity, I am guessing that this means that there are maybe 3-7 active math editors who regularly eyeball and edit the ratings.67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I was confused: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity has been dead for about a year, which was run by Jitse's bot. Apparently, mathbot is still alive and well. So, I guess it comes down to whether we want to deprecate mathbot or not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm looking at this: edit history for the master summary table -- its updated every few days -- the other tables are transcluded here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Table. Jitse's "current activity" was vaguely fun, if you were feeling bored and mindless and had nothing better to do than to get tangled up with reviewing other people's work. Sort of a shame that its broken down, as it did make life hard for those where were adding cranky OR content, while encouraging the rapid cleanup of nice, new articles. I'm still completely annoyed that we let Template:Proof to be removed from some 50+ math articles, and be handed over to a rap artist! What a screw-up that was. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{WPBannerMeta}} is perfectly capable of handling categories and templates, that do not get ratings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to standard template name {{WikiProject Mathematics}}, keep {{Maths banner}} as a redirect, since it's used a lot, and just delete the {{Maths rating}} one. The "just leave the thing alone" ranting is an invalid rationale; wikiprojects do not WP:OWN anything, especially templates that other editors are expected to correctly apply to the articles they write. We developed a simple (but feature-rich), standardized wikiproject article tag system for a reason. There are no uses of these templates that cannot be accommodated by features of {{WPBannerMeta}}. Merging the parameters sanely (i.e., supporting alternative parameter names) will obviate any need to go "fix" templates in old archive pages. As noted above, the maths rating stuff is obsolete, so there isn't even any need to retain parameters for it. It's absolutely abnormal to have a wikiproject scope tag prevent itself from being used on an in-scope article's talk page just because the wikiproject wants to force people to do on-the-spot assessments. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But other editors are not expected to add the math rating tag to articles they write; it is up to each wikiproject to take care of tagging its own articles as it sees fit. There is no reason to put the template on articles just to say they are related to math, that is what categories are for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Project banners are not just for articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. The maths rating is only for articles, and not for anything else. Sticking it on other things defeats the purpose of the banner. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ratings can be auto-set (as e.g. "N/A") for pages outside the mainspace if desired. --Izno (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - {{WPBannerMeta}}, and templates based on it, handle such cases automatically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. {{Maths rating}} and {{Maths banner}} should both be redirected to {{WikiProject Mathematics}}, and the latter should be turned into a standard banner. (Note that, contrary to SMcCandlish's comment above, that {{Maths rating}} is used much more than {{Maths banner}}.) Switching to {{WPBannerMeta}} will get us a more feature-rich template that, yes, other people can apply (there's nothing wrong with that!). I understand that many people have affection for MathBot, and many people are hesitant to change a system that works and has worked for a long time (if it ain't broke...). But that kind of thinking will make WP:WPM a closed backwater. We shouldn't do that; we are a specialist community within the larger domain of Wikipedia, and while we have our own interests, we should welcome opportunities to cooperate with others. Ozob (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not about this TfD

- A closed backwater to what? Exactly what great, wonderful opportunities are opened up by this (massively disruptive) change? (there are 15 thousand tagged articles!) In my long, hard and sometimes bitter experience, "opening up" on WP is an invitation for (at best) non-experts to misleading or outright erroneous edits, or at-worst, the punishment of math editors by hostile, vindictive admins with some axe to grind. A cloistered, closed backwater is the only reasonable way that I see that the quality of math articles can be maintained; outsiders have consistently been harmful to the articles and to the editors.67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...okay. Farewell, then, because you don't seem to want to be here. Ozob (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ehh? Is that yet another threat to block this IP address? Because I am really getting pretty tired of that kind of attitude. Its exactly what drives away the competent editors, and is exactly why WPM has turned into a whisper-quiet graveyard of activity. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? Who's talking about blocking? No, all I meant is that if you believe "a cloistered, closed backwater is the only reasonable way," the obvious consequence is that you do not want to work on a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I'm expecting you to leave of your own accord before long. It'll be disappointing, but it's not as if I can stop you. Ozob (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I want to work on the kind of Wikipedia that is relatively free from the interference of administrators who throw their weight around and intimidate and black-ball the working mathematicians on WPM. I've been around for more than a decade on WPM, and I have noticed how the ranks of the mathematicians here have been decimated by ugly battles. WPM was healthier when the mathematical community was larger. However, at each step, it seemed like the mathematicians were consistently punished for their independence. Attitudes, such as the one that you are displaying in your immediate comments immediately above, is exactly the kind of attitude that drives away the editors that actually know things, and allows the incompetent fools to roll on in. Rather than wishing upon me to leave, with a tone of "good riddance" in your writing, why can't you be nice? Why can't you be accepting? Why can't you see other people's points of view? Why do you feel that you must encourage, if not hasten, my departure? I would like to see a version of WPM that promotes collaboration and collegiality. Telling people that they should leave, simply because they disagree with you about a template, is just plain hostile behavior. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My apologies; I never intended to sound hostile. Ozob (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to standardise and bring this template in line with every other project banner. I believe the current setup is confusing for editors. There is no reason why the project can't adapt the merged banner to perform in exactly the way they desire (including the support for priority, which has a trivial fix). I am happy to help with this is needed. Merge — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third option There are two aspects to this problem and they have to do with the two groups of editors who use the templates. One is the group of general "curators" who tag new articles for relevant wiki projects, the other group is the members of WikiProject Mathematics who rate the articles. Making the former group use an idiosyncratic template is bad and forcing standardisation onto the latter is equally bad.
Now, the solution I see is to first let the project decide what it wants to use. If the standard template is chosen, then fine – merge them. If the project decides to stick to the old ones, then keep them, but make the standard {{WikiProject Mathematics}} substitute by default to the other two templates. This way new editors will be able to use a template they're familiar with in order to tag new articles, and the project members who subsequently come to rate these articles will be able to use the templates that they know. Will this be technically possible? Uanfala (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Making Template:WikiProject Mathematics and Template:maths banner redirect to Template:maths rating, and then untagging pages such as images that should not have math article assessments, seems like an OK compromise to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize As a non-member, but someone who does a lot of tagging, I find WP Maths' recalcitrance at mainstreaming how they operate to be a big turn off / annoyance / user-hostile. EVERY WikiProject out there uses {{WikiProject Foobar}} as their templates name, and everyone is naturally inclined to use {{WikiProject Mathematics}} to tag something of theirs. I've edited Wikipedia more than most, and every time I need to deal with the math banners I go through a "Right, this is math stuff, do I really want to go through the hassle of re-learning how they are different for no real reason again?" phase. And honestly, half the time I don't bother because it's such a damned hassle to cater to unique quirks of a project with non-unique needs. It's long time to think of the editing community at large, and standardize the math banners to be user friendly. This may require some modifications to {{WPBannerMeta}} (priority/field parameters); if this is the case, let's make those modifications before standardizing, but standardizing is what should be done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a non-project member, you don't really need to worry about tagging articles for the project, so it would be acceptable - and easier for you - to just not tag them for the math project and leave that up to project members. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's really the sort of general user hostility that makes people who could contribute not contribute. This general 'we don't want your kind' mentality goes against WP:5P3 in one of the most egregious ways I've seen. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the contrary, we would be glad to have anyone as a member of the WikiProject. But you wrote, "As a non-member, but someone who does a lot of tagging, ...". It's not surprising that someone who identifies as a non-member would not be familiar with the system - which is fine, it just means that person should take time to learn the system, or leave tagging up to people who do know the system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Such people have learned the system - as used on almost every other project. You seem to seek to impose the burden of learning a second system, for no good reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Pigsonthewing: Unfortunately, there are those who believe that it is easy for anyone to learn a second system; see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format (in short I challenge anyone to find a template whose syntax is similar to that of {{routemap}}). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said above, I think there's an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sentiment. And I have to say that I'm surprised at the tension over this issue (on both sides); sort of like how I don't understand infobox wars. I'd like to find a compromise of some sort. I think the right compromise involves having only one template, but beyond that I don't know. Ozob (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment I also believe that standardizing the banner will facilitate integration with WP:AALERTS, which was never much used because some other (and I believe now inactive) bot took care of similar needs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge, standardization is a good idea. easier to just remember one system, rather than one for every project. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (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:Meyers Online 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 and translate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meyers Online (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is in German (parameter names and displayed text). It could be kept if translated, or merged if an English equivalent exists; otherwise deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is useful and convenient as it is. Where is the benefit in deleting or modifying it? Basic parameters like {{Meyers Online|15|793}} for volume and page are only numbers. As they refer to a German dictionary, they are displayed in German as Bd. 15, S. 793. There may be additional parameters in German, but it makes few sense to translate these, as the template should work on en-wiki just like on de-wiki, to make life easier for those editors who want to translate articles from German to en-wiki, without worrying about formatting a tool. -- Matthead Discuß 22:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-English parameter names make it harder for people who do not read the language concerned to use, understand or maintain the template. There is plenty of past precedent for deleting or translating templates which use non-English parameter names; or for requiring them to be substituted, if they are regularly used to copy data from other Wikipedias. I also note that the template's own documentation includes examples like {{Meyers Online|15|793|kapiteltext=hallo|spezialkapitel=bla|bemerkung=ein kleiner Kommentar}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Translate. We do not keep non-English templates except as interim support for interwiki functionality. No objection to the template also supporting the original German parameters, but it should be documented in English, and its output should be in English. "Bd." doesn't mean anything as a citation abbreviation in English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and provide documentation. I don't have an objection to translating the parameters as long as this doesn't screw up the template when imported from German Wikipedia which is frankly its most likely source. Bermicourt (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translate but keep the German parameter names as aliases for now per SMcCandlish —PC-XT+ 01:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Translate and remove the German parameter names after correcting existing transclusions. All transclusions of our templates must be usable by editors who only speak English. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:09, 12 September 2016 (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:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster 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 Relisted on 2016 September 18 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 Arkansas 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Arkansas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated/unused project template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Template:WikiProject Arkansas/class should be deleted as per WP:G8 when this is deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those rare cases where having the deprecated wrapper template is actually useful. A while back, WikiProject United States attempted to consolidate the state WikiProjects, Arkansas among them. This was somewhat controversial for various reasons, and many state WikiProjects wanted nothing to do with WikiProject United States; as a result, there's now a weird patchwork of state WikiProjects that are part of WikiProject United States and state WikiProjects that are still separate. This can be very confusing for editors that work on topics related to multiple states, myself included, so there's a tendency to use the state-specific WikiProject template in all cases since it produces the same output. (Consider that the template was supposedly deprecated in 2012, but here's an example of someone adding it to a talk page just a few months ago.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheCatalyst31: Could we not just redirect it, then? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference between a redirect and the way it is now is that the way it is now, it automatically sets the AR parameter to Yes in the template, so it still gets tagged as part of the Arkansas subproject. A redirect wouldn't accomplish that, I don't think. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

week keep, make it require substitution to generate the corresponding WPUS tag (enforced by bot). Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2016 (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:Latest preview software release/Gpg4win 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 withdrawn. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Gpg4win (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At this moment, this template is transcluded in 1 page for a template created years ago. If that's why templates are created to be transcluded in 1 page, then I agree with the below vote Marvellous Spider-Man 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (Withdrawn, this template is part of the main template)[reply]

Speedy keep No reason for deletion given (why can't this template be kept). Pppery (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I asked you kindly a couple of times in various places to provide more specific reasoning for your actions in order to consensually find a different resolution than blunt deletion, or at least to understand which Wikipedia rules this course of actions is backed by:

Unfortunately you reacted with promptly deleting my entry on your talk page without any reply or comment and progressing the deletion process instead, if I understand the function of this page correctly. I cannot help it, but I start to perceive your behaviour as offensive and as an abuse of the powers (technically: permissions), which have been given to you. Please do explain the motivation and reasons for your actions a bit.

Regards, 95.223.161.64 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit showed in Huggle, and this template was different than regular templates. Some experienced users regularly accuse IPs with skills, as block evading sock (Reading their comments about IP editors, prompted me to think that your intention was promotion). I am not familiar with the function of this template, why subpages are created for the main template? Now I have seen that there are hundreds of these subpages for the same template. I will have to know why these sub templates are created, instead of their own template Marvellous Spider-Man 03:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply as my internet connection is having trouble for last two days. Suddenly it gets disconnected and then reconnecting takes time. Twinkle works properly by giving the deletion notice on the talk page of the page creator. Huggle does that for latest editors, even if they are IPs. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you then please undo these three edits of yours.

95.223.161.64 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done by an administrator after this discussion is closed by any uninvolved editor. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:11, 31 August 2016 (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).