Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 23

March 23

Template:Nfurd

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 {{Nfurd}} into {{nrd}} for the various reasons stated below. Leave nfurd as a redir. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Nfurd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nrd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Nfurd with Template:Nrd.
These two templates are dupes of each other. One should be redirected to the other. Not sure which name we should make the default name. {{subst:nfurd}} looks more intuitive to me as a fair use rationale typically is abbreviated as 'FUR', but {{subst:nrd}} is more advertised as it appears on Wikidata and in the documentation for {{Di-no fair use rationale}}. Also, the templates have non-matching protection levels. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

{{nrd}} wasn't listed in the {{Di-no fair use rationale}} documentation back then, I assume I simply didn't find it under that name. Amalthea 10:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do we have these substitution templates in the first place, by the way? By using Module:Unsubst in {{di-no fair use rationale}}, it would be possible to arrange so that {{subst:di-no fair use rationale}} returns a properly dated {{di-no fair use rationale}} template, and the short abbreviations could then be turned into redirects to {{di-no fair use rationale}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Safesubst or Lua modules weren't around back in the day so there was no better tech, I think. Amalthea 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So should we replace all of these file deletion substitution templates with redirects to the main templates and add Module:Unsubst with correct parameters to the main templates, then? It would maybe be easier if the code only needs to be maintained at one place, but the documentation would need to be adjusted, and there may be other changes needed too (such as parameter names). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is wrong with dupes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Would you have two articles covering the exact same topic at two separate locations? Would we have a Barry Manilow and Barry Alan Pincus maintained separately? Izkala (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Analogous, but only weakly. These templates are not used in mainspace. Do they require maintenance? If one is redundant to the other, why not note on the template documentation of one that use of the other is preferred. Altering past uses of the template seems overly complicated. Are substituted instances of the templates to be altered? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      • ? What harm do you think is going to come from redirecting one template to the other? No past uses will be altered. These are deletion notices - they're kept for no longer than seven days. Their output is identical; simply, they append the date today to {{di-no fair use rationale}}, like this: {{di-no fair use rationale|date=14 April 2016}}. Izkala (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Redirection of one to the other is all that is to be done. I realise now that the nom said this. I thought all past uses of one would have to be fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Oh ok. Izkala (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect {{nrd}} to {{nfurd}} {{nrd}} is unprotected. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Daniel, that shouldn't be an issue. Administrators can edit {{nrd}}. Izkala (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2016 (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).

Template:R from hashtag

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 for now. I'll probably revisit this later. Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Template:R from hashtag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Redirects from hashtags (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not social media, the fact of the matter is that since hashtags are used by several different means of social media, there are several cases where specific hashtags mean different things on different social media sites, mean something different when they are used several years later, or even used in a different method than their intended usage. (For example, there was some sort of hashtag that I cannot remember right now that was used when the attacks in Paris last year happened, but whatever that hashtag was, it was actually used for a completely unrelated non-profit organization before the attaches happened.) Since the subjects which these hashtags could refer are potentially ambiguous, I do not believe that marking these redirects as so serves a useful encyclopedic purpose since the subject which the hashtags refer could be ambiguous due to people using them erroneously. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. (1) Are you advocating deleting the redirects, or just the template and category? Referring to "WP is not social media" is pretty meaningless if you're only looking at the internal workings of WP, not its content. If however you think that readers shouldn't be able to get to Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping from typing Bringbackourgirls into the search box then you're in the wrong place for that discussion. (2) If we take, for example, Bringbackourgirls which is templated as "R from hashtag": as Wikipedia categorises all redirects for maintenance purposes, how would you categorise this redirect within Category:All redirect categories? (3) If there is one hashtag that becomes associated with two different subjects, isn't that a question of where the redirect should be targeted, for discussion on a case-by-case basis (up to and including WP:RFD if necessary), not a question of whether the redirect should have a {{R from hashtag}} applied to it? Bencherlite^Talk 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I put it here, so the ultimate goal with the nomination is to invalidate hashtag redirects as notable via a redirect category for the reasons I presented above. Afterwards, if any such redirects are discovered, then they would probably have to undergo individual WP:RFD nominations. Another issue about the pages currently in the category is that since "#" is not a character that can be used in a title per WP:NCHASHTAG, any redirects in this category aren't true "hashtag tags" since # is not part of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to delete a redirect, delete the redirect at RFD, if you can. As long as we have these redirects, we need a template and a category for them. Unless you can think of a better template and category for them, this seems fine to me. So I'm opposing because while I can understand what you're trying to do, I disagree with you and you're also trying to do it back to front and in the wrong venue. Bencherlite^Talk 02:43, 23 March 2016 (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).