Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 20

< April 19	April 21 >

April 20 edit

Template:Longterm4im 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 2017 April 29 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Longterm4im (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:Camden Riversharks roster 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) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Camden Riversharks roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct team Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being that they are now defunct a current roster template is pointless. MJHankel (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (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:BigPage 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with {{Very long }}. Last thing we want is more templates of this nature spammed all over. Template is not maintenance related nor does it direct editors to pages on said problem...be it help or maintenance. Moxy (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please stop tagging things. It doesn't help anything except getting a high edit count. The worst thing that can be done to a big page is to add clutter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Very long}} then. I created this using the article wizard, and it got accepted. Now it is here. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Very long}} since it is plausible title and that template already serves the same function that this one likely would. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 21:56, 20 April 2017 (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:Recentism 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. That, and it looks as though some bold fixes have already been made to Template:Recentism. Steel1943 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recentism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Recentism with Template:Current.
The differences between these two templates is not all that clear. Both could potentially refer to recent events, whether or not the subject of the article itself is an event or not (such as if recent events are affecting an article that is about a notable person.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No need for two templates of basically the same thing. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this editor replicates/illustrates my point best when it comes to these two templates being too similar. Cyrus the Penner's first edit was about a month ago, making them a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. If someone who may not be to familiar with how Wikipedia works looks at the current default wording for these two templates and not navigate to the links in the templates, they seem almost identical. Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Steel1943: On the other hand, the editor's newness might also explain how they don't understand the subtleties of each template. One is a prod to fix systemic issues with an article (ie. "slanted") and can be left on an a page indefinitely; the other is a warning about the volatility of information (ie. "changing rapidly") of current events articles. These are very different situations, and it is very possible a new editor has not seen the breadth of use cases in Wikipedia to understand this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose 2 very different templates use for to very different purposes. One is a maintenance template used to help organize cleanup and inform readers the article may be slated towards new info. The other is to inform readers and editors that this is a new page or section and is currently undergoing changes....not a cleanup tag...but a Wikipedia:Current event templates. What links here is a good indication of there purpose for being. --Moxy (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Moxy: Sort of replicating my concern below, do you by chance know if another template was merged into Template:Current recently? If don't recall its default description/text being so precise that it doesn't sound like it covers subjects affected by recent events when the subject is not an event itself. Steel1943 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  This can be disregarded. There doesn't seem to have been any type of merge per the template's edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nomination - As Moxy said, these two templates have very different purposes, and should be kept distinct. One is a cleanup request, and one is informational that is put at the top of current events/breaking news articles, and is eventually removed over time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as another nomination of a maintenance template by an editor who didn't think through the difference between them. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I did and thus why I made this nomination. If these two templates are supposed to be distinct from each other, additional clarity is needed on one template and/or the other. In fact, I don't remember Template:Current having such a precise description as it currently does; I'm assuming this may have been the result of another template being merged into it itself. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Moxy. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - while the two templates are similar they are geared twords two different types of articles, and thus should be kept distinct in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So these two templates are very different in purpose. "Recentism" is a maintenance tag, used for articles that have a problem (i.e., excessive emphasize on recent events over historical events — an example would be where a recent minor or middling controversy consumes 10%, 20%, or more of an article on a university, corporation, etc. Current is an informational tag used not when anything is necessarily wrong with an article, but when edits are fast-moving because it's in the news. The problem that nominator identifies is that "Current" template seems geared toward events rather than biographies. But that problem can be solved by putting {{current|section|date=January 2017}} in the proper section of the biography at issue. Neutrality^talk 02:46, 21 April 2017 (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).