Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10 edit

Template:Greeneville Astros 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) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The team no longer exists; it ceased operations after the 2017 season. The template is no longer used or needed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2018 (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:Article page templates/path/ 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; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary; just use a #ifeq statement on the template on which it is used {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirmed with tests, template code gives same limit with #ifeq, I agree for deletion, indeed they are unnecessary.   ManosHacker talk 16:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - ManosHacker is the creator of these templates, per WP:G7 (you can just tag the pages with {{db-g7}} when/if you've updated the code to not use them) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery is the nom, not manoshacker Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha! The sign of Pppery confused me, sorry. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2018 (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:CrimethInc. 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) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox and sidebar (adjacent TfD nomination) are largely duplicative and consist mostly of non-notable entries, the result of premature splits from their parent article. Most have been redirected. There aren't enough child items to warrant a navigation template, nevertheless two. czar 14:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Not enough notable articles to warrant template. For the earlier more complete template (full of redirects), see this version. Daask (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (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:CrimethInc. sidebar 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) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar and navbox (adjacent TfD nomination) are largely duplicative and consist mostly of non-notable entries, the result of premature splits from their parent article. Most have been redirected. There aren't enough child items to warrant a navigation template, nevertheless two. czar 14:55, 10 March 2018 (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:8TeamBracket-2Legs 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 one and don't delete the other one Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:8TeamBracket-2Legs with Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg-NoSeeds.
These two template are the same usage. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input on the "delete them both" argument presented by Frietjes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we should delete {{8TeamBracket-2Legs}} and no further action on {{8TeamBracket-2Leg-NoSeeds}}. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2018 (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:UsernameSoftBlocked 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 2018 March 21. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (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:Metro Dagupan 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 soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help fix malformed TfD: Dagupan is no longer a metropolis as per definitions by the National Economic and Development Authority -ERAMnc 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference For readings, the list of metropolitan centers of the Philippines can be read here Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022, Chapter 3: An overlay of economic growth, demographic trends and physical characteristics It is listed in page 37-38 that the metropolitan centers of the Philippines are Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao. -ERAMnc 14:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2018 (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:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here 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) 21:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new Article Wizard does not produce the option for pages to be created directly in mainspace or in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ space. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2018 (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:Connected contributor (paid) 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. Some support !votes, but there is consensus to keep (i.e. opposing the merging proposal). (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor (paid) with Template:Connected contributor.
Almost totally duplicate functionality, but the formatting of the original template is more helpful (the "(paid)" version is diverging from it), and all the additional features of the "(paid)" version can be implmented in the main template and be triggered by a |Ux-paid=y switch, which (if we want to retain the nominated template as a wrapper) can simply be passed by Template:Connected contributor (paid) to Template:Connected contributor as parameters. We do not need two separate and forking codebases and sets of documentation for exactly the same thing aside from the addition of "paid". Merging them will also allow us to use one template at one article talk page for both paid and non-paid CoI contributors, instead of stacked templates (both templates support multiple editors, but they are presently for different classes of editors, for no practical reason). See the top of Talk:Realtor.com for a one-above-the-other output comparison.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The first question I have is what effect would the merge have on the maintainability of the template? The second is what real benefit does the merge give? You mention that the code base is diverging but is that a bad thing vs trying to cram everything into one template? The combined template would need, as I understand it, need to output the CC or CC-paid or CC and CC-paid text (I can not think of text that would be appropriate to both situations ). Essentially we end up with a more complex script for only the convenience of only having one template.
    I do not really understand the template language but it looks like a merge would just be wrapping the guts of the two templates into another set if/thens for contributor type plus the logic of merging the output formatting. Seems like that would lead to code spaghetti and make the whole thing more difficult to maintain vice to separate code bases. Jbh Talk 15:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really spaghetti, the bulk of the code does nearly the same thing even if it looks a bit different. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the benefit sought by combining the two? All I can see, assuming there is no intention to modify any verbiage in CC-paid, is that, in the rare instance of both CC and CC-paid being needed on one article, the editors will be displayed in one box. I do not see any benefit to making a single template with more complex and longer code for that minor outcome.
A secondary effect of combining the two will be to change the protection level of the CC-paid information — when they are combined only template editors will be able to edit the new template. I just do not see an upside. The presented justification of forking is not persuasive to me. They are different templates with different functions so whether they are diverging or not simply does not seem to be an issue. (Changed to Oppose but still willing to be convinced otherwise.) Jbh Talk 22:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are doing similar functions yet have different code. The list of say

WikiWriter2458 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

John Smith (talk · contribs)

Janet Doe (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. All edits by them should be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN.

xx (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.}}

is about the same. The benefits would be when some feature is added/change is done to one template it doesn't have to be added to the other. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I'm with SarahSV below in that I would like to see a demo version to generally see how it will work make sure no functionality will be lost. Beyond that, I will defer to the maintainers on how easy it is to maintain.
Since the parameters will be changing, how difficult will transitioning the existing templates be? If the combined template will include the parameters from both I assume it will be 'drop-in' but an implementation with a 'switch' was mentioned. Jbh Talk 15:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and very strongly. The "paid" template language makes the very clear claim that the person was paid; the other one is for all the other kinds of COI which might not involve being paid at all ("X may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article"). We should only use the paid one, with its statement of fact about an actual person ("X has been paid"), when we have a clear disclosure. This proposed merger is a very bad idea. I hear it that the language could be switched triggered by a parameter being "yes" but a) I don't like fancy, and b) I don't see how that resolves the clutter problem since there would need to be different language.
At the realtor.com article, both editors are "paid" and have declared that, and I have condensed the tags in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They mostly do the same functionality and the extra coding shouldn't be much more complicated than what is already there, which already has if statements etc for specifiying if each user is banned/has edited the article etc. It's pretty easy to switch the language. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Having one template play a dual role would probably make filling it in even more complicated. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I would need to see a working model. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It'll work exactly the same. In the words of El Presidente
How are you going to code this template?
Very easy. I’m a coder. That’s easy. I code templates that are - can I tell you what’s more complicated? What’s more complicated is coding a ::template that’s 95 lines long. O.K.?. If I have time this week I may write a working model Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This makes sense to me. While it may seem more complicated to have one template with many, related uses, in the long run it will make maintaining and expanding the functionality for both uses much easier. For example there has been some discussion about having more than 10 users in these templates. Rather than have to do this work twice across both templates it can be added and tested once. - PaulT+/C 18:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The differences between the two templates are minor and cosmetic, so having both is redundant. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – No reason to have two separate templates. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons given by Jytdog and JBH. The desire for code elegance or whatever should not outweigh the purpose of the template, which is to indicate plainly that people are paid to contribute at an article. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How would this impede "the purpose of the template"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — what effect this has on the code/template back-end should be irrelevant if the argument behind merging the template is sound (assuming functionality is retained). Especially if a single article needs to indicate both paid and non-paid contributors, seems redundant to have two separate templates that accomplish the same thing but with one detail changed. User:Jacedc (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it frustrating that people are calling a definite claim about an actual person, a "detail". It is a big deal to say that somebody is paid.
The distinction between definitive "paid" and other forms of COI, would need to be maintained, and while the nominator gives a handwavy claim that this could somehow be more elegantly done via code that is triggered with a parameter, there is no description of what that would look like. If "paid" and "other COI" were mixed in the same template my sense is that the complete header would need to be repeated many times, leading to more clutter, not less.
User:SMcCandlish please describe (or ideally show) what the combined template would actually look like if it contained both paid and non-paid editors, and how it would be as clear as using the current separate ones, but less cluttered.
Here are two templates together, copied from another article.

{{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages.

What would the combined template look like? Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC) (added missing "look" Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Category:Talk_pages_of_subject_pages_with_paid_contributions is there. Will still be there after merger Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Try again when you have a meaningful replacement idea. Right now, they should be separate since they differ so much. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The top box speaks in an authoritative manner using the language of certainty: "Terms of use require editors to..."; "with respect to any paid contribution..."; "Posytyv has been paid...". The bottom box speaks using the language of uncertainty: :"The following contributors may be professionally connected..."; "Relevant guidelines may include...". In fact, the only language of certainty expressed by the bottom box has nothing to do with confirming a COI ("This user has contributed to the article."). The other editors who have spoken here warning of confusion if the two boxes were merged are quite right in wondering how the two differently-sounding messages could be combined into one coherent box. Would the merged example take the tone of certainty or doubt? Spintendo 12:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SlimVirgin and Doc James. It would needlessly complicate filling this out and make it harder to calculate usage. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Spintendo and Jytdog. If anything we should be increasing the distinction we make between paid and ordinary COI editors to avoid tarring all with the same brush. We certainly don't want to lump them together in one talk-page template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Arguments about how important it is to identify paid editors are irrelevant; nothing in this proposal would have any effect on doing so. Arguments about code complexity are irrelevant; the code of these templates is very simple to anyone familiar with our templating language. Reactions like "The first question I have... " and "What is the benefit ..." are not oppose rationales, they're questions, which have already been answered. The idea that this will "make the whole thing more difficult to maintain" is patently false; the opposite is the case, or we would not have a standard practice of merging redundant templates. "Merging will make it harder to calculate numbers of uses" is also not going to be true; our source code is searchable by parameter name, and regardless, we can and should be using categories to track both general-COI and paid-COI applications of the template anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The questions elicit information which inform decision. I notice that no one as addressed the difficulty of merging the templates already placed nor, as has been asked by several editors, shown how a combined template would look and function. There are also questions about how the different verbiage will be handled. As has been mentioned there are potential issues with lumping regular COI editors in a template with the CC-paid notice. At best, what is being proposed is creating a single template that will recreate the output of the individual templates in a single box. In short, which is on top.
    While editors here have said maintenance will be easier they have not shown that the status-quo is an issue. It is said that the templates code bases are diverging but why are they diverging? Is it simply drift or is it because the writer of CC-paid had to solve problems not addressed in CC?
    Basically the opposes have raised several concerns of which the only ones that have been addressed is the judgment of some template editors that it will be easier to maintain. Great. I am all for maintainability but, as with most of the other opposes, that takes the back seat to functionality. Show us what a merged script will look like and how it will function then request the merge.
    To make tracking easier these are the questions I see. Others are welcome to add to the list to keep everything in one place:
    1. Maintainability - ✓
    2. Transition of existing templates. Will the combined template be a drop in replacement or is it adding a 'switch' as mentioned above? ✗
    3. Categories placed when paid and COI editors listed ✓
    4. Parameters; Will they be the same as the old templates? ✗
    5. What will the it look like when there are both types of editors? ✗
      Verbiage - Paid or COI on top? Optics is a huge issue in Paid/COI discussions. ✗
      Visual separation of PAID and COI editors or template sections? ✗
    6. Is there anyone working on CC-paid who does not have the template editor right? If so they will no longer be able to work on it because CC has a higher protection level. ✗
    So, reason for oppose is these questions/issues have not been adequately addressed. Jbh Talk 23:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not seeing any specific need for two templates that accomplish more or less the same thing, and I don't see why a special template is needed for "paid" contributors with a COI, other than for people who don't like paid editing to punish their "enemies". The COI is no different whether money changes hands or not. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would strongly suggest you read WP:PAID and Wikimedia:Terms of Use. The Foundation requires that paid editors make several disclosures relating to who is paying them, who the client is if not the same as who is paying and what they were paid to edit. That disclosure is required by the ToU and the CC-paid template is part of the disclosure process. So yes there is a "specific need" and it is not to "punish" anyone. Jbh Talk 19:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose concerns above by editors who use the template haven't been fully addressed. Although I can see the logic from template maintenance POV, the sensitivity of the COI and paid templates, the need to encourage more take-up, and issues around potential conflating the two need further addressing, as in principle this is a good suggestion, in practice maybe not now. Widefox; talk 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - mi na tugni These templates should remain separate - not all COI editors are paid. Some are high-ranking employees of the article subject, or the article subject themselves. lo vi re papri lo pa cu xlali xe sidbo mu'i lo nu da KMF (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both are for different use.  samee  converse  05:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jytdog and others. I can't believe people say that these templates are "similar". There's a huge difference between an editor who, say, happens to have the same username as the article they edit and a declared paid editor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, strongly. There is a reason why WP:PAID, a policy that reflects the WMF Terms of Use, and WP:COI, a guideline, are two different things. The two templates serve distinct purposes, and it makes much better sense to keep them separate instead of merging them into something that will be more complicated for editors to use. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposse. Technically, the nominator is perfectly correct, a parameter switch could provide the same distinct functionality as the two templates provide separately. Such a combined template might be easier to maintain, although it would be more complex. However, the very clear distinction made for users of the templates at present is in my view far more important than any (relatively minor) technical gains to be had here. Such a combination would also be sufficiently more complex that the number of editors qualified to edit the template would be rather more limited than is the case now, not a benefit in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The one is for paid contributions, as by a marketing company employee editing a client's Wikipedia page, whereas the other is if, for example, the editor is enlisted by a Zionist organization to edit the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict article. Different templates are needed as the latter isn't a paid contribution but simply that of political alignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waddie96 (talk • contribs) 14:57, March 23, 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_10&oldid=1145863115"