Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22 edit

Module:RfX template maker/data 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used after Special:Diff/609632296 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:01, 22 June 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).

Module:Set 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 22 June 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).

Module:Sports color/table 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 as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possibly superseded by Module:Sports color/contrast * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]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).

Module:Sports table/testcases 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attempt at creating test cases for Module:Sports table or Module:Sports_table/WDL * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 22 June 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:Json2table 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused * Pppery * it has begun... 20:33, 22 June 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:Computer Olympiads 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All redirects to Computer Olympiad soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:29, 22 June 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:Mainpage date to come 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting {{Mainpage date to come}} redundant to {{article history}}. The template is not used in the TFA process (discussion). Instead, {{article history}} with parameter |maindate= is used on talk pages. The only usage of this template is on user page of User:--=The Doctor=--, which can be substituted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Clarified original nomination. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 18:29, 22 June 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:Games based on Arthurian legends 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 2020 June 30. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:41, 30 June 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:Omega Tribe 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 draftify. If and when the draft is approved, the suitability of this template can be re-litigated. If the draft is deleted (through MFD, G13, etc) this template will be deleted as well. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for the band. (Omega Tribe is a different group.) Fuddle (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon navbox was created 6 days ago; article is currently in draft space. I suggest wait for draft to be conclusively accepted or rejecdted, then propose template. Discussion about the notability of the draft should happen in the draft / article space, not here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify/Draftify/something while the draft is being worked on. If, eventually the draft is rejected and deleted, then this can be deleted per G8. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 22 June 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:Not WMF 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. The consensus is that there is real potential for confusion with regards to whether some projects are associated with the WMF, but that this confusion is better dealt with in prose. The template will be listed at the holding cell until this work is done. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This hatnote creates an unneeded self reference and at the very least violates the spirit of WP:NODISCLAIMERS. It should not be used. Wikipedia has no obligation or even desire to tell people that the subject of a page is not affiliated with Wikipedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the hatnote template after seeing the message used with the generic {{hatnote}} on several pages. I believe we do in fact have some desire to dissociate ourselves from the likes of Metapedia, and also to clear confusion with respect to such things as WikiLeaks; the general public (probably) doesn't recognize that other Wikis exist independently from the work of the WMF. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WT:HAT has been notified of this discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's bad for WP:NPOV. It makes it seem like the article is written from the point of view of WMF. Can you imagine a disclaimer like this in a printed encyclopedia? And for all the reasons the nominator identified. (Speaking as I think we are for the idea of this hatnote, whether its own template or not; no criticism of John M Wolfson for replacing individual uses with a template.) --Bsherr (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; for one thing, not having this may confuse editors wanting to contribute to WMF, for another thing, having this is probably an inappropriate self ref. Aasim 01:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can discuss the theory of this hatnote and how it fits into the spirit of Wikipedia forever, but editors use it because there is confusion about other (non-affilicated) projects that start with 'wiki'. Deleting this strikes me as an example of insiders striving to make Wikipedia some sort of ideal knowledge repository, with ever entry pared down to its theoretical minimum, instead of a useful resource for non-insiders. Rks13 (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly to avoid confusion in the articles where this template is used. Quahog (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus is to keep it, it needs to be reworked. Right now it reads as a disclaimer, which are prohibited, while it is styled as a hatnote. If it is to be a hatnote, then it needs to read like one. If kept, I think it should be made a wrapper of Template:Distinguish. --Bsherr (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the argument that it mostly serves to avoid confusion. I don't see it as a disclaimer. Mottezen (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see any disclaimer here. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 12:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serves to avoid confusion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For most of the seven or so articles that use this template, there's a genuine potential for confusion: I myself used to think for a long time that Wikimapia is related to Wikipedia. Such confusion should however be cleared within the article text itself, either by stating directly that the topic is not a sister project to Wikipedia (as is done for example in the last sentence of the lead in the current version of our Wikimapia article [1]), or – probably better – wording the article introduction in such a way that the reader will draw that conclusion themselves.
    In any case, this should be part of the text, not in a hatnote: a hatnote, as a specially formatted piece of text that goes before everything else on the page, is there only for navigation, to help readers who might have arrived at the wrong article. For example, Wikitravel and Wikivoyage can have {{distinguish}} hatnotes to each other, as the two names are somewhat similar and a reader arriving at one page might actually be looking for the other. This is not the case for this template though: it only links to Wikimedia Foundation#Projects and initiatives, and it's really difficult to imagine how a reader who's arrived at WikiHow or Uncyclopedia might actually have been looking for info on the Wikimedia Foundation. Such a link is something we've got an explicit guideline against (WP:RELATED), and if we take away the link what's left is a piece of information that legitimately belongs in the text and has no place in a hatnote (again something we've got explicit guidelines against: WP:LEGITHAT). – Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Uanfala, "to help readers who might have arrived at the wrong ..." are you sure that this is not a hatnote? I believe that this is to help avoid confusion; just like what you think. And also, this can be removed as a hatnote and put directly in the text. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 21:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but make prominent the WMF non-affiliation in the first sentence or two. Would be good to nevertheless include a link to the list of WMF projects IMO. Egroeg5 (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needed to prevent confusion - someone might think that WikiLeaks or another unrelated Wiki is affiliated with Wikipedia or WMF, hence this is needed. 2600:4040:5006:F700:F976:5C5A:35F5:4013 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MOS:SELFREF and WP:NODISCLAIMERS/WP:NEUTRAL. I just visited WikiLeaks specifically to see if it's related to Wikimedia in anyway and while this template makes it clear that it isn't, it was jarring for it to be addressed so explicitly right at the beginning of the article. I think some purposeful wording in the lead is enough to show that an article isn't affiliated with WMF. TJScalzo (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Uanfala, this is something that should be conveyed in article text, not a hatnote. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and as per Uanfala. Moreover, as a disclaimer template this IMO misstates policy and is thus subject to speedy deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better as prose. Frietjes (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". There are plenty of cases where there might be legitimate confusion, and this is the clearest way to inform our readers (whose interests should be prioritised over own internal bureaucracy). Maybe it could be reworked slightly, but I see no reason to delete this which would actually improve the message sent here. At least, before deleting, make sure to rework all articles where this is used to include in a clear fashion the information otherwise lost by deleting this template; though my own thinking is that keeping it out of the running text and simply having a short hatnote at the top is the best option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero: This is a discussion, not a vote. Mind explaining your reasoning? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost everything on this website is not from the WMF, I also don't see why people would think that becauseit's included on Wikipedia, means it is. There's no "not (other organization)". Naleksuh (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Naleksuh: You appear to be mistaken about the intent of this template. Wikipedia is a website that is owned and (within its structure of governance) operated by the WMF. Since we are by far the best known of all wikis, it is not unreasonable to think that many people who don't know any better would assume that WikiLeaks, etc. is also owned and operated by the WMF and is thus associated with Wikipedia, and the hatnote (whatever its merits otherwise) exists to disabuse them of that notion. In short, it's about the ownership of the websites themselves, not their content. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Understood, but examples, YouTube is not WMF, Taylor Swift is not WMF, New York City is not WMF, where does it stop? It should also be noted this is only for WMF and not anything like Garry's Mod containing "Not Valve" or whatever. Also as others have pointed out this is Wikipedia being biased towards itself as a disclaimer template. Naleksuh (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naleksuh: Your argument is a strawman. This is not about simply marking every page which is not WMF with this template. It is about marking pages where there is a strong possibility for legitimate confusion given similar naming (such as WikiLeaks) and/or style of website (Wikia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. The purpose of hatnotes is to help users who might be trying to navigate to a page different than the one they're currently on. Someone who mistakenly thinks that WikiLeaks is a Wikimedia project is still looking for the page WikiLeaks, so a hatnote is not the place to clarify the distinction. The proper place to do that is in the article itself as it would come up naturally. Elevating it to a hatnote is basically self-promotion — it's distorting mainspace content for our own ends, which is something we should rigorously avoid. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are many other "wiki" or "pedia" websites out there. Inside this article itself, there is a part that says that it is not affiliated with WMF at all. It seems reasonable to me that as long as that remains, there is no need for a hatnote that looks like a disclaimer. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | soup) 06:21, 28 June 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:Timed block 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. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Timed block with Template:Uw-block.
Duplicate template, this template does not mention appeal options, which is problematic. Unedited since 2011. Aasim 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, different functionality, add appeal wording if you must. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, please take a look at this query. Thanks. Aasim 14:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Awesome Aasim: Just a note, the search you used would have only matched current blocks. The point of the template is to avoid the message saying that something is blocked when it isn't. Also worth knowing that you can use quotation marks to match an exact piece of text. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Merge provided the functionality is kept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the caveat provided by the sole "merge" vote is not possible - template is substituted so any "timed" switch will not be present in the message after it is substituted onto the page. Relisting for more opinions on the matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete The contention presented above is incorrect; Template:Uw-block is written in the past perfect; an account whose block has been expired does not cease to have been blocked. Furthermore, even if that point were valid, the fact that Template:Timed block has acquired relatively little activity whereas Template:Uw-block is used by Twinkle indicates that very few people actually care about it. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pppery and WP:CONSOLIDATE. If difference in parameters make that impossible, then just delete; it has only 4 transclusions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:10, 25 June 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_22&oldid=965310369"