Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21 edit

Template:Uw-mislead1 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. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-mislead1 with Template:Uw-wrongsummary.
These are notices for the same issue. There are also other levels to the mislead template; the main question I see here is whether this needs to be multi-level and which wording we should use. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The multi-level templates were the outcome of consensus after intensive discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings and have served us 11 years without complaint. It's not constructive to pick one of them and propose merging it here, while only mentioning the others in passing. This requires a systemic view. Unless you show that you read and understood the discussion that led to their creation and that you see a problem with them that has emerged since, I'd say, leave good enough alone. ◀ Sebastian 13:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant to give this context but forgot: I created {{uw-mislead1}} a while back, a mistake since I hadn't found {{uw-wrongsummary}}. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK, that may change things. Did you create the whole multi-level series of “mislead” templates? If so, did you seek consensus at WT:UW before? If yes, can you point us to the discussion? If not, then I would bring it up there before any further action. Especially the question whether this needs to be a multi-level series needs to be discussed there. Also, what name to give to the series merits some discussion in the right forum. Let me just mention here that I see several problems with the name “mislead”: It insinuates an intention, which is against WP:AGF at least for level 1, and it is too vague as to what it's about, leaving open whether the “misleading” took place in the summary or any other place. ◀ Sebastian 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed but support redirecting Template:Uw-wrongsummary (notice) to Template:Uw-mislead1 (multi-level). There doesn't seem much use in having a single-issue notice which almost identical to the multi-level notice. User:SebastianHelm, would this work for you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pinging me. See my comment above. ◀ Sebastian 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We try not to redirect single-level templates to multi-level templates because it can have the effect of foreclosing consideration of the appropriate warning level to use. If there is a preference for the multi-level templates, then the single-level template should be deleted. However, I question whether there is really a need for a multi-level template here. All of the bad faith misleading edit summaries I have found are to disguise some other bad conduct that already has an appropriate warning. Has anyone encountered a bad-faith misleading edit summary where that has been the only bad conduct? --Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging. This is an edit notice with different levels like the vandalism or editing tests one, but the single-level one has a deeper explanation that would not work in the same context. CrazyBoy826 22:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although I think this should be accompanied by the deletion of the rest of the uw-misleadX series, for the reason identified above. --Bsherr (talk) 03:07, 29 May 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:Northern Virginia Politicians 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a navbox. This one puts together some politicians from a region, why? There is no main article for Northern Virginia politicians. Northern Virginia doesn't include it. We have navboxes for the Virginia House of Delegates, State Senate, and U.S. House members. A category for this was deleted.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Seems reasonable, since I'm not sure why it'd be better to have this navbox as opposed to the state senate/house/etc. one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template was more useful when it had local government leaders in it, but ultimately it still wouldn't be very useful or have clear inclusion criteria. Northern Virginia is an economically and culturally distinct region of Virginia but its borders not clearly defined. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:16, 27 May 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:CTA 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 May 29. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 00:02, 29 May 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:Indie music scenes 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 May 29. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 00:02, 29 May 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:Test 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 per discussion. Specifically:

Primefac (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated many times before, with the result 'no consensus'. The main argument for keeping was people who were used to '{{subst:test}} ~~~~'.

Many other templates, like this and the spam warnings have been nominated and redirected. Not sure why these are still sitting around.

To avoid causing massive disruption caused by substituting nonexistent templates, I suggest redirecting these templates to the uw templates. Like this, everything is standardized, but people who use these links can keep doing so without disruption. CrazyBoy826 20:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. These are redundant in purpose to the much more used {{Uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}}, {{uw-test3}} and {{uw-vand4}} series and really it's better to not have two nearly identical sets of templates that serve the same purpose. Since they are in use, setting them to redirect seems logical. --Jayron32 20:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and Jayron32. This is a textbook case of WP:CONSOLIDATION. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's too confusing for new and current editors to have so many ways of achieving the same thing, particularly when most are the same. It is easier for all involved, and also decreases maintenance overhead and the likelihood of vandalism, to have a single template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if no consensus for that, then redirect. I'd prefer to delete these as I'm sure the name "test" can be used for an actual template and not wasted away as a redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: People who are used to the old template names could accidentally substitute the new template. CrazyBoy826 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:uw-test[x]. Would also like to add {{Test5i}} and suggest that gets redirected to Template:uw-blockindef. I do not think the templates (particularly the block template) even complies with WP:UW. Aasim 11:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though these templates are called "test", their content actually does not uniformly suggest they apply to test edits. For example, test3 says, to paraphrase, stop vandalizing, without any mention of test editing. My understanding of their practical use is that they are more related to the uw-vandalismX series of templates. We should delete them without redirects so there is no confusion. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above as redundant to the uw-testX series. With respect to Bsherr's objection above, I would point out that Template:Uw-test3 also mentions the word "vandalism", and if a user is substituting a template that clearly states "test" in its name, they probably intended to warn the user for test edits. For these reasons, I imagine the harm caused by this redirect would be minimal here. Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that these templates have a fifteen year history, and those that use them understand them to be for both vandalism and test edits, not one or the other, since that's how they were originally designed. Nobody new really stumbles upon them, so far as I know. --Bsherr (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I had forgotten, but their original scope was even broader; "Test" templates were used for a multitude of issues. Here's a rev from back then that illustrates these templates. --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't this is a big deal. I'm not strictly opposed to outright deletion, but it sounds like if anyone still uses these templates, they would be rather out-of-touch with the community's current treatment of warning templates. In any case, the worse that will happen after redirecting is one of these out-of-touch users substitutes {{subst:test2}} and {{subst:test3}}, and as I mentioned above, in my view, the wording of the templates is not so divergent from the modern version of the templates that it would cause a severe problem. Additionally, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect users who do accidentally substitute these templates intending to send a different message to realize their error once they substitute. Mz7 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 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:Филип Стојковски 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded non-English text currently without any possible usage. English wikipedia does not need article-style non-english templates. CrazyBoy826 19:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have google translated the text to english and the translation is currently hidden text in the template, so if anyone understands Macedonian, please look at the translation and confirm what in the text are grammar errors made through the translation, and what is nonsense either way. Besides, delete. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OcelotCreeper: That seems like an article. CrazyBoy826 19:54, 21 May 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:Argentina national football team squads 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational boxes should be linking to other articles per WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV, not to templates. Each navbox is only transcluded onto one article (Argentina national football team and Mexico national football team), and thus is not a benificial use of the template namespace. The various navigational boxes can be found in the respective parent categories (Category:Argentina national football team navigational boxes and Category:Mexico national football team navigational boxes). If the squads need to be linked, this can be done similar to the German national team article (which links to the mainspace squad articles). S.A. Julio (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:09, 21 May 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:2019 Georgetown Hoyas men's soccer navbox 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 May 30. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:28, 30 May 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:National futsal squad 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 to Template:National squad. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:National futsal squad with Template:National squad.
{{National futsal squad}} should be merged into the broader template {{National squad}}, as it provides the same function. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:20, 21 May 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:Infobox china place 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 speedy delete. Tagged for G3 speedy deletion (pure vandalism). (non-admin closure) CrazyBoy826 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template seems to a by-product of some recent vandalism to the Borehamwood article. I cannot imagine it serves any purpose. Frans Fowler (talk) 05:21, 21 May 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_May_21&oldid=959816666"