Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17

edit

Template:OW

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get why we have a version for IP users since their page isn't their page and many people may use the same IP, but no good can come from using this on an established, registered user's page. It is antagonizing and implies that they can't remove this template, when in fact, the user has every right to remove any warning on their talk page. Only declined to unblock requests can't be removed during a block, which isn't a warning. After seeing this come up in ANI, and the user gets (rightfully) upset, I can't help but think this template is past its expiration date and needs to be retired, as there isn't a way to use it without antagonizing an editor. Anyone that would find the information "useful" already knows to check the page history for deleted warnings, so in the end, it serves no purpose other than to create drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Dennis, who has very eloquently summarized the situation, and who's summary I wholeheartedly endorse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has literally hundreds of thousands of transclusions, almost entirely on IP talk pages. There is no "version for IP users"; the IP warning hat templates are used to hat discussions, not substitute for them. This serves a different purpose – signifying the removal of discussions on IP talk pages altogether to reduce excess link load – and it serves that purpose well. BD2412 T 00:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppress on registered user pages instead, per BD2412. E.g. simply make it display nothing when on non-IP user talk pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still consider it to be valid on the page of a long-abandoned registered account, particularly those where the editor in question engaged in minimal participation and then disappeared. However, I would not object to an instruction prohibiting its use on the talk pages of active registered editors. BD2412 T 00:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is based on a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of the template. Whether the template should do something special on a registered user's talk page is not within the scope of TfD, although I see it as completely unnecessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And potentially make it a no-op on a registered user's talk page, but that is beyond the scope here. Seeing this on a talk page is very useful when fighting vandalism. Leijurv (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and start a discussion at the policy village pump about what the instructions should say
Keep, because it is so darn useful when cleaning up years-old warnings on a talk page -- IP or registered -- that hasn't been edited in years.
Suggested rules:
  • Can be placed on any user talk page
  • Can be removed by the user who "owns" the talk page. Should not be restored if this happens.
  • Should not be removed by any IP, including the IP that "owns" the talk page.
  • Can be removed by any other registered user, with the only restriction being an edit summary explaining why.
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Every user talk page has a history tab. The vast majority of those history tabs lead to either a blank history or a history of what is currently on the user talk page. A small minority of users delete warnings and criticisms from their user talk page -- usually because they have something to hide. The template identifies these editors so the casual reader will know to check the history. Alas, if someone is determined to make it difficult for the casual reader to know that they have a bunch of warnings in their history, they can just delete the template. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sincerely trying to understand how the OW template serves readers. Before something is deleted or removed it is better to understand why it was made in the first place. Reading commentary earlier there are reasons to keep the template that are technical (it's already on a bunch of pages and would create a technical problem if it stopped existing), and procedural (it is useful for IP-based pages because multiple people may share the page), but I hadn't yet seen what value it brings to readers of the Wikipedia itself, especially as those readers are presumably reading Articles more than talk pages and/or are capable of clicking on "View History." Policy-wise it seems that the use you outlined can easily be used by editors to harass other editors, so much so that WP:HUSH specifically mentions the placing of false or questionable warnings. I guess, in terms of value to the reader, are readers served more by A) keeping, for technical reasons, a template that is duplicative of IP-specific templates, B) keeping a tool that provides some benefit in "warning" readers of the few Talk pages of editors who, you confidently state, "have something to hide" until the page is blanked or the template is changed, or C) removing a template whose non-technical use is going to result in transforming the userspace of registered users into a "wall of shame." Re: what's been explained to me or not, that's being discussed elsewhere [3]; I see no need to migrate that discussion here where the topic is the OW template itself and how it serves readers. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheMusicExperimental: Let me try to explain it clearly. There are hundreds of thousands of IP editor pages and long-abandoned user pages containing nothing but a handful of warnings or other comments of no value to the encyclopedia. Often, these warnings contain links to articles, so that when you click the [What links here] button for a high-traffic article, the list of links includes dozens of these IP talk pages and long-abandoned user pages. This is a link load, and it makes it harder for someone searching for a relevant link on that page to find it. This is particularly problematic for disambiguators because a disambiguation link can sometimes appear in an article through a template or some other transclusion, so a cleaner [What links here] makes it easier to find problems. Putting a hatnote template on the page hides the discussions, but leaves those links intact. Replacing all content from the user talk page with the {{OW}} removes these pages from the [What links here] page altogether while signaling that the user talk page in question has previously had warnings. BD2412 T 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you @BD2412:, that makes sense to me and I appreciate learning more about how the system-side of things work. If I'm understanding correctly, the OW template serves two purposes: 1) Preventing a bunch of non-active/IP Talk pages from being linked to via What Links Here helps readers avoid non-useful Talk pages and 2) from other discussions here, OW serves as a way for people who feel obligated to identify vandal accounts mark a Talk page (with caveats re template changing & blanking noted by Guy Macon above), this usage helps readers by reducing vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There must be some kind of way anti-vandals can know that a user has committed vandalism, even if there are no warning templates on the page at that time. This purpose is usually fulfilled by the {{ow}} template. Opalzukor (talk) 13:02, 20 October 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:Ghost Rider/Clear

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very unnecessary setup. There is no need to add pages using a navbox to any category. If a user wants to know what pages use it they can check what pages transclude it. Very simple. Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 17 October 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:AngCOTM

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, having been added to Talk:St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Kansas City, Missouri) in 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 17 October 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:AMCOTWCurrent

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/COTW has had no substantive edits since 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 17 October 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:AlienCOTM

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Includes the text "The next winner will be selected on May 1, 2009.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 October 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:Africa Current collaboration

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Collaboration suggests it was last used in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 17 October 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:JCOTM

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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration has had no substantive edits since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 17 October 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:Valentinian dynasty

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 October 30. (non-admin closure) St3095 (?) 16:46, 30 October 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:Suppressed

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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Suppressed with Template:Uw-selfinfo.
Both templates serve the same purpose. I see no reason for them to be separate. Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See the discussion at Template_talk:Suppressed as to why one has a different graphic than the other. I had thought I had a brilliant idea, but I realized that it might not actually work the way I thought it would, and that the "cute" emoji is more likely to catch the eye of a young, naive editor than a blue "i" that they've probably seen fifteen times already. Also, given that both of these templates are always substed, does it really matter that there's two of them to choose from? —Soap— 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There shouldn't be two templates doing the same thing, the oversighters should pick one style of message and use it. The concern about the template being easily findable due to file links presented on the template talk page is inapplicable, since one can (and will always be able) to obtain the same information via the search function. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are related thoughts at Template talk:Suppressed from oversighters, I think this is a discussion that would benefit from their comments. Relisting with advertisement to Wikipedia talk:Oversight,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per Pppery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, the real ones most of us use are in user space anyway (User:Fluffernutter/c and User:Alison/c.) No real reason to merge. There’s like 4 total and this seems like make work. People can use whatever they want. So oppose, I guess. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If both templates serve a purpose then I do not see how merging them would make less work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or just delete and redirect Uw-selfinfo) per nom and Pppery. We routinely merge away redundant templates in "Template:" namespace. The fact that people may have some alternatives in userspace is irrelevant, because we're very tolerant of people doing whatever they like (within WP:NOT reason) in userspace, and template sandboxing is a common use of that namespace. This is also not ChildrenPedia, and templates about serious matters, like user privacy and deletion of material down to the history level, shouldn't be labelled with childish smileys. The language of Uw-selfinfo also doesn't make much sense, in a) presuming someone is going to be displeased in the first place, and b) presuming they're going to be displeased about their privacy being protected. It's just weird.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Often it is used for someone posting a personal bio or "my page!" or something like that. And folks sometimes don't see it as protecting their privacy, they complain about removal as anyone would a Facebook page (or 15 years ago MySpace or Xanga). The template is trying to be approachable and friendly, and it is good. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I suppose: I'd thought there was more daylight between the two, and would prefer there to be. That is, I'd like both around, so that there can be a greater difference, with an approachable template and a more stern one. Although, as Tony says, we're gonna largely keep using the userspace options. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 22 October 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 Syria 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace/Substitute with {{Infobox settlement}} to make place infobox usage in Syria and Arab world consistent.

 
Syria is the only Arab country to not use Infobox settlement for places exclusively.
  1. Little usage: Created 15:11, 8 November 2015‎ by PanchoS as a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}} under the name "Infobox Syrian settlement", used on 181 pages in article namespace (list), the first 170 pages all seem to have been created by PanchoS or received *that* infobox through him, page 1 Qamishli had IS directly and got the wrapper July 2016 [4], page 170 Balaban, Syria was created September 2016. Only 11 pages using it were created afterwards.
  2. Inconsistent: There are more articles about places in Syria, they all use Infobox settlement directly. All other places in Arab countries use Infobox settlement only directly.
  3. Procedural: No /doc until yesterday, and didn't use {{Uses Infobox settlement}}, so not included in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement and maybe that is the reason that it wasn't listed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Place#Country-specific, so former batch merge proposals maybe just missed that it existed. I just found it yesterday either on Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes or Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes.

TerraCyprus (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 15:26, 17 October 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:Protestant Zionism

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. Rough consensus, factoring in the RSN discussion as well, is that this template currently does not have a clear inclusion criteria and does not meet WP:NAVBOX at present. Concerns of sourcing of the navbox entries were also raised. If an editor is interested in reworking the template to address these points they can request it be userfied for them to work on it. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very random collection of names. Either needs a very thorough cleanup by someone knowledgeable, or deletion. But it shouldn't be used in articles as is.

I have, after reading their articles, no idea why e.g. the following are included in this template (and have had this template added to their article, as if it was a main part of their career and notability):

... are all included in this template, but why? Fram (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template is currently a work in progress. The figures laid out in it played a formative role in the creation and advocacy of Protestant Restorationist and Zionist theology, which the article on the topic covers. As laid out in academic articles such as this, this, the books More Desired than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism by Robert O. Smith (2013) and The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury And Evangelical Support For A Jewish Homeland by Donald M. Lewis (2014). Torchist (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Templates which are still in such a state of construction shouldn't yet be added to countless articles, and even less so during a TfD to discuss the template. Your two sources don't look like reliable sources at all, the first is an essay with a very religious instead of scientific point of view, published digitally by the Jerry Falwell University, and the second is a doctoral scription by an author (a vicar) who later also wrote "Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon" written "to debunk a powerful heresy called Christian Zionism": again, hardly a scientific, neutral source to base such a template on and place people like the Catholic Dumas in. Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My tuppence worth is that I think the template detracts from, rather than adds to, the articles I've contributed to.Ehdeejay (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Fram (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Tips fedora^. The same information is laid out in "Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour" by Barbara Tuchman, "History of Zionism, 1600-1918" by Nahum Sokolow and others. The template is largely complete now and funcitoning. As for the cringe-posting regarding Liberty University, given that they are an established university and are themselves Christian Zionists, a source from them explaining the historiography of the individuals involved in that movement and where their theological views originated is useful. Unless you are going to say Harvard University and others are inherently "unreliable" too because it was founded by Puritans or Georgetown University cannot be used as a source because its a Catholic university. This is not to say whether their actual theological views themselves are "true", that is not for us to decide, just to report on them. Torchist (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same information isnot included in these sources, Tuchman and others won't include e.g. Alexandre Dumas in a Protestant Zionist list. The names, which is what the template (and this discussion) is about, have been taken from the indeed cringe-worthy article by Ice, which isn't science but proselytizing. Fram (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 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:R from historic name

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. The primary arguments for and against merging this template involve how "clear" or otherwise interchangeable the two templates (and their definitions) are to the various participants. With 13 years of use between them, and no "smoking gun" for why either side is "more correct" than the other, I'm going to kick this back to the relevant WikiProject(s); merging the templates without having a wider discussion about the substance behind them creates somewhat of a cart-before-the-horse problem. Clearly, if such a discussion/RFC determines that "former" and "historical" can indeed be used interchangeably, then there is no prejudice against performing this merge. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the associated categories:

Propose merging Template:R from historic name with Template:R from former name.
These two templates were both created in mid-2007 (I'm not sure if the creator of each was aware of the other), and they have often been used interchangeably. Their documentation tries to make a distinction, but it's not at all clear, only saying that one is for former names with "a significant historic past" and advising checking transclusions for examples. I'm not sure how it helps Wikipedia to be making this distinction. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there's also {{R from predecessor company name}}, which is not part of Twinkle and thus has only 200 transclusions, compared to several thousand each for the other two. If there's consensus for this merge, I may nominate that next, so let me know if there's any reason I shouldn't. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No current opinion on this, but if the merge goes through, the title should be "former" as the template is used for more than historic names of places. --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I created the "former name" one, which was made first, and was not aware of the other. While I can think of some clear-cut examples where one of these would apply more than the other, I think most pages are more ambiguous and I don't see the point in policing the distinction. Rigadoun (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "former", unless someone defines a clear distinction between them and provides a reason for keeping both. Certes (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've always thought the distinction was crystal clear. "Former name" applies for example to a bus station that underwent a name change. "Historic" applies to those redirects that are like the examples in the template documentation:
Really don't see the problem here. Consider also that Category:Redirects from historic names is a subcat of Category:Redirects from former names, so if this good faith although imho incorrect merge proposal goes through, category merger will also have to take place. Time for a baby aspirin! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "former". For me, it's been hard to determine what's "historic" versus merely a former name. Won't all former names have sources pointing to that name? The "historic" template uses printworthiness as a threshold for determining what goes where, but why not just label the relevant redirects as printworthy or unprintworthy? See also this revision of Republic of Macedonia, which uses both templates. @Sdkb: I'm not so sure about {{R from predecessor company name}} being merged; it sounds like it would make more sense to rename that one to "R from predecessor company", in line with how the template seems to be intended. What would be a good use of our time, though, if this goes through, is merging {{R to historic name}} into {{R to former name}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Uncertainty about when to use a particular template ("Is it former or historic?" 🤔) is not a reason for combining the two; rather it prompts us to better explain the difference and provide clear examples. We work to create this encyclopedia not through lumping things together, instead we use using words to give clarity. Keeping the two templates separate is in line with that principle. Senator2029 “Talk” 18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were just a matter of clarifying the documentation, that probably wouldn't require a merge, but I think there's a more fundamental issue of the line between the categories being extremely fuzzy. To go with the bus station example above, Paine Ellsworth says that'd be a clear use case for "former", but if the Port Authority Bus Terminal were renamed, I think we'd say that'd be a clear example of "historic", and if a mid-sized station with a mediumly-long history were renamed, it'd be clear as mud. No one has come up with a clear way to draw the line, let alone enforce that standard and clean up 13 years of interchangeable use. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe if we looked at this from the view that "former" doesn't always mean "historic", but if a name is historic and is no longer actually used, like Calcutta and Peking, it is always to say the least a "former" name as well. That's why a merge between the two should not happen. Why not show some examples instead of just saying there has been 13 years of interchangeable use? For eleven of those years I've tried to be meticulous about getting redirect categorization right, correct. I've worked long hours on documentation, to include these two rcat templates, in an attempt to ensure that other editors would also be just as meticulous. I must be missing something. How would you make the documentation for these two even more clear than it is now? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different guy here. My question is the reverse: what sort of former name would not be historic? I can't but feel that the reason why it's hard for me to tell what's what is because all historic names are former names. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Western Pacific is an island called Nikumaroro, where some think Amelia Earhart may have crashed on her tragic round-the-world flight. The island is known historically as Mary Letitia's Island. Yes, historic names are always former names; however, former names are not always historic. Historic names are sometimes a little weird as former names, because some people may not recognize them as former names. There are still people who think of Kolkata as Calcutta. But I seriously doubt that anybody calls Walmart the Walton Five and Dime anymore. One difference that I've found between former names and historic ones is that few or no people use the former names anymore, but historic names die hard. Just look at some of the multi-year discussions seen here on Wikipedia for Calcutta vs. Kolkata or for Bombay vs. Mumbai, and note that redirect protection levels are sometimes still high for editing and renaming. Very heated discussions. When one studies the matter, it isn't really very difficult to make the distinction between historic and former. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{R from former name}} - having two templates for similar things is likely to be very confusing for new editors. Despite the protest that there is a significant difference between former name and historic name, that sort of sub-classification for a redirect is purely extraneous. It makes no difference for the online version of Wikipedia, and no printed version would reasonably make such an oddly specific distinction in a glossary page etc. This isn't an issue of documentation as claimed, this is an issue of consolidating redundant templates. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since 2007, when both of these categories (former and historic) were created, "former" as a parent category and "historic" as a subcategory to "former", the not-so-subtle distinction has been obvious to those of us who spend much of our time categorizing redirects. So the question to ask now is do we really want to rollback a distinction that has been in place longer than I've been a registered editor, for a total term going on fourteen years? After all that time, there has been no evidence given that this distinction has been misused, or that these categories have been populated interchangeably. There have been no examples given as evidence because, if those examples exist, they are very hard to find. I've looked and have yet to find a historic-named redirect that I would change to a former-name redirect or vice-versa. I've asked for such examples from the nom and there has been no response with such examples. Do we really want to discard this important maintenance category distinction by merging these categories after the distinction has served Wikipedia for such a relatively long period of time? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{R from former name}}, when is a former name not historic? That should be sourced and not WP:OR stored in redirects. TerraCyprus (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realise that consensus is trending towards merging, but I'm relisting for two reasons: 1) due to the massive number of transclusions of both templates, I think a longer period of discussion would be beneficial. 2) I think answers to the questions posed by Paine Ellsworth would be beneficial to the discussion -- namely their request for examples of these templates being misused / the distinction being unclear. I'm vaguely familiar with the work Paine has been doing with redirect categorisation for a long time, so I think there is some added credibility to his objection to the nomination, and I believe it is appropriate to give editors a chance to address his remarks, should anyone wish to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re relist: It's the other way around, not people have to show to Paine Ellsworth when it is misused, but Paine Ellsworth has to come up with a criterion that isn't WP:OR: When is a former name not historic? What sources shall be used for judgement? Where shall the judgement be stored - in redirects? TerraCyprus (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume he would argue that he has (in the thread discussion with Senator2029) - I make no comment on the strength of the argument, simply that I believe it prompts to allow the opportunity for more thorough discussion. Of course, it is not a requirement for any editor to address another's views, and it is not solely the reason for the relist either. These are highly transcluded templates, which editors have been gnoming to separate for years. It would seem a good idea to allow more than a weeks discussion before scrapping them, especially when the only involved editor here raises the claim that they're not misused. If deletion as 'misused' is proposed, it is generally for the proposers to evidence their claims, as the negative is very difficult (heck, impossible) to do on a highly transcluded template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, let's give this one proper discussion rather than acting hastily. I still weakly favour merging, but there are good arguments for leaving things as they are. Certes (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Certes! As PR says, it's impossible to prove the negative – one would have to go through each entry one by one to show that none of the entries are miscategorized. To prove the positive, all one must do is find twenty or thirty miscategorized entries to show that a problem exists. However, not a single example has been shown in this discussion of a miscategorized entry. So they must not be easy to find. To determine what is and is not historical in terms of former names, it's not even close to OR when one follows the definition of historic. The first meaning given in Wiktionary is "1. Very important; noteworthy: having importance or significance in history". So names like "Peking", China and "Calcutta", India are important and noteworthy names with historic significance. When a former name does not meet that very simple criteria, then it gets tagged with the more general {{R from former name}} or {{R to former name}}. When it does meet the dictionary definition, then it's tagged with {{R from historic name}} or {{R to historic name}}. (I would assume that the "to" templates are also part of this discussion, as well as all four categories that are populated by these templates?) There might be borderline cases that are a judgement call, but I've found them to be rare. It's almost always easy to determine which template to use. WP:OR by the way does not really apply to this situation, rather it applies to article content. Editors make redirect categorization judgement calls on a daily basis when it comes to templates like {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}}, and what is an "other capitalization" or should it be called a "miscapitalization"? Those are just a few of the situations in which editors find themselves having to decide which is the highest and best application of the template tags. So in this case we just follow the dicdef as best we can. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I would assume that the "to" templates are also part of this discussion, as well as all four categories that are populated by these templates?) - I think it would be logical to assume so. The proposer should clarify this soon, and tag the templates quickly to this discussion (to allow for a full 7 day advertised discussion following relist) if so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for doing the extra tagging. To address your question, the only thing that makes it hard to find examples of "misplaced" tags is that, as I and others have argued above, the definitions are so ambiguous that it's hard to define what constitutes "misplacement" in the first place. But if you need an example of ambiguity, those abound. Browsing randomly through the categories, here are two of the first pages I came across: Dahomey Air Force, the name of what is today the Benin Air Force between 1958 and 1975, and Bingo Palace, the name of what is today the Palace Station casino in Las Vegas between 1977 and 1984. Can you tell at a glance which is tagged with "former" and which with "historic"? (Answer: Bingo is the one in the historic subcategory.)
In terms of unaddressed points, several editors above have made the assertion that, even if a concrete distinction were established between the categories, there has still not been any need for them to be separate articulated (Brainulator addressed printworthiness, which is the only rationale I get from the documentation). So I'd like to ask that directly: What benefits are there for the maintenance of Wikipedia to have these be separate categories? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, having worked with redirects the whole time I've edited this encyclopedia, I have helped to build understanding of all rcat templates by improving their documentation and application and by improving their indexes. My understanding is that they are used to populate tracking categories. So at some point in this case editors wanted to track former names and especially historic former names. I don't question the benefits that the creators perceived when they made these tracking categories and templates. Nor do I question any consensus that might arise here at TfD or at CfD that has an effect on them. If the consensus turns out to be to merge "historic" with "former", then I shall go with the consensus. Maybe the separate tracking isn't needed anymore? Maybe the creators don't even track these anymore? I don't know; however, I like to think that all the present tracking categories and templates still serve a purpose on Wikipedia, whether I know what that purpose is or not. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, St3095 (?) 10:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "former". The idea of something being especially "historic" is subjective, and it doesn't help categorize for users or for maintenance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Paine Ellesworth's convincing explanations of how the two differ and the lack of any credible examples given of confusion, miscategorisation or other actual problems caused by the two templates (as distinct from problems theorised to exist by people who do not do any significant redirect categorisation work). Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, it's easy to see by your examples how there could be some confusion. I submit that the gray areas have always been there, and have always been a source of head scratching. However, the longer one works with these, the easier it becomes to make the correct decisions, and even for those redirects that should not be sorted as "historic names", they are still at least in a subcategory of "former names". And as usual with this great encyclopedia, another editor will come along and correct any errors made by previous sorters. I also submit that it would be a shame to merge these categories after all those years of work by editors who have made and tracked the distinction between historic names and names that are former, but have nothing to do with world history or any of its sub-histories. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose leaning in with an oppose simply because I don't think we've got the level of discussion and clarity here that I would expect before stripping away a template gnomed separately for years. There's a lack of concrete examples, few editors here who participate in redirect categorisation, and a real risk of this being a case of hasty decision-making without the proper expert comments needed to decide whether scrapping these is truly a net plus for the project. The argument that the distinction is unhelpful may have merit, but it requires further discussion I feel. The argument that it is misused has not been fully substantiated in my eyes. And I'm wary of scrapping something I don't understand, and I'm more wary of scrapping something I'm not convinced is properly understood by the participants either (at least, that aura is not fully felt). I feel like this is one of those nominations that could benefit from further discussion outside TfD, before bringing it here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 28 October 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:Archive nav

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:Archive navigation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Archive nav with Template:Archive navigation.
No need for both templates. The names are synonymous. "nav" is described as "an alternative of {{archive navigation}}". {{Archive navigation}} seems to be preferred, by a ratio of 10:1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a question. Merge. --Izno (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Hopefully a new era will come out of all these mergers, where editors use the talk page to get features added instead of forking. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' per nom. These should be the same. As usually I prefer replace and delete, because that way in future it's much easier for editors to identify the naming of the right template, and also less confusing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I prefer Archive nav with a significant margin since it gives more links to a wide array of links allowing for easy navigation and think a merger should include a long parameter or something allowing for this plethora of links which is useful on pages with a lot of archives. Perhaps we could automatically use the long feature if the number of archives is over 10 or something. --Trialpears (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this is a fairly clear consensus to merge thus far, but I'm relisting this for two reasons. 1) due to the number of transclusions, to allow time for more opinions, perhaps by users of the template. 2) There has been very little discussion on what functionality should be preserved, other than by Trialpears. Some editors believe in replace+delete, others may be suggesting that functionality should be implemented in the target template. I note this template does two main things differently: it shows a multiples of archive pages (and lesser increments for 'nearby' pages), rather than just showing 'prev'/'next', and it suppresses the "Archive" text. Since it's quite integral to the topic of merge, I think it'd be better to get a clearer consensus on what the 'merge' will look like at TfD, rather than at an less-visible talk page discussion after a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as they are clearly the same thing. Regarding how, I like the way {{Archive nav}} uses the word "archive" only on the current one; it's not needed for more than that. I also like how it displays more than just the very next or very previous archive. For pages with dozens of archives, we probably don't want to list all, but for ones with only 10 or so, sure, let's have all. I prefer {{Archive navigation}}'s vertical separators rather than Archive nav's horizontal ones. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. That actually means merge, as in integrate the best functionality of both, don't just delete and redirect. I think the one with the shorter name has a feature whereby it does not pointlessly try to link to pages that do not exist, and that's a plus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 18 October 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:Topical talk archive

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard and archaic talk-page archive header, with just 31 transclusions. Redundant to other talk-page archive header templates. Note that Wikipedia:Topic archive has been marked as "historical" since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that topic archives are now considered historical does not mean that they do not exist. so a marker for topical archives that do exist, should still exist as long as we keep the topic archives around. Unless they are merged into chronological archives, the fact that topic archives exist show that the template for marking them should exist. And all topic archives that do not currently use this template should be updated to use this template. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the link to this template at {{Templates for archiving}} since the method is historical and won't get new transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:16, 17 October 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_October_17&oldid=988239620"