Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 29 October 1 >

September 30 edit

Template:I Can See Your Voice (British game show) 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) 10:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded navbox for a TV series that hasn't even aired a season, and even then wouldn't need one. Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 30 September 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:I Can See Your Voice (Dutch game show) 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) 10:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded navbox for a TV series that hasn't even aired a season, and even then wouldn't need one. Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 30 September 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:Peesh ili luzhesh 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) 10:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded navbox for a TV series with one season. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 30 September 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:ARBIPA 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. Izno (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low usage duplicate of {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ipa}} (and Ds/editnotice in some cases). 3 total usages. Propose replacing 3 usages as appropriate (1 to talk, 2 to editnotice) and delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, given that the nominated template is easier to type than the ds notice template, would it make sense to convert it into a wrapper (potentially subst-only) for ease of use? Primefac (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, hmm, I think it could run the risk of getting mixed up with {{IPA AE}}, which is the non-generalised version of {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ipa}} (contains 1RR + CR restriction options). Generally, the ArbCom DS system only has sanction-specific templates available (Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates) for extra restriction variants of the generalised template (see eg {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, {{ARBGMO talk notice}}) - none exist which are just wrappers around {{Ds/talk notice}}. We also can't redirect this ({{ARBIPA}}) to {{IPA AE}} because that one has restrictions applied, and this one doesn't (and its usages on pages don't have extra sanctions authorised), so we'd have to change the transclusions anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more thoughts on my query above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this to get it on the same page with Template:IRANPOL GS editnotice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is used once, and the general discretionary sanctions template should suffice. It is very confusing - and also high risk that things will fall out of date - by having a fragmented template set. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 1 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).

Blanked, expired, and otherwise no longer relevant editnotices 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. -FASTILY 00:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Examples (not limited to):
    • Category:Expired editnotices
    • Template:Editnotices/Page/2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
    • One set of ProcBot data collection: Template:Editnotices/Page/Boscastle flood of 2004, Template:Editnotices/Page/Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015-2016), Template:Editnotices/Page/Jia Hua, Template:Editnotices/Page/Jinhuan Sanjie, Template:Editnotices/Page/Katsuya Jonouchi, Template:Editnotices/Page/King Duosi, Template:Editnotices/Page/King Mulu, Template:Editnotices/Page/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, Template:Editnotices/Page/Liu Yan (warlord), Template:Editnotices/Page/Live at The Olympia, Template:Editnotices/Page/Mangyachang, Template:Editnotices/Page/Meng You, Template:Editnotices/Page/Ning Sui, Template:Editnotices/Page/Qin Qi, Template:Editnotices/Page/Qiu Ben, Template:Editnotices/Page/Scientific opinion on climate change, Template:Editnotices/Page/Sun Ji (general), Template:Editnotices/Page/Sun Zhong (rebel), Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2, Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3, Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q4, Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1, Template:Editnotices/Page/Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Template:Editnotices/Page/United States federal government shutdowns of 2018, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wang Zhi (fictional), Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/File mover, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wutugu, Template:Editnotices/Page/Xiahou De, Template:Editnotices/Page/Xiahou En, Template:Editnotices/Page/Yan Zheng (rebel), Template:Editnotices/Page/Zhang Qiu, Template:Editnotices/Page/Zhao Cen, Template:Editnotices/Page/Zhou Shan
This is a nomination for all blanked and expired editnotices. Often editnotices expire or otherwise become irrelevant. Some admins delete them per WP:G6, some editors tag them for deletion, others just blank them (I assume probably just to avoid tagging it). Our treatment of them is pretty inconsistent.
We track some of these, but not all. Category:Expired editnotices tracks 189 of them. My bot found another 300 'underlying page redirect editnotices' which are blanked, including ~150 duplicate targets. But these all only cover niche cases, so I suspect there's a large number more. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Editnotice and we didn't quite reach a resolution. We can usually G6, and TfD tends to go for deletion on these [1][2][3][4][5], but Xaosflux raised a fair point in that blanking may help for the historical record. Procedurally, consider this as my nomination to delete them all as housekeeping etc (otherwise I'll get a "you're at the wrong venue"), but I guess this is a backdoor to the question of what to do with them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These clearly no longer serve any purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Support for G6. These are no longer needed, and as an editor stated in the linked discussion, blanking them does not remove the need for maintenance when a page moves. --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Would also support G6. Do you want them tagged by PearBOT or should we just not bother? --Trialpears (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, I don't mind either way. If it can be done, if this TfD passes it'd be nice to tag them all for deletion or something. At the same time, perhaps filling up the deletion category isn't a good idea, but I'm not sure any admins will get around to them otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this are no longer used and so don't serve any purpose other than misinforming future editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 1 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:IRANPOL GS editnotice 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. Izno (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in my cleaning up of GS. Seeking deletion of both the template, and its sole 3 usages in editnotices. Their existence stems from a misunderstanding. No page-level restrictions apply on these articles, and there are no topic-wide restrictions for IRANPOL, thus the existence of these editnotices is erroneous. Regular discretionary sanctions (a) does not require an editnotice and (b) de facto do not use an editnotice. It's also not helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I can agree to disagree, but it is always a good idea to know when sanctions are in effect on articles. Please also see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Post-1978_Iranian_politics. Aasim (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m aware of the GS/DS system, rather intimately at this point I must say. If we want to move to a system where all pages where DS applies shows an editnotice, an interested individual can seek consensus at WP:AN for this. In the meantime, as Isaacl and I recently discussed, the status quo is *not* to show DS editnotices on articles. DS policy only suggests and requires it when page level sanctions are in force (per page, or general prohibitions). None apply to Iranian politics. This uncategorised template with its arbitrary 3 usages, and the COVID templates, are exceptions to the norm of over 20 active DS authorisations, created out of misunderstanding rather than deliberate attempt to be exceptions. So imo this deletion is routine housekeeping per existing policy, rather than a discussion on what the policy should be (on that note, I don’t think this template is helpful at all, as it doesn’t instruct or advise an editor to do anything differently. DS alone inherently prescribes no restrictions on editors, it’s an expansion of admin authority not a limitation on the part of an editor, at least until page-level sanctions are placed under DS’s authority) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The general discretionary sanctions template should suffice. It is very confusing - and also high risk that things will fall out of date - by having a fragmented template set. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 1 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:Archiveme 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. Izno (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For user talk pages: redundant to the much better {{Uw-archive}} (or, indeed, to a bespoke message). Contrary to its documentation, the only current uses of the template are on user talk pages.

For any other: No need for a banner template, just archive the page (or set up bot to do so). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Template:Archiveme. CapnZapp (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I maintain that the template recmmended here, {{Uw-archive}}, is less unproblematic than it might seem. In fact it can be considered misleading, since it is a warning to do or correct something - which normally carries consequences. But as multiple talk discussions have made clear the community is perfectly happy with a double standard where the text give zero indication it can be ignored completely. The guidelines against long user talk pages are made to look like they apply to newbs that doesn't know which rules you can break, but where any attempt to actually get longtime users to clean up their user talk pages actively hindered (with mods swooping down on you threatening you with the ban hammer!). CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In light of the above comment, I submit there is value in having other "you're talk page is long" templates than just the warning template. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That (your comment) simply isn't true; the "uw" family of templates includes many that are informational, rather than warnings (see list in {{Single notice links}})). The template in question uses an "i" for "information" icon, and its text content is neither a warning nor a threat of enforcement. That said, you are of course at liberty to suggest improvements to it, on its talk page (of course, you may have already done so, in which case please provide a link). And the guidelines on talk page length apply to everyone, equally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to drag you into this, Andy, but clearly you have missed out on recent drama. As long as what you said in practice means that new editors get templated (heavily suggesting failing to adhere to guidelines will somehow be sanctioned) while longstanding editors get to have extremely long and cluttered user talk pages for years or even decades, sure. Myself, however, I have a very different definition of what "it applies to everyone, equally" mean. Each time I have made efforts to match the written reality with the actual reality I've been either aggressively or passively shot down. (Either allow editors to help other abide by guidelines or update the language to make it clear there is zero repercussions for blatantly ignoring them, I say. As it is, we clearly say one thing and do another.) CapnZapp (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New editors will get templated, or not (how many new editors have 200Kb talk pages?), whether we have one template or two, or, as now, three. There is noting in {{Uw-archive}} that is "heavily suggesting failing to adhere to guidelines will somehow be sanctioned", and uw-family notification templates ({{Uw-editsummary}} and {{Uw-tilde}} being very common examples) are regularly used for new editors, without drama. You're tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous comments, I strongly support merges in general of these templates. However the style and format of these templates is very different, their use is intended for user space, and I see no convincing reason why we need to restrict editor to editor communication to a single template in this instance. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Uw-archive}} is part of a more standard and more modern approach to notifications. Placing a userbox at the top of someone's page for an active user seems pretty aggressive and this is pointless for non-user talk pages, as the user can just go ahead and archive it. We should also reduce the variations in these templates - this is not the place for user's to able to choose their stylistic desires and should use a text and style that is actively scrutinized and updated. --Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Uw-archive}} is not a replacement. {{Uw-archive}} is a user warning. This is placed on talk pages eg Talk:Deaths in 2008. The purpose of this template is to categorise into Category:Archive requests, which means someone else will setup archiving if the placing editor doesn't know how to. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the nomination: "redundant ... to a bespoke message [or] For any [non talk page]: No need for a banner template, just archive the page (or set up bot to do so)." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "Redundant to a bespoke message" is never a good argument in itself. To be sarcastic and rhetoric: Why have ANY templates, when we can just reinvent the wheel each time? More seriously, the existence of a template is especially to new users a green flag, a go-ahead, yes, what you're thinking is allowed and in fact, has happened so many times in the past we're offering a template to say it. Having a template that isn't warning anybody to say "maybe archiving would be a good thing" has a clear use case. Archiving pages or setting up bots isn't as trivial as you seem to think it is. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template doesn't seem to be very applicable for user talk pages, so all the discussion on them above is a bit confusing; yes {{uw-archive}} would be the better approach there. Regarding the nom argument for article talk pages, yes, it would be better to just go ahead and do the archiving, but setting up page archiving is quite a tricky task. For those who aren't experienced enough to know how (or are just lazy and would otherwise do nothing), this template is better than nothing, and it provides a link to the archiving instructions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:41, 11 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:Utverylong 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. Izno (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the much better {{Uw-archive}} (or, indeed, to a bespoke message). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Template:Utverylong. CapnZapp (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Template:Archiveme just above. CapnZapp (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Uw-archive}} is part of a more standard and more modern approach to notifications. We should also reduce the variations in these templates - this is not the place for user's to able to choose their stylistic desires and should use a text and style that is actively scrutinized and updated. This template also offers much less information than Uw-archive does which explains why and gives more links to how. --Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to either {{Archiveme}} or {{Uw-archive}} (depending on page context). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProcrastinatingReader. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Archiveme}} (assuming that template survives its TfD) rather than outright deletion. I have a hard time seeing a case where this template was appropriate but Archiveme isn't, and where removing the template from an existing page is better than simply switching it out. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 12 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:Extended techniques 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. Little input. Concerns raised regarding the deletion of this template - they do not need to be in boldwords "keep" to be considered. No prejudice against renomination (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combined with Template:Musical techniques; don't really need two now do we? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: Extended techniques are things that are outside of normal "classical" technique. Like using your bow parallel to the string, rather than perpendicularly (which results in a bunch of high harmonics of the string, which are screechy and high pitched). But if Template:Musical techniques does and should include extended techniques, then you would be correct that Template:Extended techniques is unnecessary. My only concern would be that extended techniques are already marginalized, so editors are more likely to remove Template:Musical techniques from an article about "not musical" techniques (that are musical techniques). Hyacinth (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Heart (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: I have no stake in this discussion; I'd just like to point out that there is no opposition to the nominators suggestion, just a comment (now two), so technically "no consensus" isn't right. See WP:NOQUORUM. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 15:52, 1 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:Epic Rap Battles 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 8. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:17, 8 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_September_30&oldid=983208928"