Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3 edit

Template:2016 U-23 World Baseball Cup Pool A edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2022 (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:Shovel Knight series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated by Template:Yacht Club, most of the links aren't relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 3 October 2022 (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:Eugene de Blaas edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 October 10. ✗plicit 23:45, 10 October 2022 (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:Talkspin edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. There is general agreement that there is a potential use for a template like this one, but the wording of the current template is insufficient and is potentially misleading on a number of fronts (despite changes being made to the template during this discussion to address said issues). Primefac (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template misrepresents Wikipedia:Splitting by indicating that splits "should be discussed". WP:SPLIT says If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split (bold in the original). WP:SPLIT doesn't mention SNGs (a third of this template's contents), doesn't demand that editors name a specific notability rule to justify a split, and doesn't threaten rejection or deletion of a split-off article if discussions are not held. The criteria are size (roughly, would take longer than an hour to read) and content (e.g., related but separate subjects "such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product)").

I don't think there is any amount of editing that could both comply with the long-standing rules and fit the seeming intent, as the resulting text would probably amount to "You're splitting an existing article? "It's an undiscussed split" is not a valid reason for WP:Draftification, so let's get this back into the mainspace, and let someone propose a re-merge if they disagree with your split".

The only prior discussion I have found for this template is User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 28#Template:Talkspin with User:Paul 012.

I think this should probably be deleted to avoid people learning "rules" about splitting pages that aren't actually the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - At this point, my first question for User:WhatamIdoing is whether there have been any uses of this template that have either caused confusion or have complicated the review of drafts. My second question for User:WhatamIdoing is how they think that this template is used, because I am not sure from the nomination that the issues they raise have to do with how the template is actually used. The nomination seems to imply that they think that the template is used when draftifying an article because it was an undiscussed split. That isn't when the template is used. The template is used on a draft that has been submitted for review. It doesn't mean "You shouldn't have split the article", but "If you want to create that, it is a split, and here is where to discuss it." It isn't meant to be used after a bold edit has already split the article, but after a draft is requesting to split the article. It is used in particular if the draft is proposed to replace an existing redirect. An example is the submission of a draft BLP of a musician when there is an article on the band, or the submission of an article on a song when there is an article on the album. It is used when, in the judgment of the reviewer, discussion of the split is appropriate. So I am asking User:WhatamIdoing when they think that this template was problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - User:WhatamIdoing writes:

    I don't think there is any amount of editing that could both comply with the long-standing rules and fit the seeming intent

    . What do they think is the intent? Perhaps editing is needed to clarify the intent, since it appears that the nominator may have a different concept of the intent than the author of the template did. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the intent of the template is to tell editors that "Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed", because that's what the template actually says, word for word. If you don't mean for the template to say that splits should be discussed, then you shouldn't have created a template that directly says splits should be discussed.
    Did you mean to create a template that says something like this?

Although bold splits are both allowed and encouraged, in my personal opinion, this particular split would benefit from a discussion. I encourage you to do this, even though there are no penalties like rejection or deletion if you decide not to follow my advice.

  • That actually does comply with the rules around splits, but it's nothing like what you wrote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The template isn't about splitting. We don't have a process called Split Proposals for Review. The template is used on drafts in the Articles for Creation process that will spin off a child article from a main article. The split policy isn't directly relevant. The template doesn't conflict with the policy on splitting because the template isn't about splitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think the actual difference between "spinning off" part of an article and "splitting off" part of an article is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting an article moves some of the original text of the article into the child article. Spinning off an article leaves the parent article unchanged. The parent article has a passing mention or a paragraph about the secondary (child) topic. Both add new content to the encyclopedia, but splitting also moves some of the existing content. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite a novel definition. Let's go to the talk page and see if anyone else agrees with you, okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This template is encouraging discussion of an article spinout, in the AFC draft review process, in which the submitter is already requesting review, so the template is advising the submitter what the next step in the review process is. Do you want to tell reviewers that they should not encourage discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I encourage you to do this, even though there are no penalties like rejection or deletion if you decide not to follow my advice" is encouraging discussion. The text of your template does not encourage discussion. It demands it, under penalty of losing the new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that the nominator is responding to the matter of Draft:Pureed diet, which was moved from article space to draft space by reviewer User:AngusWOOF because they had doubts as to whether Pureed diet was separately notable from Soft diet. They were specifically requesting that the split of this draft or article from the parent article be discussed. I concur that this is a case where discussion on the talk page of the parent article is in order. The template was appropriate for the instructions being given by the reviewer, and the reviewer was making a reasonable judgment that the split should be discussed. Changing Weak Keep to Keep. Revision of the wording of the template and the instructions for the template may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, that draft wasn't actually WP:SPLIT from any article. It's all new words and new sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. It wasn't split, and the template never refers to the splitting of articles. I am not sure how much relevance the policy on splitting has. The template isn't about splitting, and the article that User:AngusWOOF pushed into draft space wasn't a split. This isn't about splitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still struggling to figure out how you decide whether an article is a SPINOFF. Imagine that Cancer exists. I decide to write Breast cancer. Is that automatically a SPINOFF? Is it only a SPINOFF if I copy text from Cancer? Is it only a SPINOFF if the reviewer isn't sure that breast cancer is a notable subject? What's the difference between "I made an article on a related subject" and "I spun off an article"? Is there any? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Who decides whether a new article is a spinoff or a spinout? How are these distinguished? Where are they defined? The names do not provide much clarity as to how a spinoff or spinout are distinguished from another article on a similar topic, or a content fork. Most importantly, how does the person whose article is templated know what these words mean? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Pbsouthwood - You ask how the person whose article is templated knows what is meant. This template is not intended for use on an article. It is intended for use on a draft that is being reviewed. I originally used the template on drafts on songs and singers, where the song was already mentioned in passing in the article on the album, or where the singer was already mentioned as a member of the group. The purpose is to tell the submitter of the draft to discuss on the parent article talk page. The confusion here may be that in one case, a new article was first moved to draft space and then tagged with the template to be discussed on the talk page of the earlier article. The difference in wording between split, spinout, and spinoff were only relevant because User:WhatamIdoing was referring to a policy that had to do with existing articles. The template is intended for use on drafts submitted for review. So I see two follow-up questions. First, is the template appropriate for review of drafts? Second, was the template misused in the case of Draft:Pureed diet? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Robert McClenon, Whether used on an article or a draft, If I saw this template I would not know what what the person who applied the template was trying to communicate. Therefore in its present state it is not useful. I have no opinion on whether it was misused in the specific case mentioned, as I have not checked that case, and that would depend on what it is intended to mean, which, as I have mentioned, is unclear. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer the example given by the nominator, I think that the use of the template on Draft:Breast cancer would be appropriatequestionable. It would be saying to discuss, at Talk:Cancer, whether a separate article on a subtopic is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • On further thinking, the template explains why it is not needed on Draft:Breast cancer. It says that the creation of a child article should be discussed, unless the child topic satisfies a notability guideline. Breast cancer satisfies general notability. Discussion is not needed in this case because the subtopic clearly satisfies notability. The template is meant for use in doubtful cases. Draft:Pureed diet is such a case. There are many such cases with music. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't think that is the kind of "spin off" contemplated by Wikipedia:Content forking. Do you think that's really a content fork? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of the template is to direct discussion of the subtopic to the talk page of the topic. I think that is, at least sometimes, an appropriate instruction. It isn't always an appropriate instruction. The template means and says that it is the opinion of the reviewer that discussion of the subtopic should be at the topic talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Which words, exactly, in this template directly say that it is the opinion of the reviewer? Or are new editors just supposed to magically know that when it says "Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed" that it really means "Guess what? You don't have to discuss this at all, but it's my personal opinion that you should". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where exactly does the template say that it is the opinion of the reviewer? All comments made by reviewers on drafts are the opinions of the reviewer. The draft process works like that. Most of the comments left by reviewers say less than that one. The author of a draft knows that they are asking for the opinion of the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            But I have made more tweaks to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Newcomers don't understand that all comments made by reviewers are just the opinions of a single reviewer, who could be completely wrong. They respond to such comments, especially when they are written in this impersonal, bureaucratic style as being Official Declarations by the Wikipedia Editorial Board. Most newbies don't realize that you're a volunteer trying to help as best you can.
            If you want people to understand that this is your personal opinion, then you have to use words like "I" and "me" and "my", like this:
            "I read your draft, and it seems to me that this might be what we call a content fork (a sub-topic of an existing larger subject, for the purpose of presenting a different view of the subject). Could you help me out by telling me whether this subject fits under one of our subject-specific notability guidelines? If it doesn't, then I think it would be a good idea for you to start a discussion at Talk:Example about whether it's better to put this information in the main article or on a separate page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        [ec] The template does not communicate this very well. I can see that directing the discussion to a talk page of an article that could be considered the main topic could be useful, but it should be clear (immediately obvious to a person without insider knowledge of jargon) why this is considered desirable. Using a template makes sense only if the template does a better job than a regular message, spreading standardised confusion is not helpful. When I read This draft is a request to spin off an article my immediate reaction is: "No is not. It is a draft for an article, there is no request here." My next reaction is "what do they mean by spin off an article. Two points of confusion in one short opening sentence. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Pbsouthwood, User:WhatamIdoing - I have changed the wording of the template to try to address the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Robert McClenon, It still claims that a draft is a request. I see this as incorrect labelling. How about something more in the line of:
            If accepted, this draft would become an independent article on a sub-topic of an existing article. Please consider whether the encyclopaedia and its readers wound not be better served by including this content as a section in the main topic (insert link to main topic here), with a redirect to the section so that it will be easily found by a search.
            • If you can show that the topic of the draft is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and that there is enough reliably sourced content to justify a separate article, you can resubmit.
            • If you cannot show notability and resubmit, the article will be vulnerable to nomination for deletion, and may end up removed completely or merged with the main topic. (As a first draft suggestion. Improvements should be possible. WhatamIdoing your input would be appreciated.) Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Given that Robert indicates above that he would use this template on obviously notable subjects like Breast cancer, I am not sure whether it meets Robert's goals.
            • The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content forking#SPINOFF vs SPLIT vs SPINOUT indicates that it is factually wrong to say that "a separate (child) article on a subtopic of an existing (parent) article" is any "form of spinoff".
            • It still claims that "Proposals to create a separate stand-alone child article should be discussed", which is basically a lie. Most of us don't want people cluttering up Talk:Cancer with questions about whether to create separate articles for different kinds of cancer, and we think they shouldn't discuss that.
            • It's still not clear to me why this template should exist at all. Why not just ask(!) the editor "Have you considered merging this to Subject?"
            WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            WhatamIdoing, It is not clear whether your reply above refers to my previous post or to Robert's rewording of the template or both. so unsure how to respond. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I apologize for being unclear. The first is mostly a reply to you, and the rest is about the newer version of the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            OK, That makes more sense. Probably best to delete the current template as likely to confuse or mislead the recipient. No prejudice against creating a non-confusing template for similar purposes that actually makes the relevant policies and guidelines clear. A new template should also have a title that better suits the new content. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per my old concerns linked by the nom, the template misrepresents established policy/guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above, does not conform with established policy. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (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:Noongar spelling variants edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2022 (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:Rajasthan governor edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The premise of this template was supposedly to list the chancellor of universities, but this is not required since chancellor in India is not a personal appointment, so there is no reason to list the name to begin with. Muhandes (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (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).

Tennis rankings templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Deprecating in favour of section transclusions from central sources. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting to delete these templates, because it slows down weekly updating of the singles and doubles rankings on the ATP & WTA Tour pages. When updating ATP & WTA singles and doubles rankings and race rankings, one needs to edit 6 different pages: the 4 templates and the respective ATP & WTA Tours for the race rankings.
It would make for faster and more convenient weekly update of all 4 templates in 2 articles, instead of 6. These templates' transclusion on 5 pages can be replaced with (sub)section transclusions as an alternative solution. See example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read this correctly, you'd like to keep all the rankings in one place. Then transclude only what needs to be placed in a particular article? If that helps with weekly updating I'm for it. Someone would need to show me the downside. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) You read it correctly. Transclude the 4 templates to the articles which fall under the same category with {{#section:2022 ATP/WTA Tour|xy label}} per H:LST.
The only downsides I see are:
1. The tables being more subject to vandalism, since they wouldn't be transcluded.
2. The 3 users's userpages, that the templates are transcluded to, would have to be updated with the proper transclusion markup to retain the ranking tables display, not sure if other editors are allowed to make changes to other userpages other than their own.
3. The transclusions callback would need to be updated manually in each of the 5 articles before the start of a new season, given they would transclude from the 2022 atp/wta tour articles, but not from any subsequent ones: 2023...
Funny thing is, the race rankings were left outdated for months at one point, whereas the rankings leaderboard are being updated regularly. I guess editors put more emphasize on the actual rankings and they just don't care for the race. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Re Qwerty's downsides:
    1. I would think this makes the tables less subject to vandalism, because watchers of the article they are stored on could see the vandalism without having to watch the template also.
    2. It is generally accepted to edit others' userspace in scenarios like this.
    3. It appears that people involved in this area prefer this tradeoff over the current tradeoff. In this case, let's let them roll! * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no better alternative for the templates for now. On the ATP & WTA Tour pages, the rankings are updated regularly because they determine the draw seedings for all tournaments. The race rankings only matter at the end of the season so they should not be included on the Tours pages but on ATP Finals & WTA Finals pages as they they have been updated regularly there. OffsideGoal (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @OffsideGoal, the Race leaderboards have been present on yearly ATP/WTA articles for every year going back to 1973. They're there to inform newcomers and watchers that: a) there is a so called atp/wta finals and only top 8 qualify for it; b) for frequent visitors of said pages to check up on the Race stats. The goal is to have all info centralized one spot, i.e. in 1 article for men and women, not have it be all dispersed all over the place. So that one has to visit atp/wta finals just to check up on the leaderboards. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The proposed system of transcluding sections seems to be a practical solution. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:37, 10 October 2022 (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:GAC6Team2ElimBracket edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions; redundant to {{6TeamBracket-2Elim-NCAA-A}} and {{8TeamBracket-2Elim}}, respectively. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2022 (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:Current Turkish television series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily large navbox with multiple red links. It is largely copied from Turkish Wikipedia, and many of the linked pages are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 3 October 2022 (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:14TeamBracket-MLS edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails MOS:COLOR. Redundant to {{14TeamBracket}}, {{12TeamBracket}}, and {{8TeamBracket}} respectively. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2022 (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/2022_October_3&oldid=1118504221"