Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 17
August 19 >

August 18 edit

Template:Witchcraft sidebar edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicates the content at all the linked templates, and futher confuses the issues currently going on at Witchcraft and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Witchcraft by lumping together and confusing the traditional, global and historical vs neopagan definitions of Witchcraft. For instance it lumps together healers with those who do harm. It's just not needed and is an escalation of an ongoing dispute. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional) started by the same user. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Witchcraft also lumps together healers and Neopagans with those who do harm, but the nominator of this deletion inconsistently opposes correcting the problem in that article. Skyerise (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a useful template for navigating the diverse range of witchcraft-related material. I agree with Skyerise above, and note that what started as ownership of the Witchcraft article, and a hostile WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, now extends over multiple satellite articles, disambiguation pages, redirects, and templates. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while there needs to be significant cleanup in the Wicca, Witchcraft, and Paganism navboxes; the majority are footer-boxes. This is one of two side-boxes, the other is explicitly focused on Wicca, which falls within one distinct sub-category. Nominator persists in conflating different subjects without reliable sources and in the face of reliable sources. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per CorbieVreccan's points above. It lumps together witchcraft (harmful magic), folk healers (people sought for protection against witchcraft), Neopagan 'Witchcraft'/Wicca and 'feminist witchcraft'. It also needlessly duplicates Template:Witchcraft. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, part of this justification is that someone should be nominating Template:Christianity_sidebar as redundant with Template:Christianity footer and Template:Islam as redundant with Template:Islam_topics? Because Template:Witchcraft is a footer and this is a sidebar. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not only redundant, it lumps together very different things under the same name. Also, Christianity and Islam are obviously far bigger topics. – Asarlaí (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, does this mean you support removing material about folk healers, cunning folk, Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca from Witchcraft? Because that article also lumps them together with witchcraft (harmful magic). Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "[lumping together very different things under the same name" is exactly what has happened in the article Witchcraft (with its overarching theme of malevolence, which you vigorously defend), Asarlai and CorbieVreccan. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The witchcraft article doesn't lump them together as if they're the same. They're mentioned briefly, as they should be...the same way witchcraft (malevolent magic) is mentioned briefly on Neopagan Witchcraft and Wicca, or how Satanism is mentioned briefly on Satan for example. This was discussed (see here) and that was the consensus. – Asarlaí (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Neopagan redefinitions are only mentioned briefly at Witchcraft for the sake of disambiguation. But because of the choice of some neopagans to call themselves "witches", despite the global and multi-cultural meaning, those interested in the white, western neopagan practices will check out the article. When they don't see what they are looking for, better they see a brief hatnote, and mention that explains the difference and directs them to what they may have been looking for, like Wicca. Without this disambiguation we tend to get confusion and anger on the part of readers, resulting in disruption by angry IPs. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better to use the footer navbox for navigation which doesn't take up space that could be used by other right-floating content like infoboxes and pictures. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this template is a reactionary gesture that duplicates content in other templates. It seems to be part of a coordinated effort on multiple pages, as well as a DRN to promote a certain definition. It is confusing to our readership, redundant and unnecessary. I concur with the arguments presented by CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí. Netherzone (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weren't you just arguing to assume good faith?[1] But your assumption is "a reactionary gesture that [...] It seems to be part of a coordinated effort on multiple pages, as well as a DRN to promote a certain definition." Darker Dreams (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provides additional accessible search information for a wide topic of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If one want to dispute specific particulars of content of the template, the place to have that discussion is the template's talk page. There's certainly a valid navigational use for a template like this and, as WP:DELCONTENT notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the duplication of navigation. Izno (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sidebar template provides easier navigation between the regional aritlces, recently expanded to include Witchcraft in the Middle East and improvements to Asian witchcraft. Reading the wind on Talk:Witchcraft, I expect Witchcraft in North America to appear soon, to complement Witchcraft in Latin America. Really a useful template. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, otherwise it looks like this will be closed as "no consensus"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment, this useful and topical navbox for Wikipedia's witchcraft collection adjoins and enhances the neutral balance of the Witchcraft article which, itself, has long purposely demeaned millions of women who either now or in the past identify as witches, an article which has somehow added to and further built the propaganda used to murder tens of thousands of intelligent and peaceful women in the not-so-long-ago past (an article which is a curse on Wikipedia, to coin a phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whenever there's a navbox there can be a sidebar, and the navbox is not in dispute, but the particular arrangement of the sidebar (Maybe? Still?) is, so the dispute actually centers around how to design the sidebar which is a content matter that invokes the "XfD is not cleanup" logic. Individual issues can be taken to the template talk page. All in all, it is highly justified to have a sidebar for this topic, to aid navigation.—Alalch E. 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. It duplicates the navigational purpose of Template:Witchcraft, a better collection of links. Additional thoughts: normally, a topic doesn't have both a sidebar and a navbox. Occasionally, there will be reasons to have both. Sidebars are particularly well-suited to subjects that lack images and infoboxes. But that's not the case for witchcraft-related pages, and thus a navbox is more appropriate. SWinxy (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are regional daughter articles, which readers should not have to scroll to the bottom for. Also, many, many topics have both, so your "normally" needs to show a policy or guideline basis. Skyerise (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "normally" bit wasn't a reason for deleting. It was an additional comment. My deletion rationale is per Izno. SWinxy (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyerise is correct, many topics have both side and footer navboxes. This topic seems suitable for both. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-10A 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. As a note, the citation information has been copied to Template:RCTS-LocosLNER Primefac (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation templates. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, these are part of a set, see the template's doc. Unused now doesn't mean that the templates never will be used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if these were used, but if a template is unused for 12 years, that usually means something. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that since these are on User:Tim.landscheidt/Sandbox/Unused templates/9 that means that these were unused in 2013 (or since 2013 seeing as how they are on multiple different lists). Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I understand these are part of a set, the fact remains that for around 10 years at least these haven't been used. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym. Izno (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redrose64, would a suitable compromise be to merge the entire family of templates into a single one (e.g. {{RCTS-LocosLNER}}) with a parameter to determine which reference is used? This would allow for the information in 10A and 11 be kept for potential future use. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:34, 18 August 2023 (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:Unicode chart edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. There appears to be some interest in converting this to a wrapper and shifting the focus to improving the module it invokes. NPASR if after a few months this doesn't pan out and the template is still unused with no likelihood of that changing (i.e. discussions/work stall out). Primefac (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Marked as "Under construction. Not fit for mainspace. 01 Oct 2022". Created by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor. A template with this same name was previously deleted, but I do not know if it was the same as this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That module has multiple editors in good standing, and even more talk page contributors. It's a bit moribund right now, but I will try to make a push at WP:WikiProject Writing systems to see if we can't get it fully up on its feet. It would actually be a huge development in terms of being able to present Unicode on Wikipedia, and a tremendous help to maintenance. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should either be converted into a template wrapper for {{#invoke:Unicode chart}}, or made a redirect to that module. Since the module would realistically be used almost exclusively in category:Unicode Blocks, I'm not sure whether the template wrapper is really necessary or not. So I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and refactor this into a wrapper for the module, but would support converting to a redirect between namespaces as well if that's what people think would be best. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as the wrapper Vanisaacc created) - template-to-module namespace redirects are generally a bad idea since trying to transclude one will result in the raw code being displayed rather than the module being invoked. I see no further reason to use TfD to interfere with Vanisaac's project. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any real usage for this as all other charts are pretty much single usage templates anyways. Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pordenone Calcio squad edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 12:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Squad template for a club that was excluded from professional football, all players have been released. Angelo (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_18&oldid=1173762085"