Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 18

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

April 18

edit

Template:Habesha peoples

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 April 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:36, 27 April 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).

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Userbox 2

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 procedural close. Per WP:TFD#NOT, userboxes should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Userbox 2 with Template:User wikipedia/AWB user2.
Duplicate. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is not actually a template as such as it is not in template space, which is why the first link shows up red. The second could be deleted.--DavidCane (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know how to make it not linked as a template. Why should the second be deleted? Doesn't it make more sense to keep the one correctly placed in template namespace (and redirect the one in project space to it)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Userbox 2 is the original--DavidCane (talk) 15:42, 18 April 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:NZR locomotive list

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 April 28. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 28 April 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:Districts of the Highland region

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of Template:Former local government regions of Scotland has now been expanded to cover the districts within each region, so as a separate template for a single region this one is now redundant. Jellyman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 18 April 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:Resurrection appearances

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 April 28. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 April 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:Allhallowtide

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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Allhallowtide with Template:Halloween.
Perhaps this may as well serve as a merged scope? PPEMES (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Allhallowtide refers to the entire season (including All Saint's Day and All Soul's Day), while Halloween is one day within this season. This Allhallowtide template can easily be expanded to include various customs and traditions related to the entire season and not just one day. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 12:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other way around; a merged "Allhallowtide", "Hallowmas season" template or equivalent? PPEMES (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would make more sense if Template:Halloween was merged into Template:Allhallowtide since Halloween is one day within Allhallotwide. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would support that. @Manannan67: What do you think about that idea? PPEMES (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained why I think a merge not a good idea. Manannan67 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Allhallows shows related days of remembrance, traditions, hymns, and theology; Halloween links to "Lilo & Stitch", haunted houses, "I Was a Teenage Werewolf", etc. These two templates reflect very different content and approaches. While related, they are separate. The distinction may appear a bit subtle, but a comparison of the respective entries is not. One reflects social/cultural approaches to dealing with loss, the other commercialized pseudo-scary stuff. This is not overlap; the Halloween template needs to be seriously cleaned up. I suspect most of the people celebrating Halloween might not exactly know what Allhallows even is. Is it possible to put a link on the Allhallows template under Main topics to the Halloween template? Manannan67 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (just saw this, these things fly by the dozens) per above comments. Halloween is a large topic and an established seasonal-defining holiday. Comparable to such templates as {{Thanksgiving}}, {{Christmas}} or other established day-specific holidays. Besides, I'm a Ray Bradbury fan, and if he were around he'd be climbing his Halloween Tree like Julia Butterfly Hill climbed Luna in order to keep it around, and recognizable, a little bit longer. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 18 April 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:Wikify

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is completely unused and would not break any mainspace pages now that I have removed/replaced it from the last two (see transclusions list). This template should not be left here in a way that it may be used accidentally. It is weird that we a template that was deprecated eight years ago, and I think it should be reconsidered. DemonDays64 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I will echo @Uanfala:'s keep from the debate back in 2018: it's completely reasonable to expect a template like this to exist, and even now, a year and a half since the time Uanfala checked the pageview history, this template still gets over 100 pageviews a month. Still useful for the historical record, and still useful for editors who try to invoke it instead of seeing a redlink. Harmless as it clearly tells the potential user it's deprecated and helpfully points them to a large set of alternatives that are more refined and potentially useful. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been watching this template since the previous TfDs to see if any of the people commenting on keeping this would actually correct usages of this template. They haven't. This template, is still being incorrectly used on mainspace articles. We don't keep templates just for the sake of it, nor do we keep templates so they won't "break" old revisions. If we did any of those, then there would be no reason at all for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion to exist, as every template deleted can cause that. Regarding the "break" arguments, a red link does not break anything in the article. This is a maintenance template and has no actual relevant to the content in the article, so anyone looking at old revisions (which if even happens for 8+ year old revisions is such a negligible number) can safely know that the article will be the same. --Gonnym (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we do keep templates for GFDL purposes, so on that point you're wrong. I can't speak to what you're talking about regarding "correct[ing] usages of this template" as I wasn't aware that was a requirement to !voting keep on something... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can point to a still-existing template that copied from this one, this is a straw man. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, it's irrelevant that templates are kept for GFDL (or, more accurately, CC BY-SA) reasons unless you can show that this template needs to be kept for licensing reasons. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh.. that's not a strawman. I was responding to [...], nor do we keep templates so they won't "break" old revisions. I'm not saying that applies here, but the strict statement that we never do needed to be corrected. Some templates do effectively add content and deleting them would be a GFDL issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We still don't. The vast majority of templates that can "break" anything still get deleted on a daily basis. The fact that some limited "no-consensus" TfDs were reached does not disprove it. It does however prove that as much as people like to cite WP:VOTE, in the end of the day, most closures do actually just count heads when a vocal minority uses the same baseless arguments. --Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We still don't. No... we do. Saying something over and over again does not make your statement accurate. Good day. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: what do you mean by deleting some templates is a GFDL issue? Could you please elaborate? DemonDays64 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:MAD if you're curious--basically WP is supposed to retain the name of an original author for any content they create under the GNU Free Documentation License, and sometimes templates rise to that "content" standard. Nole (chat·edits) 14:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as deprecated. To rehash some of the arguments from two years ago: if transcluded, this template will output a big error message and a link to the documentation which lists other templates that can be used instead. If the template were to be deleted, then every time it got used – and it will get used because of its plausible name and long history of use – it would only output a redlink, which is less noticeable than the current message and which leaves no way of figuring out the correct template to use instead. – Uanfala (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep/Disambiguate per any of the pages in Category:Template_disambiguation_pages: I don't see the harm/need to completely delete if the template is, as OP says, completely unused. However, T:Wikify used to be used extensively throughout Wikipedia, and the page still gets views and would actually serve a useful purpose for editors who aren't fully aware of all the more specific templates that Wikify has been replaced with. That's a net positive to the (tiny?) number of incorrect uses. I still agree with Locke Cole/Uanfala, and I'm not sure that people who are inadvertently using it now are going to catch themselves just because it creates a redlink instead of a red border. Nole (chat·edits) 16:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep arguments based solely on the name are fundamentally flawed because I suspect no one would have created {{Wikify}} as a disambiguation page if it had never existed. As for this once having been in use, it's not Wikipedia's duty to help users who insist on using templates that were deprecated years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think keep args (or mine at least, I won't speak for others) are voting solely on the name, but on the actual use. Yeah, if it had never been created there would be no need for a disambiguation page. Sure. But it was created, and used on tens of thousands of pages, and still occupies a place in the editorial lexicon. It clearly has some meaning, and the fact that there are now a number of more specific/better suited maintenance tags seems like an natural fit for a disam page. Nole (chat·edits) 19:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're misunderstanding me. I saw two different reasons this should be kept: the name is common (invalid per my first sentence above), and it was once in use (invalid per my second sentence above). * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • A) Your use of the word "common" is not very clear if I tie your two comments together. "Wikify" is essentially a made up word. Obviously none of us would have created {{Wikify}} as a disambiguation page if it had never existed as a term for a type of style cleanup. The disambiguation of the word is fundamentally tied to the meaning that developed after creation, not to a theoretical "common" definition that existed before the creation of the template page. I read keep !votes above saying it's "plausible" or "reasonable" as based on its used once the template gained a purpose--so I have no idea how the fact that I would not have created a disambiguation page before the word had meaning has any effect on a discussion after the word has gained meaning.
        • B) Then you say that once the template has been in use, 'it's not Wikipedia's duty to help users' using deprecated tempaltes. Ok, that's a philosophical statement for handling deprecated templates, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. I see a variety of examples where old/confusing/broad templates are turned into disambiguation pages because that is more likely to inform/help editors than simply deleting. {{wikify}} included a bunch of different problems that all have better and more specific maintenance tags. Linking to those is actively helpful. Why is that waved away as being "invalid"? Sure, it's not "required", it's not a "duty"...but your second argument kind of boils down to "We don't have to be helpful, so we shouldn't be." Nole (chat·edits) 23:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was originally not going to vote on this entry. I actually only came to say that I am not going to vote on this because I have not been active enough in these matters to have familiarity with the myriad of templates that have replaced this template that I created back in September 2004. It then occurred to me, as I was trying to understand this myriad, the time and effort it took was evidence in itself that there remains a purpose for this template.
Old users (like myself) who come across a page that needs to be "wikified" (I note that terminology is still valid) will either ignore the deprecation and use it anyways, in which case other more knowledgeable users will switch the template as appropriate, or, the old user will notice the template is now deprecated and take the learning opportunity to direct themselves to the more appropriate template. I like to think almost everyone will fall in the latter camp. In either case, Wikipedia as a whole will have been further ahead by keeping the deprecated template as a disambiguation page with an explanatory note, as opposed to if it were a redlink.
It might not even be an old user using {{wikify}} as a starting point. It might just be someone who is familiar with the wikify terminology but not familiar with the appropriate templates. Especially if there are multiple problems with the page they wish to flag.
Personally, if I tried to use the {{wikify}} template and was met with a redlink, I'd probably just move on with my life and not add a template at all, rather than trying to research from scratch the correct template to use. I just don't have the time and wouldn't know where to start.
Anyways, back to the main reason I'm even here at all, it is interesting for me to see people still talking about this template over 15 years later. So much has changed since then. Regardless of the decision made, this blast to the past has been fun for me! -Frazzydee|✍ 14:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Frazzydee. PPEMES (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enough time has passed. Anyone active who once used this template must know by now. Labeling the template deprecated was perhaps useful, but I don't believe was ever intended to be a permanent fixture. And the notion that a newer user would just a priori type in "wikify" and be hopelessly confounded by receiving a redlink is not plausible to me, no more so than {{fix}}, at least (which produces no error message at all). --Bsherr (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:08, 18 April 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:Aksum Succession box

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:Infobox royalty. Which probably means, replace with Template:Infobox royalty Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can use {{infobox person}}, {{infobox royalty}} or any other normal infobox, not this infobox without even dates and places of birth and death. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:13, 18 April 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_April_18&oldid=953921851"