Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2

edit

Template:Cfd all

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 February 13. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:53, 13 February 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:AT&T

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 simplify. Pare it down to the essentials as much as possible. If other templates (i.e. the default-hidden subboxes) need to be created/split off, there is no prejudice against that. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to split this template into different sections. A navbox is meant to link related articles and be small per WP:NAVBOX. This is a giant navbox that has many irrelevant links to many articles. Take DC Universe (streaming service) as an example, it links to many topics that aren't relevant to readers of it (such as BellSouth Telecommunications). Additionally, from just looking at the links in the code, it links to many many sections of the same article, which isn't useful at all. The proposal is to split the article into the current sections, remove section links, redirects and generic links (Local exchange carrier) and then place the templates only on the pages it links to (per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a large company template, and could be potentially worthy of splitting, but   Question: has the nom notified Talk:AT&T and related WikiProjects manually, not just via Twinkle? If not, this should be procedurally deferred until that is done. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changes to simplify this could have been done instead of bringing it here. If you look at the template, the Acquisitions section can be removed (not all templates have this) and is covered in the article. The generic links can be removed, why is BellSouth Telecommunications not relevant to readers, that is known as AT&T Southeast? So doing these changes, the template should be good? WarnerMedia Entertainment and Warner Bros. are embedded as child templates and are part of WarnerMedia - I don't see anything wrong with these two. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BellSouth Telecommunications isn't relevant to the readers of DC Universe (streaming service) because it isn't mentioned in that article, and neither is DU Universe in Bellsouth's article. If you'd taken the time to read the link I posted to WP:NAVBOX, you'd see that #3 is The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - this clearly isn't the case here. --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's all part of the same company — AT&T is the company/parent template and the DC Universe (streaming service) page is in the Warner Bros. template, which is embedded as a child template in the WarnerMedia section of the AT&T template which it is part of — WarnerMedia is one of four divisions that make up AT&T. Also you don't need to use the AT&T template on this page, you can just use the Warner Bros. template individually Gonnym, Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that it's the same company, however a navbox isn't a link repository for everything semi-related to a topic, for that we have categories, or an overview article about the company assets. A naxbox on the other hand is used as tool for readers, that in essence replaces a "see also" section. You should ask yourself "is link "x" something that could appear in a see also section of this article?" If it's no, then it generally does not need to be in the template. Also you don't need to use the AT&T template on this page incorrect. As I linked above, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, a navbox should appear on each page it links to. --Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But still, that article is in another template that is embedded in the AT&T template as a child template, are you suggesting the removal of these child templates? When you remove the acquisitions section and section links etc. this template becomes smaller. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm suggesting is split per it sections of how the template is already set up. Start from there and then adjust per needed. --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to split the template up in that manner then you are going to have some pages with multiple templates which is not any better. For example MLB Network and the AT&T SportsNet page along with its 4 affiliated channel pages would end up with an AT&T Communications and WarnerMedia templates! This is due to DirecTV originally owning part or all of these networks and AT&T then placing them under the purview of WarnerMedia News & Sports. Audience (TV network) would be in a similar situation because it started out as a DirecTV exclusive channel and will be rebranded into a preview channel for WarnerMedia's upcoming HBO Max service. If all of AT&T's plans for HBO Max pan out (one is including live sports from Tuner Sports as part of the service after launch) then HBO Max is going to have up to 4 templates (AT&T Communications, Warner Bros., WarnerMedia Entertainment and WarnerMedia News & Sports). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split or simplify. This template is huge. As a parent template it should only hold things relevant to the group as a whole. It should definitely be trimmed, with options including splitting to child templates, or even just using the category system. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tom (LT), very easy to simplify this template and see my comment above Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support any simplification, and yours sounds good, Steve the Editor.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify Too large for all links to be relevant to any one article. Steven's proposal seems sensible, but perhaps further simplification is justified as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify A split really is not going to solve the issue at hand here. Also if the entertainment properties are split from their parent this TFD should be amended because what happens to the AT&T template will need to happen to Template:Comcast. Really not fair to leave NBC Universal part of the Comcast template when the same practices that are employed on with the AT&T template are also employed with the Comcast template. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't find a large navbox to be problematic. Large companies are always going to have many associated articles. --Bsherr (talk) 05:38, 17 February 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:Ottawa Fury FC squad

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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the club is no longer active; no need for a current squad template Joeykai (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:00, 2 February 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:NBA roster statistics full

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:NBA roster statistics full as it contains everything the NBA template has, and more. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NBA roster statistics full with Template:Basketball roster statistics full/header.

Discussion moved from Template talk:NBA roster statistics full#Requested move 16 December 2019. Here follows the original rationale by McVahl:

Template can be used for generic purpose, but the template name is league-specific. Please overwrite the existing Template:Basketball roster statistics full/header to keep User:Ayomaju's edit history since the new page was solely based on this template.

There were some other discussion at the original location about the proper venue, which I've copied to this collapsed section:

Original discussion
I am the author of Template:Basketball roster statistics full/header. If you will check the templates, there are no any huge difference between the two. In fact, I actually copied it from here (a wrong move!). So as respect to the original editor, I want to keep his edit history–a reason why move is requested. —  McVahl  Talk  01:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you proposed in the nomination statement will not happen in a move. If the page is moved, the move will either require the deletion of the edit history at the move target, or the swapping of the edit histories of the pages ... both of which seem to not be the intended result of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:37, 2 February 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:Nihongo-s

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. Feel free to continue the discussion about template size and necessity of checks. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Nihongo core TfD. This has 6 transclusions which can be changed to either {{Nihongo}}, {{Nihongo2}} or {{Nihongo3}}. Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to prefer {{nihongo-s}} over {{nihongo}}. I edited the current version of {{nihongo-s}} to remove the tfd notice and then previewed each of the articles with that edited version to get the post-expand include size. I then edited each article to use {{nihongo}} and previewed to get the post-expand include size when using that template.

post-expand include size of articles using {{nihongo-s}}
article transclusions with {{nihongo-s}} with {{nihongo}}
List of Initial D chapters 670 404,449 1,376,806
List of manga artists 743 156,537 349,176
List of Naruto chapters (Part I) 217 521,659 688,945
List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48) 188 434,774 580,771
List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49–72) 223 476,681 647,965

List of Naruto volumes is not listed in this table because it does not directly transclude {{nihongo-s}}. List of manga artists will require cleanup if {{nihongo-s}} is replaced with {{nihongo}} because there are 216 malformed transclusions that emit error messages.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the value of the sizes in the context of how the template works. The template says that it is a simplified version of {{Nihongo}} without the extra spans or checks. If the extra spans or checks are not needed here, then why do we need them at all in {{Nihongo}}, and if we do need them at {{Nihongo}}, why don't we need them here? If I understood you correctly, then the malformed transclusions in List of manga artists are proof that there is need in the removed checks. If I missed something, please let me know. --Gonnym (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because {{nihongo}} has the extra spans and checks, replacement of {{nihongo-s}} with {{nihongo}} might have caused the articles listed above to exceed the post-expand include size limit (2 Mbytes). The extra spans ensure that the rendering is correct when used with definition-list markup (;:). The malformed {{nihongo-s}} templates in List of manga artists do indicate to me that the checks are necessary – without the template tells them that something is wrong, editors do not know that something is wrong. Did I answer your questions?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, unless I misunderstood your comments. You first said I see no reason to prefer {{nihongo-s}} over {{nihongo}}, and now you say The malformed {{nihongo-s}} templates in List of manga artists do indicate to me that the checks are necessary. If you add the spans and checks then you get "nihongo". So how are you arguing both that replacing isn't needed, but at the same time what is lacks is needed? --Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at List of manga artists is that {{nihongo-s}} sometimes is used without any foreign text. {{Nihongo-s}} just returns the same text while {{nihongo}} tells the user that they haven't supplied any foreign text. This seems like a good test to me and is likely to cause less confusion for users using it in the future. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously understand the issue. I'm trying to understand what Trappist's position regarding that issue is. Either checking for user errors is good or it isn't. If it's good, then I don't understand how it can be argued that this template should not be replaced with the version that checks. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not saying that replacing [{{nihongo-s}}] isn't needed. Because {{nihongo-s}} gives the editor no indication that something is wrong, that fact serves as an indicator to me that {{nihongo-s}} should be replaced with {{nihongo}}. Those 216 malformed {{nihongo-s}} templates in List of manga artists are not working as they should or they are applied where they should not be applied but {{nihongo-s}} is incapable of reporting that to editors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 3 February 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 meme

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. This will require further discussion at one of the Village Pumps, the wikiproject, or WP:RFD; there are valid reasons given on both sides, but in this case deleting the template should come after a change in policy/practice (which is outwith the purview of TFD). Primefac (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to redirect to {{R from subtopic}}. I am assuming that the redirect category system (see Template:R template index) is not destined to grow to the same size as our regular category system, and thus we will not have, in the future, "R from Minnesota grocery store" or "R from pop artist backup dancer". Thus, the line must be drawn somewhere, and I don't think there is a functional reason to track which redirects are from Internet memes more than from any other kind of subtopic. These redirects can still be categorized with Category:Internet memes Category:Memes or subcategories thereof. Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Yes, for a single category. For example, searching incategory:"Fun (band) songs" produces three results (searching ignores redirects). Category:Fun (band) songs contains 12 pages (including articles and redirects). 12 minus 3, of course, means that Category:Fun (band) songs contains 9 redirects. I chose a small category with lots of redirects so you can easily verify the results. --Bsherr (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: Hmmm, that certainly a worthwhile alternative if this discussion is successful. I'm glad I can see what you're saying now, but I'm afraid my preferred option would still be the template for being more precise. What I mean to say is that, with the template, I can use AWB to receive a complete list of items transcluding the template, and I can match against any other recursive category. While H:DEEPCAT would theoretically alleviate the problem being able to search a category and its recursive subcategories at the same time, you can't adjust the recursive levels (meaning if I want to search a category and its subcategories but not the subcategories' subcategories, I'm out of luck).
While getting the statistics would be more time-consuming under this method, at least you provided me with a path forward if the discussion doesn't go my way (which I appreciate)  . –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MJL, Also, sorry about the wrong pronoun. I've got {{they}}, but haven't figured out how to get the similar templates for other parts of speech to work (i.e., "their," "them," etc.) with him/her, etc. Doug Mehus T·C 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: the gender magic word is always your friend   –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MJL above. Note that my !vote above is merely a !vote opposing deletion. Given the subsequent comments to this, I have now firmed up my position from just a mere "oppose deletion" to a "strong keep." Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know there is no actual significance in saying "strong keep" right? You could just as much say "Greatest Keep ever!" and it will just be a normal "keep". Also, XfD etiquette is one vote per editor. If you change your vote, you should strike the previous one. --Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per MJL. I can't see how aggregating them under "subtopics" improves things (e.g. WPNOTPAPER)? Not only do we have meme CATs (as we should for meme articles), but we also need to track the Redirects. Redirects are CHEAP, however, doesn't mean we should lump them into large unwieldy groupings like "subtopics" that will ultimately become meaningless (e.g. is a meme really a sub-topic of a subject in the sense that a reader searching for sub-topics would think). I am not convinced. Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a discussion about the proper venue for Rcat templates at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?, feel free to join. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 22:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm showing 111 transclusions of {{R from meme}}. As MJL articulated very well above, which was echoed by Britishfinance and myself as well, it's simply not helpful to categorize redirects under a broad {{R from subtopic}}. We have many more specific redirect categories, which should, arguably, be discussed at CfD and perhaps they will be with Trialpears' initiating a discussion at RfD's talkpage. With 111 transclusions, that is 111 redirects, from noteworthy Internet memes, that alone makes a very strong case for keep-ing this template. So, respectfully, the remainder of the nom's good-faith rationale is based on crystal ball gazing as to future potential subtopics, which I don't quite get. Since this is, notionally, not a vote, in my view, the 'nays' have it despite the close nosecount. Nevertheless, there's a remote possibility this could close as no consensus, which default to retaining the rcat, but I see no benefit to relisting given the (a) relative strength of the "keep" arguments presented and (b) the parallel process initiated by TP on the best venue for such discussions. Going forward, I think there's also a strong case for a moratorium on nominating rcat templates until the community decides, through a consensus-based decision-making process that is wide-ranging, in depth, rigorous, and robust on the best venue for such discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Mehus: Out of fairness, I must note that 99% of the transclusions are solely due to my own WP:BOTLIKE editing. I also would not call the redirects I tagged noteworthy Internet memes because a lot of the time they just aren't noteworthy and thus are simply redirects to another page. Either way, I don't suggest getting too worried about it. If the template gets deleted, then we'll just be in the same situation Wikipedia was in for 18+ years of its existence (eg. without this template). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, True, though, I tagged a handful of redirects with {{R from meme}} a couple days ago. However, since they were also redirects to a meme, I'm wondering if we should have a second {{R to meme}} template? Doug Mehus T·C 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to get too off track, that would be inappropriate as a template. However, if you would like to explore a {{R to topic}} where it can take a limited set of topics like {{R to topic|meme}}, then I'd bring that up at WT:RE. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, Oh, interesting idea, I like that idea! I'll pend that for this spring. Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's useful for navigation as normal categories aren't used much on redirects even though they should be. J947 (c), at 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this is useful for maintaining redirects. Our most specific rcat templates are useful because they tend to specify systematic names. MJL brings up {{R from NYC bus route}}, {{R ME from former name}}, and {{R from Java package name}}. Bus routes and package names are systematic, and having these categories tells us about the relationship between the redirect and target in a way that is useful for maintaining them. If a bus route or package changes its name or naming scheme we will need to evaluate every item in that category. Middle Earth categories, like TV or comic book subcategorizations, are because the number of redirects we have in those areas are so huge, they would flood the general categories making them more difficult to use for maintenance. To illustrate, Category:Middle-earth redirects has over 1000 pages in it alone, and counting pages in its subcategories puts the number close to 2000. {{R from meme}} has a little over 100: not nearly enough to inundate the general categories nor justify a separate Rcat. The redirect categorization system should not grow to the size of our content categorization system as any content category fit for a redirect should go on the target article instead. Readers do not need to navigate redirects to articles; they need to navigate articles. Knowing whether the redirect is a meme or not isn't useful maintenance information and so I don't think this template (or category) should be kept. I am also fine with redirecting since that seems the direction this discussion is heading. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, respectfully, I'm not sure I follow that I follow this line of thinking, particularly since bus routes have been around a lot longer than Internet memes, so it holds there would be more articles for bus routes. Moreover, lots of bus routes have also been deleted at AfD, often with "redirect" to the parent transit system or municipality/local government jurisdiction article as the result, which thereby increases the number of categorized redirects. Internet memes have been around for a little over ten years, and 120+ transclusions is not insignificant by any stretch. For any other template, 120+ transclusions at TfD would be a WP:SNOW "keep". I would hazard a guess {{R from meme}} isn't even our least populated rcat.
    While in good-faith, Bsherr's nomination rationale is essentially that they "don't like it" and that isn't expected to grow, for which no evidence is cited. Excluding your deletion rationale, the others were simply vague waves of "I agree" concurrence.
    I also don't think we should be, procedurally, allowing this rcat to be deleted while a procedural discussion on which deletion venue is best for the rcats. Doug Mehus T·C 23:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument about bus routes wasn't about the number of pages but the maintenance function of the templates; you confuse it with my point about redirects related to lord of the rings. While 120 transclusions may lead to keep votes for other templates, this is not other templates. For this class of templates, it is not a huge number and most of the transclusions were added by a single editor (the creator) within the last month.
    I disagree with your characterization of the nomination. The argument is not that this category is unlikely to grow, rather, that the rcat system was not meant to serve the same function as the article content categorization system: I am assuming that the redirect category system [...] is not destined to grow to the same size as our regular category system. Their reasoning as to why this one should be deleted in pursuit of that is not that the nominator doesn't like it but, similar to me, the nominator does not see a useful maintenance role for this rcat: I don't think there is a functional reason to track which redirects are from Internet memes more than from any other kind of subtopic.
    I'm not convinced by your procedural point given WP:NOTBURO and the fact that 9(ish) editors have found their way to this discussion making it one of the most well attended TfDs in the last few days. If you're concerned that there is insufficient participation to determine consensus you can advertise this discussion like you would any other, but claiming a discussion, started after and in response to this one, should stop us from discussing what to do here is filibustering. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, Thanks, as always, for your response, and I appreciate you clarifying your point regarding the {{R from bus route}}. We may disagree there, or on whether this TfD should be procedurally closed or not. Still, I do see both a functional and useful reason to categorize Internet memes—a growing phenomenon, particularly with regards to Megxit that closed as a near WP:SNOW "keep." Even though the redirects are notionally in a hidden maintenance category, there are some editors and visitors alike (yours truly included) who are quite fond of all types of categories, including maintenance categories. I've learned about a number of Internet memes through this rcat categorization, and I'm assuming I am by no means unique in this regard. I would be fine with a rename of this template, if felt appropriate, but merging to the proposed, and very broad, {{R from subtopic}} would not be helpful. It's not immediately clear to me what other suitable merger target, at the same level in the categorization hierarchy that would be. Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: If you understand my argument to be that I don't expect additional articles to be added to this redirect category, then you have completely misunderstood me. I would ask you to reread the nomination statement. If you're still not following, let me know, and I will try to explain again. --Bsherr (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, Thanks for your reply. I've replied below by mistake. I meant to reply to this. Feel free to reply wherever is best. Doug Mehus T·C 00:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding Wugs' point that "120 transclusions may lead to keep votes for other templates" and that, in turn, "this is not other templates," I would also point out that, for the purposes of categorization, at CfD, a category, which this notionally is, with 120 articles categorized therein would almost certainly result in a WP:SNOW "keep," as CfD regular Marcocapelle can, most likely, attest. The CfD regulars regard WP:SMALLCAT as one of the key criteria for deletion or keeping. WP:TRIVIALCAT is also considered, but considering the growing use of Internet memes, this is hardly that. So, either we apply template criteria for deletion, or category criteria. In either case, I'm not certain how we get to anything but a "keep," possibly a "no consensus," close here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be interested to know that both TfD and CfD often decide to delete templates and categories, respectively, with hundreds of transclusions or members, respectively. Underpopulated category was orphaned from over 15,000 category pages before its deletion. Category:Women Buddhists in 2007, and Category:Buddhist women in 2010, contained at least a hundred if memory serves me. In a cursory search of snowball clause closes at CfD, I didn't find any that asserted the size of the category to be the reason. --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, But based on the current consensus here, there's no appetite for deletion here. It's basically split fairly evenly, with arguments in favour of redirecting to {{R from subtopic}} (which is far too broad, in my view, considering the narrower templates we already have), and those in favour of keeping. Even you have modified your rationale to propose keeping the Category:Memes, but I'm not sure how this is helpful to the user who wants to see how the redirect is categorized at the redirect. The whole point of the rcats is to make it clear, looking quickly and while patrolling, how a redirect is classified and categorized. I don't see a rationale for redirecting, to be honest. Doug Mehus T·C 00:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From my experience, not all "r from meme" redirects fit the "r from subtopic" criteria in their own right, as they tend to lack the notability that a subtopic would have. As long as there is a distinguishable difference between the two, I would recommend keeping them separate. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:40, 19 February 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_February_2&oldid=942238086"