Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 2

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

June 2

edit

Template:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template of an apparent inactive WikiProject. It is unlikely that a WikiProject for this subject is necessary; falls under the scope of WP:TN. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 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:Country data Siam

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Content. Should use Template:Country data Thailand instead. ชาวไทย (talk) 21:27, 2 June 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:Portal top banner

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "portal banner" that only displays information about the Connecticut portal. I don't see any usage of this, and if it is needed, it could be copied onto the portals. CrazyBoy826 20:45, 2 June 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:Timed block

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 June 11. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 11 June 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:Monarchs of Brazil

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 June 9. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:59, 9 June 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:Uw-test1-rand

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Keep and mark historical. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates, unedited since 2011. Aasim 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the result of the test? How do you know this is unused, since they are subst templates? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, see this search query and this search query. Also NFD'ing {{Uw-test-rand1}} for the same reasons above. Aasim 13:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try this search instead. It's quite likely that the creator may {{G7}} these, I will leave him a note. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:58, 3 June 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:Distressing article

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 June 9. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:15, 9 June 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:Duan Yu's family tree

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:49, 2 June 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:Downton Abbey film, family tree

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree template that is actually completely unused in article space. If it ever gets used, it should be hardcoded in Downton Abbey (film), not in template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:46, 2 June 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:Hooligan family tree

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:43, 2 June 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:Xiao family tree

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree template that is only used on one article. Subst and delete. You don't need a template for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 2 June 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:Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa

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 June 9. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 18:39, 9 June 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:Clark Stories, P. 26

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and seems also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:22, 2 June 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:Chanakya. Sp

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 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:Chang Arena, Buriram

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 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:Charlie’s Angels (Discord)

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 16:17, 2 June 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:Fey family tree

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This family tree over a fictional family within the Ace Attorney video game series has absolutely no realistic use on WP, and is also filled with extraneous stuff (Marvin Grossberg is not part of the Fey family just because he is Mia Fey's mentor...). AlexandraIDV 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dotted lines are supposed to indicate non-familial relationships; Mia is also connected to Grossberg in the same way. But it's extremely confusing and liable to being misunderstood when there's no legend! — Kawnhr (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kawnhr: @Axem Titanium: That is exactly what I meant for it to mean. What is a legend, and how do I add one to it? KMWeiland (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not the case. Several canonically confirmed married couples have dotted lines connecting themselves to each other.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 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:Birth date and age 49

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and is also not useful TheImaCow (talk) 15:11, 2 June 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:Benetton Treviso 1998–99 FIBA Saporta Cup champions

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 deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and dosen't looks useful TheImaCow (talk) 15:08, 2 June 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:Austrian Imperial Family

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 redirect to Template:House of Habsburg-Lorraine after Francis I. There have been expressed a multitude of different issues, complaints, and concerns with this template. The primary issues are those of accuracy (both from the perspective of "are they actually called this" as well as "can we call them this"), a concern over a lack of bluelinks, and their grouping into a template when (aside from historical/heritage aspects) they are just "a family". The rebuttals to the first two, which are valid, are the ostensible cleanup of the template to only include names (and verified titles) and remove a large portion (if not all) of the redlinked/unlinked names.
One suggestion made during the discussion, which happened rather late (post-second-relist), is that there already exists a template that mostly covers these bases, namely {{House of Habsburg-Lorraine after Francis I}} (there are still some minor "royal name" issues which could easily be cleaned up). Thus, I see a few potential outcomes:
  1. This is closed as "no consensus, but fix", no changes are made, and it gets re-nominated six months down the line
  2. This is closed as "no consensus, but fix", the changes are made, and it's essentially a duplicate of the above-mentioned template (with a likely merger TFD a few months from now)
  3. This is closed as a redirect and the target template is cleaned/updated accordingly.

As near as I can tell, all roads lead to Option #3, hence the bolded close. The template history will be kept so the links can be compared and updated/added if necessary. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Austrian imperial family". The Empire was dissolved and all royal titles legally abolished in 1918. There is no archduke, no archduchess. They do not use these titles because they do not legally exist. This infobox is blatant WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above. Not all of them use the titles in pretense. So it's just something that Wikipedia editors have decided to call them. If we really want to have a template, then we should call them by their real names and title the template "Hapsburg family". Milpack (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template strongly implies a falsehood, viz., that descendants of the Austrian Habsburgs still hold their ancestors' titles. It is a falsehood that, if not politically significant in 2020, could become so in the future. Wikipedia is not a seedbed for "alternative facts" that uphold radical or reactionary political doctrines. As for the notable concept of a person being descended from Austrian royalty, a category is a satisfactory way to organize that information. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on my own vote: Checking German Wikipedia, there are articles on notable living descendants of the Austrian Habsburgs but no template relating to them. The articles also indicate that the use of not only titles but even the preposition "von" in front of a royal surname (e.g. "von Habsburg-Lothringen") is politically charged and subject to legal action in Austria. See esp. the article de:Karl Habsburg-Lothringen.
OTOH there is an assertion in de:Georg Habsburg-Lothringen that even though the subject of the article never uses his ancestors' title, he is "also often referred to in the media and socially as Archduke (medial und gesellschaftlich oft auch als Erzherzog bezeichnet)." However the statement may amount to original research. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see its been called House of Habsburg now which is fine, the template is useful to link various living members of this notable family various of whom a notable themselves. Its no different to having the templates listing all current members of a football team etc. Its not even unusual to see them called Archduke/Archduchess and there are countless sources which would support calling them as such so there is no harm in referring to members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by their historic titles, even the Belgian Royal Family says Princess Astrid married "Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este" rather than Mr Lorenz Habsburg-Lothringen! - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Members of this family who were alive in 1977 are called the "Austrian imperial family" in Burke's Royal Families of the World, and so it is not as simple as stating that all their titles were abolished in 1919 and only obscure self-published websites now accord them the titles. There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources that use this terminology to describe living Habsburgs. Content needs to be adjusted to agree with the available literature and common names, but wholesale deletion of sourced information isn't the way to go about it. DrKay (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing my "!vote": I've been convinced by the BLP issues raised, the lack of verifiability, and the pointlessness of the template as a navigational aid. My own searches for sources has shown that many people listed on the template are not called Archduke X of Austria, but are only found in reliable sources (or even primary sources) under a normal name, and that name is not necessarily either German or English, as the individual concerned lives as a private citizen in Spain or Hungary, or elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not convinced by the arguments presented by Guy but there are, in my opinion, good reasons to be rid of this template. It attributes grandiose titles to obscure living people who very likely do not endorse being called archdukes or archduchesses for professional, legal, or ideological reasons. It is impossible to verify how these people self-identify because they are so obscure. Furthermore, the template is supposed to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") but completely fails as such because the vast majority of names in it are not linked. At best, the template is useless; at worst, it is a BLP and SYNTH nightmare. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to Template:House of Habsburg. There are enough bluelinks to justify the template, although we should take care that the royal titles given are what those people are actually known by, rather than just someone playing fantasy empires. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivar the Boneful, according to my count, there are 169 people named in the template, of which only 29 are linked, i.e. less than a fifth. Many of those 29 lack any apparent notability, which is being looked into these days, so the number of blue links is likely to significantly decrease. But even if what remains is deemed enough, how do you propose that we verify how these 169 people call themselves? The vast majority are entirely obscure, so we can hardly rely on common usage in sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: The issue seems to be over the name of the template. The template itself seems useful. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Jdcompguy, the problem is the impossibility to verify the content of the template (which concerns living people) and its uselessness as a navigational aid. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you seriously trying to claim that it is "impossible" to find sources to verify the familial relationships between the members of this famous and historically-important family? Of all things, that's among the easiest types of information to verify. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jdcompguy, I am seriously saying that it is impossible to verify that all these people call themselves Imperial and Royal Highnesses and archdukes or archduchesses. It is impossible to verify what they call themselves instead or what their legal names are. Impossible, because they are obscure, private citizens. Feel free to prove me wrong, however. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bluelinks of the main section are a useful navigation tool and do not use the royal titles you mention. I think that whatever issues you have with the template can be resolved without deleting the entire thing. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are only 29 blue links out of 169 names and that number is about to decrease. If we take out the non-notable, non-verifiable people, the list is misleadingly incomplete, inaccurate by omission; if we leave them in, we contravene two policies. This sort of content belongs in an article, not a template. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I also strongly disagree that this is about “the name of the template.” BLP issues include the counterfactual assigning of noble titles, which may violate Austrian law. (IANAL) ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relevance as royal topic, irrespective of status in the Austrian republic. PPEMES (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:2880:F00D:4E04:47EC (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't understand the reasons for deletion—if there is any. --Foghe (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasons, Foghe, are that there are no sources confirming how these people self-identify or how they are commonly called and that the template fails in its purpose to aid in navigation because the vast majority of names are not linked. The template cannot state that 169 people claim royal status without sources. It is an egregious breach of WP:V and WP:BLP policies. I hope that makes it clearer, though it has already been written a few times here.. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok clear, sources are inadequate, but it's just consistent with this I think. At the end it's true they are the pretenders. --Foghe (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But how can you say it's true without sources? Labeling them as pretenders without sources saying that they pretend to something is a violation of WP:BLP, especially since pretending to that something is a criminal offence in their homelands. Wikipedia is effectively alleging that they are breaking the law without any source backing it up. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for what it's worth, the others templates listed here at Category:Royal and noble family templates might be worth discussing.
  • Keep and neutralize or rename to Template:Habsburg-Lothringen family, as the last Habsburg died centuries ago. I was at a function some time ago where the speaker was presented as Dr Michael Salvator Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, so I'd say they do use royal titles, but not the ones used in the template. HI&RH is anachronic, and the template could probably be purged of most or all entries without articles. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Place Clichy, can we really conclude, based on Michael Salvator Habsburg-Lothringen's example, that the other 168 people also use titles? It seems like synthesis to me. I am concerned that purging the template of the unlinked names will render it misleadingly incomplete - unless the template is renamed to something like Template:Habsburg-Lothringens notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And even then, many of these people do not call themselves Habsburg-Lothringen. There are people called "von Habsburg", "de Habsburgo-Lorena", "Habsburg Douglas", etc. Lumping them all up under "Habsburg-Lothringen" is difficult to justify. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot conclude either that they do not use titles, or (as currently presented in the article) HI&RH. I don't suggest "lumping" every one under "Habsburg-Lothringen", I just suggest that it would be a better name for the template(and for the family as a whole) than Austrian Imperial family. There is a policy in Wikipedia against using redirects in templates, is if for selected individuals another last name is more pertinent (e.g. Habsburgo-Lorena) as reflected in the article's name we should definitely link to that. For the appearance of the link, in a family template, in this case a royal family template, first name and relation with other members (and, when applicable, courtesy title) are more useful than the variations of Lothringen/Lorraine/Lorena, which would be hidden by a pipe. As for the "completeness of the template, when a family reaches 160+ alive members, most of them not notable, attempting to list them all in a template only creates template creep, and anyway you cannot reasonably expect to keep up with the births and deaths. This should be better done in a list article. A template with the most notable members who do have an article, though, is definitely a useful navigation tool, maybe including a few red links if important or linked to an equivalent article in a foreign language. Place Clichy (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not up to Wikipedia editors to conclude anything, Place Clichy. It is against WP:V and WP:BLP to attribute titles to people before sources are found confirming their personal usage. Listing people under "Habsburg-Lothringen family" with just their names suggests that they all share that name. Surely the person's last name is very relevant since it is in everyday use. People such as Géza von Habsburg and Walburga Habsburg Douglas are known professionally and internationally by these names; obscuring them is a disservice to the readers. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who says anything about attributing titles, and which titles exactly? Certainly not me. We can perfectly present the template without doing so. The only issue here is really is we want to have a navigational aid in the form of a template between articles who form a related set, and I have seen so far no rationale for not having that. About people you have cited, Géza von Habsburg is mentioned as also called Géza Habsburg-Lothringen in the first line of the article, and the "Douglas" part of Walburga Habsburg Douglas is a married name. Both articles are already a part of Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine, so they are already "listed under that name", no more than renaming the template would do. My opinion still to purge and rename this template, but certainly to keep it. Place Clichy (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Bring back the Austro-Hungarian Empire and maybe there's a case for this. Until then, the idea that any modern person should be called His Imperial and Royal Highness is WP:FRINGE.
There's no evidence that these people use these titles, the vast majority aren't notable enough to have their own articles anyway, and the use of these titles raises significant legal issues, so WP:BLP clearly applies. This template is nothing more than Wikipedians making up gradiose titles and assigning them to people. Kahastok talk 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At which point it's a template listing a large number of private individuals, most of whom do not have articles and will not have articles. Take out those without articles and you end up with a list containing disparate group of people whose only connection is sharing a great-great-grandparent.
The whole point of this template is to document the "Austrian Imperial Family". Remove the royal connection - as the Austrians did in 1918 - and you lose any reason to have a template. Kahastok talk 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Rob's suggestion of putting the ones who have articles in a category sounds fine. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify reduce to those who historically were part of the "imperial family" or some reasonable facsimile, and remove the modern branches. Perhaps that information belongs in an article, without the, apparently spurious, titles, but probably not in this box. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or, if kept, remove extended family section and remove styles (HRH, etc.). All of those unlinked members in the Extended Family who are being given hypothetical titles and styles are a BLP issue. Even for bluelinked articles, the style of this template is improperly deferential to a long-abolished nobility system, so a "Modern Habsburg-Lothringen family" template should keep things simple and sourceable. SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Regardless of what you call them, the family still exists and is still historically very significant. Deleting it doesn't make any sense. But they aren't a royal family today, so the current template name is a little misleading: it doesn't make much sense to leave it the same as it is, either. I think Tom has the right of it in terms of what the name should be. --Sauronjim (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG, DrKay, and Surtsicna. Renaming would not solve the BLP, SYNTH, and OR problems. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above, but if it is kept, remove the extended family which is not helpful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy and others. Wikipedia isn't a genealogy database, and the template has extensive issues with BLP, OR, and FICT. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:12, 19 June 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).

Foreign character warning boxes

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:Contains special characters. This essentially means that we will go from multiple named templates to piped parameters, but functionality should be retained in the final product. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Deprecate foreign character warning boxes?, the vast majority of readers are now using systems that are able to display a wide range of scripts, and the slim potential benefit these foreign character warning boxes used to offer is now outweighed by the clutter they cause. The templates for Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Korean, and Japanese have been deleted at TfD. I am now nominating for deletion these warning boxes for scripts that were introduced in or prior to Unicode 3.2 in 2002, excluding the ones for which issues may still be prevalent, per 59.149.124.29's comments in the above-linked discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, the age of the script being introduced to Unicode is not necessarily a foolproof way of knowing about implementation issues. Some Coptic support is as recent as version 7.0 in 2014, even though the unified "Greek and Coptic" block dates back to v1.0. The Indic template specifically addresses a problem that those scripts are encoded in Unicode to have vowels always follow the consonants they modify logically, even if the vowel sign is rendered before the consonant in writing, and there's the entire cavalcade of conjuncts being supported. There are still implementations that mangle Indic text in either or both of these ways, and this template warns of that distinct possibility. Tibetan is a whole rabbit's den of quirks and one-off rendering minutiae. I also know that there are some special rendering complexities with the Ogham space that make full support less likely. And then there are scripts like Cherokee or Deseret that are so simple, we probably could have gotten rid of this template a decade ago. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this, and I can only say that each of these writing systems needs to be investigated individually, with some effort to evaluate them on the basis of "these characters have been standardized long enough to be supported fully" vs. "there's a whole level of rendering complexity beyond just the characters that might not be supported". Unfortunately, I'd have to Oppose all except Cherokee, Deseret and Braille - I know those well enough - until that due diligence has been done. VanIsaacWScont 03:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Several of these scripts are still unsupported out-of-the-box on moden platforms (especially mobile phones). That said, I have never found them useful to begin with, as these boxes mostly appear in articles about these scripts, and the reader can be trusted to recognize the problem if, say, they are reading an article about runes and see placeholder boxes in place of runic characters. Under the general sentiment that (a) Wikipedia should't treat readers as idiots an (b) Wikipedia isn't here to provide tech support to people with font issues I would have preferred deprecation of these even when they were first introduced, but I refrain from "voting delete" because the rationale for keeping them around hasn't changed — may I suggest deprecation without outright deletion as a possible compromise. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we're treating readers like idiots by telling them how to fix this. My experience is that when people experience Unicode font issues, they typically think it's a permanent device problem. If we can help them then we should try. I'm open to collapsing these into a single template, because I don't really think the fixes are so different as to require a per-script link to them, but not full deprecation, because this is still an ongoing issue with contemporary operating systems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe we should ask, what are the use cases these templates are expected to serve? I can imagine a situation where I see boxes instead of text and realise my computer lacks the appropriate font. Personally, I would then look them up on Google, but I can see that having a link to a help page recommending fonts and providing download links can be helpful. The way the help pages are currently written, however, with instructions on text input and a lot much else, is simply too much detail for such users. I also doubt these templates are useful for more complicated cases, e.g. incorrect character sequence rendering. Readers who are familiar enough with the language to know that the rendering is incorrect would already know this and don't need help, while readers who don't know this won't see a problem so won't click on the box. Also, most of the problem is due to the box format itself. There's never a good place to place these templates. They get in the way of infoboxes and images, and the right side of articles are usually already cluttered enough (not sure if they're rendered on mobile, but if so, then they'd cause even more clutter there). A comment on the MOS talk page suggested hatnotes, but that's even worse IMO. I'm thinking that, in most cases, these would be better as a simple in-line template like (help) or at most (text display help). If their use isn't deprecated, there should be more concrete MOS guidance that these templates (whether the current boxes or inline versions) should only be used when the display of text is pertinent to the reader's understanding of the topic. So use them on articles about the language, but don't spam them on articles that just mention foreign versions of place names. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: informative comments above; I'd certainly be happy to see (much) less of these boxen. I suspect we could get away with a single (merged) template; and I'd suggest that the box would be less obtrusive if its text label could be cut down to 3 lines in place of the current wasteful 6 - it could just say something like "This article contains foreign text. Without proper rendering, you may see '?' or boxes." Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be all in favor of merging these to a generic template, but maybe it should have a parameter for some of the more common issues that come up with certain common scripts. {{Unsupported text|Indic}} might have an explicit link to Help:Multilingual_support_(Indic) and the Indic specific image from {{Contains Indic text}}, while a {{Unsupported text}} without an explicit script, or an unrecognized script would give a generic message, maybe with File:Replacement character.svg. And just as a side note, I've been creating Indic letter articles for the last couple weeks, but haven't used {{Contains Indic text}} at all. VanIsaacWScont 05:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created two of these boxen but have never been happy with their effect on layout. It is to be expected that they will become less necessary with time, but that day has not yet arrived. I support replacing these with a standard {{Unsupported text|Script_name}} template. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have always found these boxes distracting and unnecessary. When foreign characters are included, they are usually included as "Language: [and then the script here]", so I know what language I'm missing. A second best option would be to use a technical means to show these only when a reader lacks the relevant font, or to only display these for rare languages where readers may in fact not have support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: also, I think this discussion should be more widely publicised, perhaps on cent noticeboard, to get a greater variety of opinions, as it has the potential to set a precedent and affect a large number of articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator: Maybe this TfD wasn't the best approach to the issue. I'm seeing some common threads here, in that while not all of these scripts are indeed widely supported enough to warrant deletion, the proliferation of these templates is not a good thing and there should be some better way to assist the reader. I guess this discussion could be closed as no consensus, and back to the drawing board be it, to consider the various options. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, even if this discussion gets closed, I want to explicitly second (third?) Chiswick Chap's and Vanisaac's comments suggesting the templates be merged at some point in the future. I personally disagree with Chiswick Chap's proposal that the text in the template(s) be shortened and don't find the six lines clunky or obtrusive and think that using the term "foreign" would be inaccurate, "non-Latin" might be a better alternative if one is needed. The use of a parameter to specify what script or block of characters that are relevant sounds to me like an effective solution. Additionally, enabling WebFont fetching by default, as proposed by Thjarkur, additionally seems like a positive change. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a relisting note, there have been some suggestions to merge these into a single template, but all are currently wrappers for {{Contains special characters}}. Whether that "merge" simply means going from a named template to a piped parameter is potentially worth exploring more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I created two of these boxen (as I said in a prior comment) and I have always been dissatisfied with how they fail to fit in to article page layout. A template with piped parameters would be a welcome improvement, esp. if we can recruit some expert involvement to better integrate the template into page layout, maybe as an infobox element, or having infobox layout traits where no infobox is present. Until every user has a client that flawlessly supplies correct fonts for every kind of script, we need a stopgap measure like this. But we can do better than the current crowd of misfit boxen. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all will then be beautiful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • We could ask for foundation help with this issue, it should be possible to tell which fonts a browser supports, and either display a warning only in cases where there is an issue, or even display a replacement glyph as per our maths rendering system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge or "fix". WP:NOTHOWTO, if someone has trouble rendering text, it is not Wikipedia's place to "fix" it. For the 0.1% of readers who have trouble with the above issues, I doubt that many of them will follow the advice given or connect the dots, people are amazingly good at glossing over warnings. These templates should have been deleted a decade ago even when these rendering issues were more common. SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I think some of these boxes still serve their original purpose and I think they are a net benefit. I have rendering problems with the article User:Thumperward highlights, on an up-to-date system. Also worth considering that some of these languages have been updated in Unicode since 2002. For example, the most recent update to Georgian in Unicode was the addition of Mtavruli characters in Georgian Extended in 2018.
That said, I have no objection to a review of actual support across different systems and browsers, following by a deletion of boxes that are found unnecessary at that stage. Nor do I object to a merge, provided that the new box links do actually provide useful information about the language in question (for example, Help:Multilingual support doesn't mention Georgian). Kahastok talk 16:54, 10 June 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_June_2&oldid=1143705173"