Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 3 September 5 >

September 4

edit

Template:Certainty sidebar

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:Epistemology sidebar. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the sort of template that is kept for the sake of old revisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 5 September 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:Useronline

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have no serious uses. I've had two transclusions on my user page, one saying I'm "online", the other "offline", for over a year and not one person has commented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 4 September 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:Elections by year

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, now unused. This was a navigation template for use in election chronology categories, but all uses have now been replaced by the superior {{Navseasoncats}} or one of its siblings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 4 September 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:Arabic name

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:Family name hatnote. There is a consensus to merge templates of the form supported by {{Family name hatnote}}, but there is no consensus regarding templates with further complexities such as {{Korean name}} {{Philippine name}} and {{Chinese name}} which were struck from the discussion. If other cases of more complex templates are discovered when implementing this merger these should be removed as well and be discussed more thoroughly if a merge is still desirable. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Arabic name with Template:Family name hatnote.
After seeing the discussion here for {{Singaporean name}} I took at look at Category:Hatnote templates for names. Of the 50+ variants of naming conventions, these 20 all follow the same general structure. I created {{family name hatnote}} (a name I am not wedded to and am willing to change) as a proof-of-concept that these could all be converted to use one template (ease of updating/syncing/etc). If there are other templates in that category that can easily fit into the existing structure of the new template, feel free to propose them and I'll add them to the list.

Note that there are some other "groupings" such as those involving patronymic names (Iceland, India, Malay, etc) but I feel like they would require either a separate template or some sort of subtemplate, so I want to just start with this "simple" merge. If there is consensus for my proposal, each template would be converted into a wrapper and subst away, similar to the conversion that occurred following this discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

The pretense is the "ease of updating/syncing/etc". From the history of these templates, this occurs every two years! On the contrary, these templates are transcluded in 4000+ and 16000+ pages. But User:Primefac seems to have difficulties to understand that changing the syntax from "Korean name" to "Family name hatnote|lang=Korean" etc. would create a dis-ease for the writers of all these articles.
Moreover, replacing a link to List_of_Korean_surnames or to Chinese name by a link to Surname is yet another proof of cultural blindness: John Whoever Kennedy is not the archetype of all the people's names on this Earth. These fucking people have pen names, generation names, and so on. They even have various naming methods, for the sake of diversity.
As a result, the Template:Family name hatnote is not fit to replace Template:Korean name nor Template:Chinese name. And I am quite sure this is the general case, not an exception. Pldx1 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Template:Korean name and Template:Chinese name may be merged with Template:Family name hatnote if the latter's compatibility is ensured (however it doesn't happens). I hope the proposer may check whether Template:Family name hatnote is compatible with all the other templates mentioned carefully at once, and if it doesn't happens, please consider my comment as my opposition. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So, I'm in support of condensing these, but I would like to point out the "surname" v "family name" thing, especially for the non-European countries. Most proposed templates use "family name", the given template uses "surname". Another common alternative is "last name". I'm not familiar with any cultural contexts, but I just wanted to point out / ensure calling them "surnames" instead of "family names" isn't going to cause confusion or offence, noting that I am aware this is indeed the English Wikipedia. At a very quick glance I can't seem to find which phrase is more common, but it does seem to have caused enough confusion to require clarification at times (& Britannica has some writing on this). This may seem a bit pedantic, but I just thought it's worth raising the point. Easy solutions may be to call it a family name in merged template, or provide the option if one is more accurate than the other in some contexts (I don't know if it is). Or, maybe this isn't a problem at all. It's not a barrier to merge in any case, but maybe worth discussion before impl. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 12 September 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:Multiple pronouns

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 Moved without redirect [to User:Coffeeandcrumbs/Template:Multiple pronouns] with comment "Save us from a pointless discussion." by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion. A WikiProject appears to be developing a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to use hatnotes to explain the pronouns of drag queens and others. This is against the WP:HAT guideline - Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for - and specifically against the WP:LEGITHAT section. This information is legitimate, but can easily be contained in the lead as a footnote using Template:Efn. Having it at the very top serves no navigation purpose whatsoever and confuses the reader by introducing multiple names before it is explained who the person is, as at Bianca Del Rio for example. Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Hatnote has been notified of this discussion per WP:APPNOTE. Crossroads -talk- 03:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGITHAT says Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion *and* direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself. This template does reduce confusion. I guess this depends on how you interpret the and I emphasized in my quote. Does a hatnote have to both reduce confusion and direct readers to another article. That is not how I read it. This template certainly does not purport to include information about the subject. It only preempts a known confusion the WP:READER may have when encountering the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies have been notified per WP:APPNOTE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race, which was suspiciously not notified although besmirched in the rationale, has also been notified. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the same be said of... Yes, it could, but that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those probably also should be explanatory notes. We know how to interpret the "and" you mention, since the quote I gave above from the lead of WP:HAT is clear what hatnotes are for. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads, I await with bated breath for you to nominate those as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Crossroads -talk- 05:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The average reader doesn't likely comb through every word of the article, much less navigate to footnotes. A clear, hard-to-miss message at the very top of the page averts reader confusion much more effectively than something hidden in small text at the bottom. My reading of WP:LEGITHAT is the same as C&C's, FWIW. Armadillopteryx 05:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This hatnote's wording was not yet finalized; see discussion here. The version in the works clarifies that the two names belong to the same subject and resolves the confusion described at the end of the nom rationale. Armadillopteryx 05:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not what hatnotes are for, and this kind of trivia should not be the first thing in the article. We make it clear what someone's pronouns are – why do I have to state something so obvious? – by using them. If the subject uses a made-up pseudo-pronoun like hirm or zie, or otherwise does something that WP will not do in its own editorial voice, then this can be explained in the article body, as we do at Genesis P-Orridge and various other articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little surprised you've called a person's pronouns "trivia". We have some guidelines in the MOS about this (at MOS:IDINFO and MOS:GENDERID). Wikipedia's voice does have to use a person's preferred pronouns when discussing them. The issue with drag queens is that their notability, career and RS coverage are under their drag name and drag pronouns, but they don't live as that name and gender in their private life. It's different from a subject that changes their birth name and lives under the new identity. Armadillopteryx 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correct pronoun usage is important, but this is WP:Undue weight on pronouns. They are not such prominent aspects of a person that they should be discussed above all else. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree with you here—pronouns shouldn't be given undue weight, and standard practice in these articles thus far has been to simply use the appropriate pronouns in each section without further comment. The point of the hatnote isn't to emphasize or add weight to pronouns, though. As I mentioned below, the hatnote was created in response to persistent, disruptive drive-by edits to pronouns in these articles. A hard-to-miss message at the top might mitigate the problem if given the chance to be tested. Armadillopteryx 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the purpose is to communicate with editors rather than readers, wouldn't an edit notice be better tailored to that purpose? --Bsherr (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, editor behavior is what prompted (broke the camel's back and led to) the creation but the reader is also confused by the unavoidable switch back and forth from one pronoun to the other, in some instances mid-paragraph. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the disruptive changes aren't from editors per se (as in, people who have previously edited Wikipedia and understand its guidelines); the issue comes mostly from readers who turn into one-time IP editors when they think they've seen an error that they want to correct. They typically don't do a sweep of the entire article, but rather change the pronouns in a few sentences or paragraphs. This raises the question of where, exactly an edit notice could even go so that it would be seen by everyone. If we put it right at the top of the article, people who edit only the Early life or Personal life section, for example, won't see it at all. Should we repeat the edit notice every section? Every paragraph? This is very clunky, and any way it is done, it will inevitably be missed by more readers (and editors) than a hatnote. Because you don't need to click "Edit" to see a hatnote, that type of template does an especially good job at eliminating reader confusion before they feel the need to click "Edit" in the first place. And this also serves those who may be bothered/confused but don't choose to make that known to us by attempting an edit. Armadillopteryx 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Armadillopteryx: Actually, an Wikipedia:Editnotice appears after a user clicks "edit", whether for the whole page or at a section, and appears on the next page right above the editing interface. Because of that placement, it is the best place to give notice to editors of the article. Editors who follow a link to a section of the article or skip over the hatnotes will be more likely not to miss the edit notice. It's different from a banner that appears on the article itself. --Bsherr (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry—for some reason my eyes read "edit notice", but my brain read "hidden note". Yes, I think an edit notice would be helpful for would-be editors. Given the volume of these edits that we get, though, I suspect that for every pronoun editor we see, there are probably several others that are also confused by the pronouns but don't bother to click "Edit". The disruptive edits are the symptom, not the cause. So I'm not opposed to adding an edit notice (it will probably make my life easier in terms of reducing the amount of edits to revert), but that wouldn't help readers who also feel confused but don't make that known to us. Armadillopteryx 11:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contravenes WP:HATNOTE. --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The hatnote encourages use of mismatch pronouns. I'm not a fan of mismatch pronouns in our articles or mismatch names unless stating a different name at some part to avoid confusion...such as stating a woman's maiden name when stating that she married her husband while noting her husband by name. I think that the mismatch approach is not ideal and is unnecessary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:MOS we should be using the pronouns that reliable, secondary sources use. We should not need to have such a hatnote. If we are talking about a character then we use the pronouns for that character. If we are talking about a person we use the pronouns for that person. We do not need a hatnote that explains that. Aasim 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome Aasim, Here a highly reliable source uses both he and she to refer to the subject in the same article, exactly in the same way we do in our article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffeeandcrumbs I am not against how you are doing this; I think it is pointless to include a template to explain that. Per below, we can do a {{efn}} instead. Aasim 05:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Separate template* Aasim 05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually gets at exactly why the template was created. WP:RS refer to these subjects almost exclusively by their drag names and drag pronouns—even when talking about their personal lives, where they use a different name/pronouns. Per MOS:IDINFO and MOS:GENDERID, we give precedence to self-designation on Wikipedia. This is why we use drag name/pronouns when discussing the subject's notability/work in drag and out-of-drag name/pronouns when discussing their personal life. Most other subjects don't have their notability and RS coverage for a gender different than the one they live as. Armadillopteryx 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said: we do not need a hatnote to explain the pronouns that a person uses. If we carefully word our statements, then there will be no confusion. If there was a person named "Sally" that is professionally known as "Bill", we use the pronouns for "Bill" when we are talking about their professional life and the pronouns for "Sally" when we are talking about their personal life, just like you said. But I don't think something like this merits a completely separate template. Aasim 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, actually, and this is exactly what we do: we use the drag name/pronouns when talking about their professional life and the out-of-drag name/pronouns when talking about their personal life. The issue is that we have a persistent problem with IPs (and occasionally, regular editors unfamiliar with the subject matter) doing drive-by changes of pronouns en masse (e.g. switching drag queen pronouns to male in drag sections, to female pronouns in personal life sections, etc.). This happens with enough frequency that readers apparently need to see a clearer, more conspicuous message before they start making article-wide disruptive edits. If not with a hatnote, how do we do this? Armadillopteryx 17:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is to use Template:Efn or a WP:Hidden note after the first pronoun that is likely to be an issue. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those templates work great to communicate with someone who is liable to be reading the full article text from start to finish. But as I said above, casual readers are often just skimming or looking for something specific; those people are a lot less likely to see a footnote than a hatnote. Armadillopteryx 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really care either way, but want to challenge the initial rationale because I find it to be a gross misrepresentation of the guideline:
    1. We use hatnotes for more than just navigational purposes, and I don't believe the nomination accurately characterizes project-wide consensus about how hatnotes should be used. For example, {{Spanish name}} is used across 21,000 pages to tell readers about how the article refers to subjects with Spanish naming conventions. {{Chinese name}} is used across 16,000 pages to do the same thing. Our guideline at WP:NCTR recommends the use of {{Correct title}} to notify readers about technical restrictions on article titles. It's obvious from practice that hatnotes are not only used for navigational purposes, and so arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:LEGITHAT strikes me as particularly weak.
    2. The example in WP:LEGITHAT looks nothing like this template. Ayesha is sometimes used as a woman's name. Once popular only among Muslims, it was briefly popular among English-speakers after it appeared in the book She by Rider Haggard is obviously trivia that's not particularly useful to the reader. The wording of this template isn't similar to that at all: This article about a drag queen uses a different pronoun for the subject out of drag. "He" refers to Subject, and "she" refers to Character. It is actually useful information for the reader to know, and the nomination acknowledges that by suggesting it be moved to a footnote. To the degree that LEGITHAT has consensus, it clearly applies to situations in the example where tangential information unrelated to comprehending the present article is presented. The comparison between these two situations is weak.
    3. The appeal to WP:LOCALCON is a red herring; there is no policy which requires editors seek wide consensus before creating or using a template. In fact, we have a policy stating the exact opposite. The purpose of WikiProjects is to foster collaboration to improve sets of articles within the scope which is exactly what occured here. It's fine to seek wider consensus on whether this should be used, but implying that the collaboration was somehow invalid or improper is disingenuous.
    4. Footnotes can be used, but no policy requires they be used in this instance. As mentioned previously, this case is similar to how we use {{Chinese name}} and {{Spanish name}}. WP:HATNOTE explicitly allows that information as either a hatnote or a footnote, and forcing the use of footnotes requires a wider discussion than a TFD. Just because something can be conveyed by a footnote doesn't mean it must be conveyed by a footnote. If you would prefer a footnote, you can build consensus for that on talk pages.
I'm open to the idea that this is harmful to readers, should be reworded, or should not be used at all, but this is not the proper venue for that. The rationales so far boil down to preferences on how articles should be written, and those are discussion for talk pages not TFD. An active discussion was already ongoing, and anyone is free to participate in it. If editors wish to discuss whether or how to use this template, WP:TFD#REASONS recommends participating on the template talk page instead of deletion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but (setting aside your argument that there are lots more noncompliant hatnote templates) I just don't see how you conclude WP:HATNOTE covers this. It says of hatnotes, Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. How does this template do that? --Bsherr (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HATNOTE includes mention of acceptable non-navigational uses of hatnotes further down on the page. See, for example, Category:Hatnote templates for names, which is exactly what it sounds like: a category full of 50+ hatnotes used to clarify naming conventions. Armadillopteryx 02:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you quote the part of the guideline that endorses this use? I only see a link to a category with no context. --Bsherr (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Family names, which links to that category. Armadillopteryx 02:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, I guess we're looking at the same thing. --Bsherr (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bsherr: it also says it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply while containing links to widespread uses of hatnotes which violate the first of the WP:HATNOTERULES and quite obviously do not help readers locate a different article. Our guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive so pointing out widespread practices that contradict the letter of a rule is a perfectly valid way of assessing the level of consensus behind a particular passage or interpretation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: Indeed, descriptive. (A rarity is the accepted practice that we deliberately choose not to document.) So wouldn't one expect that this use would be described at Wikipedia:Hatnote? Why does no one here simply edit Wikipedia:Hatnote to add this usage? If it has consensus, I will gladly support the continuance of this template. But without that, how is anyone to assess the next hatnote template we discuss? What is the criterion? Or can any fact be a hatnote? (A link to a category, currently the only (dubious) "mention" of this use in the guideline, doesn't give any such guidance.) --Bsherr (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bsherr: I never said editors deliberately chose not to document it. It is in fact quite common that consensus changes and our guidelines become inaccurate. Our policy on policies makes clear that one way to change policy is to break it: To update best practices, you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change). If policies were always a perfect reflection of current practice, we would never need to discuss policy changes and wording, but instead they tend to lag behind the actual editorial practices. For example, despite the ping system being changed in 2016, the documentation page wasn't updated with the current information until I updated it last month (This is a long winded way to say your most recent ping didn't go through). No one here has edited the guideline because editing a guideline in the middle of a dispute is a very bad idea. I agree that there are a lot of questions that would need resolved, and my point is and has been that TfD is not the venue to resolve them (see my response to Izno below for more on that). While HATNOTE may not discuss exceptions to your preferred level of detail, it's obvious from the widespread use of name templates and {{Correct title}} that a rigid interpretation of the guideline as only allowing purely navigational hatnotes is out of step with editorial practice since tens of thousands of articles use hatnotes which violate WP:HATNOTERULES. This template definitely goes beyond the typical use of hatnotes, and I don't dispute that, but policy specifically allows ignoring guidelines if it benefits readers. Because of that, arguments which ignore the benefits and harms and instead focus on a rigid interpretation of HATNOTE strike me as particularly weak and counterproductive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Deleting the template is an extreme measure. The template is currently used on a single article from which it can easily be removed. At least, allow the project to work on the phasing and propose the addition of the template to articles at an RfC on a highly visible discussion board such as the Village pump. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the template from any and all articles. So technically, it is not a hatnote anymore. It is just a template in development created for demonstration purposes. There is no draft space for templates. We will start an RfC as soon as this TFD is over and establish consensus for its use as a hatnote. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think that's a good idea. Talk to me before you do? There are two recent TfD discussions that I think the introduction to the RfC should mention as background. --Bsherr (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, please link them here so I can review them. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Template:Singaporean name is currently open. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 22#Template:Not WMF was deleted. Both of these are hatnote uses not strictly conforming to Wikipedia:Hatnotes. If we're getting into the millinery business, we should talk about these too, I think. --Bsherr (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The primary (and would-be sole) purpose of hatnotes is navigation. I can conceive of no way in which this aids such. The current exceptions are recognized as exceptions, not as correct intent. As I've recently remarked elsewhere on TFD, I can conceive of a use for even the name templates as navigation tools, but would much prefer to see those converted to T:Distinguish if necessary and removed otherwise. (I.e., I would be sympathetic to a TFD here.) Correct title, since that has also been called out, I think does serve the navigational purpose as it informs readers that they have found the right article, even if the title differs slightly (for reasons outside our control; I would be sympathetic to a TFD there however). This template does not work the same in any of those regards. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I don't necessarily disagree about the other templates, but discussing this piecemeal at TFDs is unlikely to actually improve the encyclopedia and certainly is not helping in this case. The existing and active discussion surrounding the development of this template shows that the primary goal was to help readers understand articles (broadly speaking, that's the goal of all hatnotes but especially the ones brought up here such as cross-cultural naming conventions). While others in this discussion have expressed preferences on how to do that (namely footnotes), turning the discussion into an up-or-down vote for deletion makes building consensus on how to serve readers more difficult. Editors who contribute heavily in the topic area have expressed reasons why footnotes may not be particularly effective at helping readers, yet it seems no one has engaged with that point (since TfD isn't really suited for that). Editors--including me--were discussing how to improve the template immediately prior to this TfD, and instead of expanding that discussion about what would serve readers best, we're now here debating what is and is not "navigational" while largely ignoring what would actually help readers. That strikes me as the kind of thing WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR were meant to prevent, and why there seems to be such a disconnect between those advocating delete and those advocating keep. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wugapodes and my own comments above. WP:HATNOTE contains at least one section on non-navigational uses for hatnotes, namely Wikipedia:Hatnote#Family names. The templates in its linked category appear in tens of thousands of articles. Like those, this one clarifies a fundamental part of a subject's identity that is susceptible to disruptive editing. This purpose would not be adequately served by less conspicuous text, such as in a footnote. Even if WP:HATNOTE did prohibit non-navigational hatnotes, this would be an excellent place to WP:IAR since this template's presence improves the quality of Wikipedia by dissuading well-meaning but disruptive edits that have become a persistent problem. Clearly hatnotes are already a de facto standard for this purpose and are endorsed by WP:HATNOTE with good reason. Armadillopteryx 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Armadillopteryx. Clarifying pronoun use is helpful to the reader and necessary to avoid confusion in some cases. Putting the information in a hatnote is preferable to burying it in a footnote, since there is nowhere to place the footnote that will clearly signal to the reader what it is explaining. While hatnotes are primarily for navigation, the long-standing use of hatnotes to explain which name is the family name is a helpful exception. This is another.--Trystan (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that this is not a "long-standing use of hatnotes"; this an entirely new use, moving beyond someone's name (which is in the title after all) to information about the person. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relevance of the distinction. The reason to have a name hatnote at an article like Zhang Ziyi is to explain to the reader why the subject is referred to as Zhang in the text rather than by Ziyi. For both the name templates and the template under discussion, the purpose is not navigational, but to provide information about the person necessary necessary for accurate comprehension of the article.--Trystan (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's premature, but anyone want to take a stab at how this criterion would read if it were to be documented? Hatnones that "provide information about the person [would it just be for biographies?] necessary for comprehension of the article"? --Bsherr (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per Crossroads, et al. For an example of Edit notice usage, see Leslie Feinberg. That article also has a section labeled "#Pronoun usage", that explains Feinberg's own attitude about pronouns used to refer to her. On the other hand, I think the Feinberg article deserves to have a hatnote at the top that says, Feinberg identifies as a female-bodied, butch, transgender lesbian; after all, Feinberg's identity was far more important to her, and central to who she was as a person, than her pronouns were. Okay, I lied; I don't think the Feinberg article should have that hatnote. But even if pronouns were as important to her as her gender identity (which they weren't), I don't see why some Wikipedia editor should get to decide that a hatnote about pronouns deserves pride of place at the top of the article, where gender identity does not, and no guideline should imply they should do so. Absurdly WP:UNDUE. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Leslie Feinberg consistently uses the same set of pronouns. How would a reader be confused while reading that? The articles in discussion here use 2 sets of pronouns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hat or Edit notice?
edit

Armadillopteryx said,

The point of the hatnote isn't to emphasize or add weight to pronouns, though.

That might not be the point, but that is its effect. The reader cannot read your mind to determine your intent or that of the editor placed it.

Bsherr said,

If the purpose is to communicate with editors rather than readers, wouldn't an edit notice be better tailored to that purpose?

Absolutely, it would. Have a look at Bianca Del Rio, and click the [Edit] button. Does that work for those who seem to want a template? This notice will automatically expire in 15 hours, but can be renewed if desired. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here was in response to an editor who appeared to imply that adding weight to pronouns was the template's main effect. My point was just that that isn't its intended function—if it's even one at all, which I'm not convinced of. It's normal when meeting new people in LGBT social settings to state one's pronouns explicitly but without overemphasis, and I don't see this as much different.
That said, I am not opposed to adding an edit notice to drag queen articles. There are a couple drawbacks to this, though. Edit notices don't show up on mobile (at least not on mine), and a good portion of the disruptive edits do have mobile tags on them. They are also invisible to readers who experience confusion but don't let us know that by clicking "Edit". As I said above, disruptive edits are the symptom of the problem, not the cause. I think readers are best served by something that prevents them from getting confused in the first place. If the choice were between this or a hatnote, I'd still say a hatnote is preferable because it reaches everyone, not just would-be editors, and it shows up for people reading/editing on their phones. I'm open to other solutions, too, such as using both. Armadillopteryx 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to this use of edit notes. Disruptive edits can be reverted and addressed on the talk page. If the source of persistent disruptive edits is some aspect of the article that is confusing, that aspect should be clarified for readers, not just editors.--Trystan (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Armadillopteryx said about It's normal when meeting new people in LGBT social settings to state one's pronouns is behind why some say the hatnote is not undue weight. The fact is, though, that all of Wikipedia is for everyone, not just LGBT people, and just because in a few circles it has become normative to 'state your name and pronouns', that does not mean that we need to start making our these biographies state their name and pronouns before we begin the article, which looks weird to the vast majority of readers (and yes, even for to readers of drag performer articles, since most such readers are likely to be non-LGBT [1]). Disruptive editors who change it are more likely to see an edit notice, which appears no matter where they click edit, than a hatnote. I don't see it as plausible that many readers are confused by the pronouns, especially if a footnote is added, and most of the people who change it are probably just being disruptive about gender for its own sake. A hatnote won't stop such people. And frankly, all articles have problems with troublesome drive-by edits that are annoying. I'm not seeing evidence that this is so much worse for drag performers (no diffs have been provided) that we need to start using hatnotes to maybe stop it. Crossroads -talk- 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC
Please don't twist my words. No one is suggesting that all our biographies should list names and pronouns; that is clearly not necessary for most cases, where the information is obvious. The fact of the matter is that some people are unclear about why specific names and pronouns are used in different situations in drag queen articles, and a hatnote would clear that up for everyone—not just for those who expose the problem by editing. You suppose that people are being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive, but actually, the majority of these edits have summaries that indicate good faith. Here are ten diffs; just say if you'd like more: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Armadillopteryx 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply anything about all biographies. I was writing my comment with that context in mind, but I clarified it above. Crossroads -talk- 02:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armadillopteryx, I forgot about mobile viewers not seeing Edit notices. There were a couple of approaches that were tried at Leslie Feinberg; one that would work even with mobile viewers is the use of the {{As written}} template, as can be seen in rev. 901199439 of the Feinberg article. You won't notice anything special with the pronouns in the rendering of that version (search on page for 'her' or 'she'), either in mobile or desktop view— but that is the whole point; you have to look at this diff to see what was done there to signal the special status of the pronouns. Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The edit notice at Bianca Del Rio has expired, but you can still view it if you wish, here. This is what an editor would see, when they click the [Edit] tab, if the Edit notice is renewed. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:33, 4 September 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:ConvertAbbrev/ISO 639-1

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 September 16. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 16 September 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:Lang-eml

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. WP:NPASR provided different nomination rationale is given in addition to "unused", as the validity has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and more importantly, not a valid language code. Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks like it was a typo. The creator then moved the template to the correct name, leaving a redirect behind. Perplexingly, someone came along and recreated the template at the old name.[12] Neither the template or the redirect are needed. --Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. --Bsherr (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. This is not a typo: eml was the ISO 639-3 identifier for the Emilian-Romagnol language, which was split in 2009 into two new codes for the two constituent dialects of Emilian and Romagnol [13]. There's a legitimate use for the template for cases when it's either not possible or not desirable to specify the precise dialect (but then for the template to work, the eml will need to be added to the underlying {{lang}} machinery). If on the other hand it gets decided that this template should not be used and instead all texts in this language should be labelled as either Emilian or Romagnol, then it's still likely that editors will attempt to use the template (the code eml had been around for a long time); the solution then would be to convert it output an error and to more prominently display the warning (which it already displays) about the two specific codes. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. But the standard documentation ought to be changed to something specific if this is intended to exist just to produce the error message. --Bsherr (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: can you clarify for me if your opinion is that is should be kept and used or kept and just produce an error? If on the other hand it gets decided that this template should not be used and instead all texts in this language should be labelled as either Emilian or Romagnol, then it's still likely that editors will attempt to use the template you do realize it is not being used anywhere right? --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's up to the people who format text in the language to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's absolutely no point in templates existing for the sole purpose of saying "this template shouldn't be used"; a redlink is sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I don't anticipate this being used widely owing to its niche application, I am convinced by Uanfala that keeping it is likely to be helpful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In "widely" you mean more than 0 in 3 years? :) --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since, in its current form, it exists just to produce an error message, then, by design, it wouldn't be transcluded. --Bsherr (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:32, 4 September 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:YYYY United States Virgin Islands elections category

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Created by me in early 2019, but all uses now replaced by {{Category U.S. State elections by year}}, which I have updated to support the insular territories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 4 September 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:Ficha de jugador de voleibol

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) 16:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears abandoned, not used. Note: Created less than 2 weeks ago. Userfication may be better than deletion. Also, the template is broken. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:12, 4 September 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:Miiesha

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 G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One redirect. Not useful for navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:52, 4 September 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:California Corporations

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) 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template appears to be created for use in a rejected WP:AFC submission, Draft:Peace Of Mind Wealth Management and the user-space version at User:AlanQuantum/sandbox. As titled, the template would have every company listed in Category:Companies based in California and its sub-categories if it were to ever be "complete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: I hadn't thought about that, that's a good point. I decided to strike the text through as a result. – Sean Stephens (talk) 23:18, 7 September 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_September_4&oldid=988573100"