Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 4

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

May 4

edit

Template:Portland ME Radio/doc

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Parent template uses Navbox documentation. DrChuck68 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tweet

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cute template, but out of place in mainspace encyclopaedia articles (where it is most commonly used). When quoting books, we don't try to replicate their font and layout. When quoting films, we don't make little drawings of the characters with speech bubbles. So I see no reason why tweets should be the exception to MOS:CONFORM, which states that we make quoted material fit Wikipedia's typographic conventions, not the other way around.

The justification given in the documentation is that the template is an alternative to standard quotation templates because it displays metadata related to the tweet (date of posting, user's name, user's handle, etc.), but all of this metadata can also be contained in a standard quote template (in the author and source fields).

If deleted, existing uses could be migrated to the standard {{Quote}} or {{Quote box}} templates. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the imitative styling and convert it to a shorthand for {{Quote box}} and {{Cite tweet}}. Having a template for quoting a tweet is fine, but the attempt at replicating the Twitter layout is purely decorative and doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. There is no reason not to just use the {{Quote}} template since it conforms with the style of Wikipedia and works just as well for tweets. CharlieEdited (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is deleted, Template:Quote tweet should probably follow. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an encyclopedic article shouldn't strive to imitate the tweet layout. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Struck, see below 13:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as ChaoticEnby. Additionally, posts on that website are no longer called Tweets. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove imitative styling per Nardog - Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shitpost: wikipedians not remove all sources of whimsy challenge [impossible]
Comment: more seriously, I disagree with @CharlieEdited as the tweet template fields that the quote template lacks are often critical to understanding the meaning, context, & significance of the tweet, mainly the replyto and date fields. If the tweet template must die then I agree with @Nardog that it should not be deleted but converted into a shorthand for {{Quote}} + {{Cite tweet}}. However,
(Oppose) I would also like to make a case for why it is not only acceptable but preferable that {{Tweet}} mimics the form of a tweet:
1. tweets are not like books. They are fundamentally different forms of communication with different norms and purposes.
2. therefore, it is an aid to the reader to present quoted tweets in a format similar to their native one. it helps the reader understand the context of the quote.
3. the context of the quote includes to whom the tweet is in reply to (if anyone), as well as the full date (and not just year) that it was posted, as well as the very fact that it was posted to twitter at all as opposed to elsewhere.
4. however, the font and "layout" of a book is almost always irrelevant to a quote from that book,
5. which is why tweets are quoted as tweets instead of like books, even in in articles, even sometimes in printed books i think.
6. thus {{Tweet}} mimics the layout, and semantic structure, of a tweet, but does not mimic the fonts or other stylings of real tweets, nor hyperlink every single @mention or #hashtag.
(7. and quite frankly I think the Tweet template looks very handsome & encyclopedic who's my handsome little template!)
Thus stands my argument for keeping the {{Tweet}} template, apologies for it being so long, and thank you for considering it.
Thank you ~ 99.146.242.37 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable formally !voting here as I'm not familiar enough with TfD and MOS issues to do so, but I personally find some of the arguments by 99.146 compelling -- particularly about Tweets being a fundamentally different form[] of communication than (e.g.) books and films. I also find compelling the argument that it assists in understanding the context a quote was made in. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hypertext is the fundamentally different form of communication, not Twitter's specific spin on it. That hasn't stopped us from quoting textual, hypertextual, and audiovisual media using the same format up until now. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good argument, it could convince me to change to Weak keep actually. It's true that, while the visual aspect isn't usually key, the layout does have a level of informativeness that can't really be compared to book styling. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from not being books, what is unique about Tweets that makes it important that we "present quoted tweets in a format similar to their native one", considering we do not do this for literally any other form of quoted material? We're talking about a plutocrat-owned private company here, there should be a very good reason that we give it special treatment in our free encyclopaedia, beyond "whimsy".
Tweets are certainly not the only medium that has a 'semantic structure' and you can easily capture all of the meaningful elements within a standard blockquote:

Good day, Captain. #ISS is in standard orbit and Commander Swanson has the conn. Hope you're having a great weekend!

— @NASA, Twitter (August 2, 2014), replying to @WilliamShatner[1]
– Joe (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it's useful for reproducing the format of statements. Blythwood (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why it's important to reproduce the format of quoted statements from Twitter, given that the Manual of Style explicitly states that it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved, and we do not do so for any other sources? – Joe (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Two things. Firstly, the only element that doesn't conform to the style of Wikipedia is the image parameter in the template. Secondly, I think there needs to be a separate and slightly visually distinct template for tweets because they have informal tone compared to spoken/written quotes by a person and tweets contain hashtags and mentions as part of the tweet. The visual distinction except the image param, like the placement of twitter mark in the top right, placement of user handle and timestamp, conforms to Wikipedia style and isn't attention-grabbing like say MOS:PQ. The author and source param in the quote box temp use a single line below the quote. — hako9 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hako9 and 99.146. There is some small non-zero benefit to presenting tweets like this instead of with a standard quote box. I don't see any glaring violations of MOSCONFORM to put a tweet in a right-justified box as opposed to a blockquote. Would it be any different if the template was named {{social media message}} and could be used to quote BlueSky/Threads/Mastodon/whatever? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per hako9 - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hako9. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tweets are a unique form of written communication, just like poems an screenplays are. And like poems and screenplays, the way we use Template:Quote box mirrors the formatting of those mediums. But tweets have a certain layout, hence a standardized template. This template is already CONFORMed in that it wraps Quote box rather than embedding a tweet. It's an aesthetic choice to keep it, but I think the aesthetic matters to the content of the tweet. The format has spread, like Axem says, outside of Twitter, to form a new class of written communication. So maybe it's also time to provide a generalized template for Bluesky and Mastodon. SWinxy (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ @NASA (August 2, 2014). "@WilliamShatner Good day, Captain. #ISS is in standard orbit and Commander Swanson has the conn. Hope you're having a great weekend!" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_4&oldid=1223519742"