Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7

[edit]

Template:Random article

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 May 15. Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (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:10TeamBracket-TTProLeague

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:10TeamBracket and Template:5RoundBracket Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:25, 7 May 2021 (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:10TeamBracket-HKSCS

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to Template:10TeamBracket with legs=3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 7 May 2021 (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:10TeamBracket-2Leg-QFOnly

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after I replaced it with Template:10TeamBracket in Template:2011 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:43, 7 May 2021 (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:10TeamBracket 3rdPlace-TTProLeague

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after I replaced it in 2008 Trinidad and Tobago League Cup Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:30, 7 May 2021 (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:Page tabs/1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used for some time after Template:Page tabs was converted to Lua. I unsubsted some uses of Template:Page tabs last month after making it more mobile-friendly (e.g. Special:Diff/575220752/1019845968) and there are no further uses of the old sub-templates. User:GKFXtalk 19:27, 7 May 2021 (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:10TeamBracket-Bestof3-QFOnly

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused after I replaced it with the standard 4RoundBracket template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:54, 7 May 2021 (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:Deprecated source

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 May 14. Izno (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2021 (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:SECBracket2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed after I replaced it in the SEC articles with the equivalent 5RoundBracket. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:14, 7 May 2021 (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:Authority control (arts) Master

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. There is a consensus that this shouldn't be the permanent template. What needs to be done before deletion is however somewhat unclear and require follow up. As I'm writing this it is unused. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained fork of {{Authority control (arts)}}, which itself is a fork of {{Authority control}}. Appears to be some kind of test, which - if so - should not be conducted in article space, much not less in almost a thousand over fourteen thousand articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pigsonthewing nominated {{Authority control (arts)}} a while ago without understanding what it was. It was kept. Now, they didn't even bother checking with me what the explanation might be for this "unexplained fork". It is not a fork of {{Authority control (arts)}} at all, but an intermediate template between {{Authority control (arts)}} and Module:Authority control (arts), and it isn't used in article space, only in {{Authority control (arts)}} (which is used on 14,000+ articles, not almost a 1000). The background behind all this is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: look of Authority Control, a follow-up to an RfC Pigsonthewing and a few others vehemently opposed, and where they are obstructing the new RfC as well.
  • In any case, if they really don't understand what it is for, they should have asked instead of rushing to TfD it. And if they do understand it, then they shouldn't have written suhch a misleading, ill-informed TfD statement. Either case is disruptive. Fram (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less than two hours ago, Fram wrote: " I will not respond to comments from Pigsonthewing and Mike Peel," So I'm not sure why they would then expect me to ask them before nominating a template fork - apparently used to replicate a sandbox, because their use of that sandbox as a test on 100s of articles was reverted - for deletion. The claim that I am "obstructing" an RfC (when in fact I have participated in it) is a blatant falsehood. As can be seen in that RfC there is much opposition to the design that Fram is using this template fork to bludgeon into 100s of articles, against consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I support the original redesign of the authority control template, and believe it should have been implemented to the main Module:Authority control by now, there is no reason that that design is more suitable on arts-related articles than on non-arts-related articles, and thus no reason to pre-emptively deploy it to {{Authority control (arts)}} before it gets deployed to {{authority control}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pppery, this is a temporary deployment to make it easier for people to see both versions of the template over a wide variety of real articles, to help people make an informed choice and comments. If the RfC ends with consensus against this deployment, obviously I will revert back to the standard. What harm does it do to have this alternative version up for the duration of the RfC on 1% of the articles that use authority control? It's just a layout change, nothing more. Fram (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or sandbox or /sandbox2, etc., per Fram's comment "this is a temporary deployment to make it easier for people to see both versions of the template".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above claim "It's just a layout change, nothing more" is false. The template not only changes layout but also removes some links and changes others, and obfuscates identifier values, changing, for example: "LCCN: n79113947" to "United States"; and "ULAN: 500028648" to "Artist Names (Getty)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 8 May 2021 (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:Convert to transclusion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 June 4. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2021 (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:Israeli English

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English is not an official language of Israel (nor is Israel an 'English-speaking country', even if many people there speak English as a second language), and therefore, WP:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES do not apply to Israeli-related articles. If some Israeli articles are written in American English, they can be tagged with that template. However, I'm not certain that this is actually the case, so that should be verified on a case-by-case basis. Either way, this template serves no purpose, as it does not even identify a specific 'Israeli' variety of English, and therefore should be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 13:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long discussion between myself and the nom which boils down to whether or not there is anything useful about formal Israeli English usage to track in a maintenance category, which probably requires more time then it's worth to definitively resolve, and that really isn't worth wasting a closer's time with. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete and consider redirecting to {{American English}}. The point about TIES misses the mark since RETAIN is also a thing, conceding that all ENGVAR pedantry is exceedingly silly. To the extent that it is redundant it should be redirected, Israel does make official use of English and I can see the logic in trying to follow the orthographic and typographic conventions they use when so doing (hence Israel Defense Forces not Israel Defence Forces). The real issue is people going beyond that in a bizarre quest to enforce consistency everywhere. But the solution to that has nothing to do with this template per se, but with how the larger family of templates is implemented, and frankly if we reduced these to populating hidden maintenance categories, or centralised everything on article pages that could be avoided while still retaining information that's actually useful. The only reason I don't say redirect unequivocally is because I would be a bit surprised, given esp. given the commonwealth legal background, if all typographic conventions were actually derived from American practice. Sure maybe they are, and it can be redirected but it won't hurt to investigate. But that doesn't require a TFD, it can be handled through the normal editing process with a talk page discussion if there's some disagreement, and RGloucester if you are tied up with other things I can probably find some time to look into it late next week. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat confused by your opinion here. RETAIN is a thing, but that has nothing to do with the existence of this template. These templates exist to 'mark' a page as having strong ties to an English-speaking country, and Israel simply is not such a country under WP:TIES. A country may well have official translations of certain government institutions, but that does not make it an 'English-speaking country', with English as an official language. If an Israeli article is written in American English (irrespective of TIES), then the American English template can be used to mark it for RETAIN purposes, if that is necessary. There simply is no justification for an independent 'Israeli English' template when, in the first place, there is no evidence of a distinct written standard of Israeli English, and in second place, when the template itself declares not that the article is written 'Israeli English', but in 'American English'. This is one case where I cannot support a redirect, as it is not clear that Israeli articles will always be written in American English, and under TIES, no variety should be preferred by default in the case of a non-English speaking country. Please note that the Israeli government English website has numerous documents written in what we can say is a Commonwealth standard, with the spellings 'labour' and 'organisation'. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Where in the template documentation does it say that marking for TIES is their sole purpose, I could be wrong on this I haven't followed internal discussions closely for years but IIRC there was no guideline that restricted these to cases of TIES or prohibits use in RETAIN situations, and if there is one please point me to it and I will strike. As for your there is no evidence of a distinct written standard of Israeli English it depends on what you mean. Israel does produce official documents in English and those documents follow certain specified conventions. When we writing about such things it's less jarring if we follow those conventions. Indeed, and IMHO, that's the only time when ENGVAR is really useful. If those conventions are identical to American English then follow the coding principle of DRY and redirect, if they aren't, and like I said I have good reason to suspect the template is wrong in it's claim not the least because of the examples you provide, then fix the template. Look there are other issues at play here and maybe I've gone straight to meatball:MentioningPatterns without the proper set-up. I'm busy for the next few hours, but I'll be happy to discuss further with you once I get the time. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding what I am saying. These templates are of course used in RETAIN situations, but the justification for a DISTINCT template for 'Israeli English' would have to come from TIES, because unless there are TIES, no particular variety of English is preferred by default on any given article. Therefore, Israeli articles have no default preference for American or British English, or any other English, as there are no TIES to any English-speaking country. If RETAIN comes into play, it will only be because the article was first written in one variety, whatever that may be, not because the article is 'Israeli'. As for fixing the template, I do not think the template can be fixed, because again, there is no standard English used in Israel. Some people use British spelling, some people use American spelling (as seen above), and any attempts to establish a consistency (which would presently be contrary to the TIES guidance) would be fraught with difficulty. That's why I've proposed it for deletion! RGloucester — ☎ 15:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester:Thank you for clarifying. So the point I was making from the beginning is that our approach depends on whether the template is correct, I think it is wrong but I haven't actually done the research yet. But first we need to back up a bit.
To start it's good to remember that these templates are mostly useless. The vast majority of edits are made without consulting the talk page, the vast majority of talk page visits do not involve scrolling past the banners, and the vast majority of people who scroll past the banners don't notice them due to banner blindness. And if there is an ENGVAR related dispute it will be resolve with reference to TIES or to the articles first revision, not some ridiculous talk page message. In fact if I thought there was a chance I wouldn't be reverted I would remove the visual display from all of them right now. So what do they accomplish? Well they populate maintenance categories, and clearly someone thinks those might be useful to patrol or they would've long since been CFD'd.
Second, most readers and writers don't care about ENGVAR, they're just going to contribute in whatever variant their current spell-checker is set to, and systematically patrolling to ensure every article is consistent in it's ENGVAR is a waste of time.
Third where possible, and this is basic good writing, we want to avoid drawing attention away from the information we are trying to convey which happens when people are jarred and focus instead on how the information is conveyed. The principles behind ENGVAR can help us avoid these jarrs by advising that we make reference to the trucking industry in Australia‎ and road haulage in the United Kingdom‎ not road haulage in Australia‎ and trucking industry in the United Kingdom‎. For the same reason we follow local typographical conventions when deciding whether to use A v. B or A v B when discussing legal matters. And of course proper names should follow official orthography.
So in sum we want to generate useful maintenance categories that people can patrol to help avoid jarring people out of their reading. To the extent Israel has official orthographic and typographic conventions that govern it's English language documents they should be adhered to where reasonably practical.
Hence, if Israel or any other country follows American conventions exactly (and for the record I don't think they do) then we RETAIN and redirect, the underlying category populated is the same, and editors can just continue using the template they've always used, keep things simple. However if, as you and I both suspect, Israeli conventions are unique, then create a new maintenance category, and reword the template, that is assuming we're stuck with a visual display of some kind. So I hope I've made things a bit clearer and if you believe I'm completely wrong about everything please let me know. My earlier offer still stands btw, this is a collaborative project after all, and I should have time late next week to do a little research if your interested in working together on this, and if not I understand there are far more important backlogs to address and we can leave it for someone who's more interested in the topic. Note to closer I apologise for the bloat to what is at its core an inconsequential tfd, had I known this would happen I would'nt have chimed in. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are missing the critical point. Israel doesn't follow any specific English orthographic or typographic conventions, because Israel is not an English-speaking country where such things are officially set down. If we went by what you were saying here, we'd have to somehow determine what sort of English spelling is used in every country that has a substantial number of people who speak English as a second language, such as Japan or Sweden or Korea, and that's just something we do not do here. No Wikipedia article is written in 'Swedish English', and nor is any article written in 'Israeli English'. There is absolutely no justification for the continuation of this specific template. RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Let's start here Israel doesn't follow any specific English orthographic or typographic conventions I don't think that is accurate, Israel does produce official documents in English and I'm confident they have conventions they follow for internal consistency, ideally those conventions should be reproduced for certain proper names and typographical use cases, that doesn't mean we have to police all spelling in the article, and indeed we shouldn't but failing to do that with e.g. proper names could be jarring.
Your concern of Where does it end? is a valid one. While most nations do not produce official English documents in quantity, an ever increasing number do. But I'm unconvinced, if we end up with 200 more maintenance categories so what in the grand scheme of things? Just make sure the people doing the maintenance understand they're only checking a very limited number of things and for the most part things like cent(re|er) can be ignored. Or am I missing something? Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've really confused matters. You're basically proposing we create a new policy to follow the 'official' orthography in articles related to any given country. Haven't you heard of WP:COMMONNAME? For proper names, we use the name most commonly used in English sources, not necessarily the officially used name. But that's all irrelevant...the variant of English templates have nothing to do with proper names. The point remains: there is no 'Israeli English'. English is neither an official language of Israel, nor commonly spoken as a first language in Israel. There is no standardised form that can be used in Wikipedia articles, and even the Israeli government vacillates between using British and American spellings in translations of official documents. In this context, there can be no justification of the continued existence of this template. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Ok, so I think I'm starting to understand things a little better. And yes I know it's getting late. First of all COMMONNAME is about titles not usage within articles, and is just one consideration that is ultimately decided by CRITERIA and given there were numerous failed attempts over years past to reduce them below five elements, I'll eat my hat if that's somehow changed. Anyway as a policy matter that reference is completely irrelevant. On the assumption you were merely referring to the logic behind COMMONNAME then well sure it's all about avoiding jarrs but so is all of ENGVAR (that and stopping pointless edit-warring, but that's a writer not reader based concern). I don't understand you saying that a guideline about following a local orthographies is new, that's literally a part of ENGVAR. That said the point is to follow consistent usage patterns where they exist and are useful in avoiding jarrs, and spelling need not necessarily be a part of this. However, If my understanding is correct your assertion is that there are not any consistent usage patterns. I'm skeptical of that based on the preliminary information I've acquired, but if you've already done more thorough research and believe a preponderance of evidence supports that claim. Then drop me a few links, I can probably also acquire offline sources reasonably promptly if that's the source of your information, if it checks out then sure be rid of it as completely, instead of just nearly completely useless. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR does not say anything about 'following local orthographies'. ENGVAR says we don't prefer any national variety. The point I am making is that there is no national variety of English that is proper to Israel, i.e. no 'Israeli English', at least not on the basis of the definition of a variety as specified in TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: I'm fairly sure TIES is about, among other things, following local orthography, though perhaps your point has been that a nation is only English speaking if it designates English as an official language and unless that is the case the local orthography cannot be covered by TIES as in this case. Maybe, but I've a feeling that such a definition would be both over and underinclusive, e.g. The United States does not have English as it's official language. The point I am making is that ENGVAR covers a few style variations of which orthography is just one. If there's e.g. a legal typographic convention that would jarr readers familiar with the topic if not followed, then a maintenance category to track such a thing is, at least in theory, useful. Perhaps, as you suggest, there are no such conventions in which case I agree deletion is logical. I'm trying to take up less of your time, so to put things in a nutshell what I should have said earlier is that this and all other like templates are really only useful in generating maintenance categories. If someone creates a redundant one just quickly redirect it to the correct maintenance category (hence my tepid possibly redirect mention above), the same shortcut can be used and the correct category is now populated. If someone creates a niche one, well so long as it's tracking useful distinctions it can be ignored e.g. English in South Asia doesn't show much variance between nations, but it shows some even in formal vocabulary and if people want to track that who cares. But if there are no useful distinctions then it's tracking nothing and sure go delete, that's your argument it's a good one and I really just need time to verify that the underlying assumption is correct. I'd also be willing to concede that if a category is tracking a distinction that no readers, even field specialists, are likely to care about I'd probably say go ahead and delete then as well. But it's all small bones, if one slightly useful maintenance category gets deleted so what, if one pointless one is retained so what. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←)

Please note that I also said 'nor is English commonly spoken as a first language in Israel', which is a verifiable fact. It is fairly obvious that Israel does not meet any reasonable definition of an 'English-speaking nation'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Fair point. And that is another part of what is already a complex argument to consider, which is how de we define the concept of English speaking country, and if we exclude Israel how does that bear on whether any maintenance categories are appropriate. But that would take up even more time and probably require a discussion on WT:MOS, and I've already taken far to much of your time for such a trivial issue, wasn't my intent but I was using this as a temporary break from more serious work. I'll go ahead and withdraw my !vote for now and see what I can do about saving the closer some time. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still open to changing to delete or to keep or to something else if someone else has precompiled research they want to share that shows a maintenance category would or would not track something useful, but I don't think the time investment of starting any new research on that topic is worth the benefit to getting a clearer resolution here. Of note, it's highly likely that the template is wrong in equating American and Israeli usage based on limited evidence thus far examined. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2021 (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/2021_May_7&oldid=1026748876"