Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

grsecurity software release templates[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates have been empty since June 2018. kingboyk (talk) 16:37, 24 January 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:The Reactionaries[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 February 1. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Inactive userpage blanked[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 February 7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BillboardEncode[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as {{BillboardID}} nominated a few dates ago. This URL scheme isn't used anymore. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It appears to be used in {{Single chart}} when |1=Brazil. See Make Me... (Britney Spears song) and some of the other 30+ transclusions of this template. This usage should probably be removed from {{Single chart}} before this template is deleted in order to ensure that it will be unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I'm aware of this. We have been having a lot of problems with this chart since the billboard doesn't have any online sources anymore and according to my email to them have no plans on ever adding it. I have however found reliable archives for everything but 2016 and intend on using the artistid directly instead of this template for the last 10ish transclusions in line with WP:KDL. Keeping this obsolete infrastructure will just lead to more confusion, especially since it's presented as if it's currently functional. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gave this a week to see actual comments as I'm not familiar with this template or subject, but seeing as how nothing new was added, I'll take Trialpears's nomination as fact. If it isn't used anymore it should be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 24 January 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:Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright[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 Soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. GS gives me nothing outside of WP. ミラP 03:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:53, 24 January 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:Iron Soldier[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 February 5. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Archive bottom[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:Archive bottom. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging All nominated templates with Template:Archive bottom.
All of these templates effectively say the same thing with only slightly different wordings.

I intend to nominate additional templates for merging as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support all of them says the same thing. However, it may cause some confusions if we merge the above-mentioned templates to the "archive bottom". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I think "archived bottom" is a better name for the merged template. These are most often used through automated editing so I see little chance of confusion. I would like to see documentation, however, and for all the redirects to be kept permanently to preserve the integrity of archived discussions.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed they do all have the same purpose and the same wording would work, but I am concernd about the costum documentation pages. I think a better option would instead be replacing the contents of these templates with {{Archived bottom}} turning them into a redirect of sorts while keeping the custom documentation pages. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on proposed rename: "Archive bottom" means that it is the bottom of an archive (matching the syntax of {{Archive top}}, the top of an archive), just as "Rfc bottom" means that it is the bottom of an RFC, and the rest of the names are in the same form: "noun bottom". "Archived bottom" (i.e. "adjective bottom") seems to mean that you're archiving a bottom, which is nonsensical. Please keep "Archive bottom" as the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Trialpears said ^ That is the correct solution. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal by Trialpears. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. If the only reason to keep the templates is because of the /doc difference, then just fix the doc and add sub-sections. What does the actual code have to do with the /doc? I'm astonished editors in a TfD even proposed such an idea. --Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonnym, I don't think information specific to closing WikiProject proposals should be added to Template:Archive bottom/doc, but think such information is valuable to have when looking at Template:Archived WikiProject Proposal bottom. By replacing the current contents of Template:Archived WikiProject Proposal bottom with {{Archive bottom}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> the code would be standardized, which is the main point of the proposal and the usage specific documentation would be retained. I see no reason why such a pseudo redirect would be a problem. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets use proper terminology in TfD please. What you propose is a wrapper, not a redirect. And it's a very pointless wrapper as it literally modifies nothing in the actual code. That is entirely the point why that proposal of yours is astonishing. Why do you think the doc can't handle sub sections? See my edit at Template:Archive top/doc as one possible example. The template really shouldn't either fork documentation found elsewhere or really even document procedural stuff that isn't relevant to it. Link to the procedural page (or in this case, the weirdly named template) instead. --Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that most wrappers have significant downsides since they don't always benefit from improvements in the main template or can possibly break if they aren't considered when editing the template, however these concerns aren't applicable in this case. Archive bottom has been a zero parameter template for all of its 13 year existence and there is no reason to expect it to ever gain parameters. This means that simply transcluding {{Archive bottom}} would have the exact same effect as a redirect except now we can have better more specific documentation for each usage. Putting essential information such as use only {{closed rfc bottom}} at the bottom of a long documentation page for several different processes makes it even more likely to be missed. The benefit of keeping this customized more relevant information is to me a lot more important than convenience for a hypothetical future template editor implementing radical changes to {{Archive bottom}}. The code is not the only aspect of a template page and the documentation has to be considered as well in this case. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears: If you were looking for information on how to use {{Rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}, you would most certainly look for it at the former rather than the latter. All {{Archive bottom/doc}} should say is that it is a general archival template used together with [insert all templates here]. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, not necessarily. The bottom templates have a significant proportion of the page views, most likely from showing up first in search results. While archive bottom can be used in conjunction with all these templates I do think there's value in using the redirects instead to make it clear which top template is associated with which bottom template. This is especially important on noticeboards where there can be many closed discussions on one page and sometimes even nested closed discussions. If the proposal involves changing the recommended usage I think the status quo is preferable even though it has some redundancies. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wait, now I remember why I didn't like this the first time I saw the proposal. These templates produce different text and if we merge them the text produced by a top and bottom pair will not be the same. The non-existent benefit we get from merging these templates which haven't been modified in years doesn't outweigh introducing inconsistency into tons of archives for no reason. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC) {{{1}}}[reply]
  • Question Why do we need the documentation pages exactly? {{tl|Cem bottom}, {{Report bottom}}, {{ACR bottom}} don't even have documentation subpages to maintain. The other two don't even have unique ones; they're literally just transcluding {{Archived WikiProject Proposal top/doc}} and {{Rfc top/doc}}. Seriously, you just update those doc pages and; bing, bang, done. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Check here and here to see what I mean. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Miniapolis 00:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the header as it seemed like you want to merge it to ACR bottom instead of Archive bottom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: The templates are also tagged with merge to ACR bottom, you might want to update them. I would but early day tomorrow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @QEDK:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably don't fully understand what's being proposed, sorry, but I think the essential thing is that it not be confusing when someone wants to put the bottom on an archive, so it would be fine so long as all of the alternatives redirect to the chosen target. I just wouldn't want anyone to run into putting what sounds like the logical "bottom" template on, and finding that it doesn't work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: That's essentially what is being proposed. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I assume we'll both substitute and orphan the templates MJL proposes to merge and be sandboxing this? I would also recommend keeping the left over redirects, too. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, keeping all names as redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Dmehus: Yup, the old names would stay as redirects. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, Thanks. In this case, this is a case where we definitely want to keep the redirects. In cases of little transcluded templates, I'm in favour of just deleting the redirects, but this is widely used so would be helpful. Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember this sort of thing being extremely confusing when I first started here - so many ways to do the same thing. I definitely support these things being merged redirected, although I feel replace + delete is a better option as in my opinion this simplifies the state of play even more. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Info needed[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:Clarify. There was a slight majority who felt that this redirect target was better than other options or outright deletion. No prejudice against further discussion to retarget. Primefac (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used on one article and it is not clear what information is meant in this case. If there isn't enough information in an article, Template:Stub can be used. The one transclusion was added in October 2009 which is strange as the template was created in December 2019. However, the one transclusion can easily be replaced by Template:Stub. There are more specific templates for content issues like Template:Specify and Template:Example needed. There is also Template:Clarify if the wording of the text is difficult to understand and Template:Citation needed if the issue is with sourcing. This template is unnecessary and is only used on one article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as creator). There have been many times in the past where I have found material that only the info needed template covers and haven't been able to use the template. I use info needed template a lot on other wikis. The template is basically just an inline "stub" tag that you can put onto any sentence instead of tagging the section with "stub" so people know exactly where to edit. None of those other templates suggested have the same use; this template is for sentences that do not have enough information in them and just need some more; they may still be clearly worded, specific, have sourced info and contain examples, but may not contain all information available about the subject matter in that sentence. And its only used in one article because it was recently created; if more people know about the template people will use it.  Nixinova   T   C   20:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly vague and unnecessary. Templates like {{specify}}, {{clarify}}, etc. do the job. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except when they don't. What tag should be used where a further sentence or two is needed in a paragraph? I don't see why this template needs to be deleted if I have explained specific uses for it.  Nixinova   T   C   03:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{missing information}}. While an info needed type tag is a good idea an inline version isn't a good implementation. It can't handle a reason parameter nicely with the alt text not being read by most people and the placement advantage of an inline template isn't particularly useful in this case since it's not certain where the information best fit into the paragraph and may require reformulating it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Trialpears's comment, so I lean to redirect for that reason. However, both templates leave me feeling a little puzzled in that they are basically {{expand section}} or similar with |1=needs info on X. --Izno (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this falls into the trap of Template:Expand, in that it's difficult to find an article on Wikipedia that wouldn't benefit from more information. An inline template with which the notation on what information is actually needed is only visible when the article is edited is not very helpful, compared to the alternative banner style template, and given the alternative inline templates TenPoundHammer identifies above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a great fan of templates that tell you something needs expanding, but then I'm not a great of fan of most editorial templates either. This one appears to be a perfectly acceptable inline version of the expand series: if it's legitimate to be asking for more content for the whole article or for a section, then it's also legitimate to be asking for more content at a lower level. These templates are useful if people find them useful, and this one was recently created, so I'd say leave it be, make sure people know about it (via interwiki links and the like), and wait a year or two to see if it picks up use. – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. to {{Clarify}} (first choice) or {{specify}}. If neither option finds agreement, then deletion is the best course of action. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Clarify}} 1st, {{Specify}} 2nd, or {{missing information}} 3rd, per @MJL and Trialpears: above. Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the October 2009 edit: [1] was a mistake, and was not calling on any existing template. It functions now because a redirect using that formula was created in Dec 2019: [2]. It is not unusual for something broken or non-functional to exist on Wikipedia for 10 years. SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork Interesting diff. Did you just come across that, and based on this, can you clarify what you think should be done with this template? If kept, I am open to changing my !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 15:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mehus. I looked into it because the proposer said "The one transclusion was added in October 2009", and I was curious about how a template created in 2019 could have been used in 2009. Having looked into it, my feeling is that the editor in 2009 intended to call on a clarity template, and used the wording "more information needed" by mistake, and thought I would share it as a comment. As regards the template, I had no opinion, but since you ask: The consensus here is to either delete or redirect, and I see the argument for deletion because it's a newly created template, but also see the argument for redirection as some people might find the wording "more information needed" to be what they are thinking - the edit in 2009 supports that. Which template to redirect to? Ah. I don't know, but as {{Clarify}} appears to be favourite, I'll go along with that. Redirect to {{Clarify}}. SilkTork (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Manhunt International[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 speedy delete. kingboyk (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with zero links other than to subject article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:20, 24 January 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_January_24&oldid=941017873"