Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 24

Template:Thinspace

Template:Thinspace

• Template:Thinspace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Thin space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Thinspace with Template:Thin space.
Template:Thinspace does not appear to do anything special that Template:Thin space does not already handle. I opened a discussion nearly 3 weeks ago at the proposed merge destination Talk page, pinging each template creator, with no reply as yet. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Their functionality is quite different.

{{Thinspace}} is for formatting a list of items separated by  . It takes multiple parameters.

{{Thin space}} just emits a single  , set to not wrap. It takes no parameters.

The /docs should be updated to explain the difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; I had asked that very question, but with no reply. My alternate suggestion was to add a notation somewhere near the top of each template, so as to avoid future confusion. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts

• Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I do not understand why this template was ever even created. Its existence makes it more difficult for readers to edit the article on lunar eclipses, and I have now transferred the information within it to that article and removed the template from it. I've never seen this in a Wikipedia article before. A loose necktie (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless template. More like an article masquerading as a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It is useful information useful in many articles. Sharing them in one place avoid duplicated content, and allows them all copies usages to be changed at once. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Coca-Cola Red Sparks squad

• Template:Coca-Cola Red Sparks squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Coca-Cola Red Sparks team was disbanded at the end of the 2021 season, so the current squad template is no longer needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I have nominated the entire article related to this template for deletion as non-notable. Both should probably go, as far as I can tell. A loose necktie (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The team is certainly notable, it's played in the top tier or second tier of Japanese rugby for the entirety of its history. There's plenty of coverage of the team online. Large numbers of the Japanese rugby teams are company teams (see Panasonic Wild Knights or Suntory Sungoliath this years finalists for example), they have professional players playing for them not just company staff playing muck about stuff. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:August 2020 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election

• Template:August 2020 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:NENAN's "rule of five": these templates have fewer than five navigable links in addition to the main article. {{August 2020 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election}} has main+2, and {{Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2020}} has main+3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete both Fails notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Constlk

• Template:Constlk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Constituency link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a simple template, used to create links to constituencies of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. It is transcluded on about 300 pages.

Every constituency article uses a standard disambiguator "(UK Parliament constituency)", so the template just adds the dab and pipes the link:

e.g. {{Constlk|Moray}} → Moray

These article titles have been stable since 2006, so there is no need to keep them wrapped in a template. All current uses should be substed, which in the example above will expand {{Constlk|Moray}} to [[Moray (UK Parliament constituency)|Moray]]

I have no strong view on whether the template should be kept, or tagged as always-substitute. It is not widely used, but if somebody finds it useful then it seem to me to be a bit of tossup whether to keep it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (Preceding two sentences struck because discussion revealed how the ambiguity of these titles can be resolved only by destroying the brevity which is their raison d'etre. I now see no alternative to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

• Note: I have just found Template:Constituency link, and added it to this nomination. It offers identical functionality, but was created in 2006. It is used in only 11 articles. Its slightly more verbose name has the same problem of massive ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment if kept it needs to be renamed, since the UK is not the only country in the world. rename to {{UKconstlk}}, replace all instances, and delete the current name. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Very good point, but {{UKconstlk}} is insufficient disambiguation. Within the United Kingdom, there have been in the last 100 years constituencies for at least eight different parliamentary chambers or Assemblies:

1. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom, at Westminster
2. The House of Commons of Northern Ireland, at Stormont 1921–1973
3. The House of Commons of Southern Ireland, in Dublin 1921–1922
4. The Scottish Parliament, in Edinburgh 1999–present
5. The Senedd, in Cardiff 1999–present
6. The European Parliament, 1979–2020
7. The Northern Ireland Assembly, 1973–1974, 1982–1986, and 1999–present
8. The London Assembly, 2000–present

This template serves only the first item on that list, i.e. House of Commons of the United Kingdom at Westminster ... but its massively ambiguous name could apply to any of them. So if kept, it should be renamed to unambiguously describe its actual function: Template:Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link or Template:House of Commons of the United Kingdom constituency link.

However, the verbosity of an unambiguous title destroys the brevity which is the sole source of the convenience sought by its creator @Charles Matthews. Since there is no way of squaring that circle, the remedy is deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, the creation of the template dates from 2013, and as far as I know none of the other corresponding templates has been set up. This is more like a pre-emptive strike, than a "very good point" (from an IP editor who has been here a week). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews, you're a clever man. So why does your reply raise the red herring of the comment being by an IP, but evade the problem I identified: that removing the ambiguity in the title creates verbosity which destroys the brevity that prompted you to create the template in the first place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

On the naming of the template, it could be {{westconstlk}} (concise form) at need. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out how "west" is an ambiguous abbreviation, so {{westconstlk}} remains ambiguous as well as deeply obscure? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I created it, indeed a simple template, as a time-saver. It saves me time. I saw it then, as now, as a legitimate use of the template system. It's just a macro. I would say "not broken don't fix". No case made so far. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Charles Matthews, if it's just a macro, why not subst it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: As far as I know, the onus is on the proposer. If someone wants to make a bot job of replacing it, I don't care. In typical text like "MP for Lostwithiel, Bossiney and Camelford" using {{constlk}} is convenient and you'd not be making it more convenient, but less. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Charles Matthews, I strongly disagree that an obscure and ambiguously-named template is more convenient for anyone other than the editor who uses it as a personal macro instead of simply pasting the dab from a clipboard manager. The effect of the usual piped link is clear is the page markup, which the template is not.
      But thank you for not opposing substing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • See my comment that a fresh start to a deletion discussion would have been clarifying. But thank you for the strike-through. Adding {{Constituency link}} also identifies a redundancy, which is valuable also. I think you might have notified User:Adam37 about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • My metric here is my keystrokes. My time. My volunteer time. It is potentially useful for anyone who doesn't want to type "(UK Parliament constituency)" (28 keystrokes). You bring in other considerations. I rest my case. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Charles Matthews, you would have fewer keystrokes if you used a clipboard manager, so deletion creates no burden on your time. However, an obscure and ambiguously-named template is a burden on other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • For heaven's sake, my workflow and use of technology is really my business rather than yours? Closing admin please note. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Charles Matthews, you chose to make your workflow an issue in this discussion. Having made that choice, please have the civility to refrain from attacking me for responding to the flaws in your claims about your workflow. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I made my time an issue. I'm working on another wiki right now, having created s:Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1886/Wingfield-Baker, Richard Baker as one of a batch. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed. You made your time an issue, so other editors are entitled to reply that your own personal ambiguous template is not needed to save your time, because alternative approaches are available which save you more time, and which avoid littering articles with your personal macro. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: BHG identified an issue with the naming of the template which is clearly an issue. Having ambiguous template names in article is always bad as it makes the editing of other editors harder as they now also need to investigate what it does. Having the title be clear makes it longer, which makes it less useful as a fast template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comments: Nothing is clear. I have nominated this discussion at WP:CR because we'd do better with a fresh start.

1. If the template is substituted, the disambiguation issue as formulated by Gonnym goes away.
2. If 67.70.27.180 was unaware of that, which seems possible, my comment was scarcely irrelevant.
3. If BHG says "But thank you for not opposing substing it", why does she also say "the remedy is deletion"?

So far we have my keep vote. If this is a deletion discussion, can we please have a rationale based on WP:TFD#REASONS? Preferably on a fresh page.

My attitude to subst is that "subst:" is six more keystrokes. wikt:half a loaf is better than none. It might be better to discuss that, than treat Charles to a tech interview 1990s-style based on a trick question. As the OP wrote "if somebody finds it useful then it seem to me to be a bit of tossup whether to keep it". Charles Matthews (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Charles Matthews, in regard to your three numbered points:

1) and 2) Substing does not resolve the ambiguity problem. Substing current uses leaves us with the problem that the ambiguous name invites misuse.

3) I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you are being intentionally disingenuous when you write If BHG says "But thank you for not opposing substing it", why does she also say "the remedy is deletion"?. I thanked you for not opposing substitution because that is at least some improvement, by removing the existing uses. I still prefer deletion, because after replying to you I considered the IP's point about ambiguity, and I realised that resolving the ambiguity would destroy the brevity which is the template's raison d'etre. That made me shift my view away from the ambivalence about deletion which I had expressed in the nomination. My reasoning is clearly set out above in my comment of 09:24, 24 May, which you chose to ignore in favour of moaning that an IP had identified the ambiguity. It is particularly disingenuous of you to quote from a part of the nomination where my reasoning has explicitly been superseded due to do things I learned in discussion. I will now strike that part of the nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete both Here's a reason based on WP:TFD#Reasons: The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.. This template violates the template namespace guideline Template function should be clear from the template name [...], and any altering of the template to be in compliance with that guideline (such as BrownHairedGirl's proposed move to {{Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link}}) would defeat the point of this template existing entirely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And why do you say that? I use Template:Person categories all the time as {{l}} substituted. My point #1 was that subst would make that whole line of argument go away. I think you will have a bad time if you extend your reasoning to Template:HMS, another abbreviated "typing shortcut", by the way. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews, that pointer to another ambiguously-named template is a classic "other crap exists" argument. It's the daft notion that one unfixed problem justifies not fixing every other similar problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was also an illustration of where the logic leads. But since I anyway have no problem with having {{constlk}} moved to {{Parliament of the United Kingdom constituency link}} leaving a redirect, could you tell me what your problem with that is? In terms of WP:TFD#Reasons. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews, do I really need to explain to you that an ambiguously-titled redirect breaches WP:RFD#DELETE #2?

Well, yes, you are clearly assuming the scope of that guideline extends to template space. A new one to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, your insistence on WP:TFD#Reasons is misplaced. That guidance explicitly says {{Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here}}. So TFD will allow deletion on the basis of a consensus here that each of these templates cannot avoid being either 1) named ambiguously, or 2) so verbosely-named that its raison d'etre is destroyed. So far, that seems to be the emerging consensus, and if he closer determines that's the outcome, it is a valid reason to delete.

Well, yes, but, but. You do need the rationale for the first point to delete the redirect, and I don't see that, and if the redirect has standing then the raison d'être is good in my view. That is simply for moving the template to a verbose name. Anyway we'd have a cleaner process if the template was moved, and then the deletion of the redirect could be at RfD.

But the compromise has always been that substing is required. As you pointed out, it is not something I opposed, though it was in tension with the raison d'être. It does not undermine the raison d'être. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And I am very surprised that you are making such a stand on your personal macro when a simple alternative is available to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many surprising things about this whole discussion, frankly. You could have had my view on {{constlk}} for the asking. If you rely on consensus here, I hope there will be sounder process and logic than we have had so far. If you really think "ambiguous" template redirections are to be deprecated, across the board, that it a major can of worms in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dudes, the Brown Haired Girl is going to be right here... She just is. And I can't and wouldn't disagree with her. A loose necktie (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: to offer a more peaceful solution for Charles Matthews, make the template a subst always template and move it to your user space. There you can name it whatever you like and still keep the functionality you want for editing. --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:TV Fool

• Template:TV Fool (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TVQ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mvcg66b3r was removing both Templates from many Network affiliate articles, and I can see why, since TV Fool and TVQ are considered Inactive sites just like TV.com. Because of all this, and me removing the Templates too, both templates needs to automatically deleted by SporkBot on many Other Network affiliate articles that still has this template. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Feels more like a promotion for a website. But it also leads to a dead link which renders it useless. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)