Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 27

September 27

Template:French Open singles drawsheets

• Template:French Open singles drawsheets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed, already covered by template: French Open drawsheets. Wolbo (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Styles import

• Template:Styles import (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that is essentially its underlying implementation. Izno (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Archive nav

• Template:Archive nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Archive navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Archive nav with Template:Archive navigation.
No need for both templates. The names are synonymous. "nav" is described as "an alternative of {{archive navigation}}". {{Archive navigation}} seems to be preferred, by a ratio of 10:1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor (paid)

• Template:Connected contributor (paid) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Paid article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor (paid) with Template:Paid article.
These seem to be for the same purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Deadlocked

• Template:Deadlocked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transclusions appear to be in documentation, or discussions about the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion - nominator is incorrect and template is actually in use on multiple article talk pages - see transclusions - this isn’t the most used template out there but it still is in current use to indicate debates and discussions that are stuck. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Topical talk archive

• Template:Topical talk archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard and archaic talk-page archive header, with just 31 transclusions. Redundant to other talk-page archive header templates. Note that Wikipedia:Topic archive has been marked as "historical" since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Timeline Australian Open Men's Singles Winners

• Template:Timeline Australian Open Men's Singles Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, not needed. Wolbo (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:False version

• Template:False version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. I do not think a disclaimer is needed here. It is kind of obvious that doctored media is spreading on the Internet. I understand that we are struggling with misinformation related to COVID-19 and mail-in voting on social media, but what does a template do? If a user is taken to an outdated Wikipedia mirror or fork or a completely different website, it does not help. Firstly, all out of date revisions on Wikipedia have a "this is an old revision of this page", so readers can understand that the revision is old/dated. Secondly, we already have a disclaimer that details that not all information that you find on Wikipedia is 100% accurate. It is very easy to use typosquatting to fake the URL for Wikipedia. Plus, its format as an mbox makes it confusing for readers and editors alike, who usually see the messages when there are problems with an article. Aasim 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and suggest withdrawing nom. @Awesome Aasim: this template was brought up for TfD a few months ago and easily survived, and the reasons it was kept are the same now. It was also discussed at VPP. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Firstly, I'd suggest reworking the template to maybe have a blue strip instead of an orange strip if the template was kept (or not use the mbox). I agree that we should fight fake news, I am not sure how this template helps. Secondly, it is the responsibility of SNS companies to make sure that misinformation does not spread on their platforms and to make sure that attempts to discredit reliable sources fail. We have had a lot of misinformation before, and what these companies have done to fight this misinformation is show excerpts from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Hoaxes and fake "cures" for COVID-19 are quickly deleted on Wikipedia anyway, and we have authorized sanctions on editors who edit in the "COVID-19" topic area. So far, only one article uses this template, and I do not know if this template helps, especially because it has been 3+ months since the template's first and only use. And with all these browser extensions like "NewsGuard" and Wikipedia's history of being (for the most part) a good starting point to learn about information, people have used it as a great starting point for learning about a variety of topics. Oh, and that screenshot, only the image is from Wikipedia. I do not know where the text is coming from or who it is being attributed to, but I do not think this case counts as a "falsified version of this article", even though it is misinformation definitely for sure. Aasim 18:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  And that village pump discussion has mixed support/opposition, making consensus a little blurry. I think an RfC on how we should handle misinformation attributed to Wikipedia that is not really on Wikipedia may be in order. Aasim 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep While not currently in use, has a clear and obvious use case in fighting misinformation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that we had a consensus to keep a few months ago at TfD, though discussion started afterwards at VPP seemed more ambivalent towards the template. Relisting for more thoughts on the issue. It may help to inform participants in the discussions at prior TfD and VPP, of this TfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Hominin

• Template:Hominin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and seems the consensus is against such templates with 4-5 recently deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP - As OA of the template - the template seems sufficiently worthy for some relevant articles (some perhaps TBD) and related imo - however - no problem whatsoever if WP:CONSENSUS considers otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: 8 days later, still unused. If the articles don't want it, there is no reason to keep it around. --Gonnym (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

• Template:Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing to navigate, navbox only contains three links which all go to the same article.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Eponymous medical signs for cardiovascular system

• Template:Eponymous medical signs for cardiovascular system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for cardiovascular system with Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs.
It pains me to propose a merge to such a well organised and easy to read template such as Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs, but it is doing a disservice to readers to have these separated. I propose a merge because:

• It is much easier for readers to have cardiovascular signs and symptoms in a single template
• There is significant amount of duplication
• There is no particular reason why something that, for historical reasons is named after a person, is separated from something that, for historical reasons is not. Just makes it difficult to read and edit.
• There is established precedent with multiple other eponymous medical signs templates being merged
• I see the only way forward in simplifying and organising the content to first merge these templates Tom (LT) (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)