Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 7

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

February 7[edit]

Template:Long wikibreak[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 merge to Template:Wikibreak. Regarding the "Holiday"/"Vacation" template, that would need its own discussion (also note that currently {{Holiday}} is a redirect to {{Vacation}}) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redundant wrapper for {{wikibreak}}. All instances can be replaced by {{wikibreak|type=long}}, which will also make the latter template's other parameters available if desired. Here's a comparison:

{{long wikibreak}}
{{wikibreak|type=long}}

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 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:Futsal Hazfi Cup[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

only used on one page which already has all the information within the article, so this provides no useful additional navigation between articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:17, 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: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 redirect to Template:Userpage blanked. There are very few participants advocating for a straight "keep" of both templates, and it mostly comes down to what we do with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Based on the discussion here, and the VPP thread regarding the blanking of inactive userpages, "redirect" ticks the most boxes for the most people:

  • Those who are concerned about inactive user blankings can still see the "what links here", and the {{inactive userpage blanked}} code will still be used
  • Following the VPP discussion, the current usage shouldn't be reverted
  • Also per VPP, no parameter needs to (or should) be added to {{userpage blanked}}
  • A redirect keeps the blanking notice without requiring the (somewhat pointless) replacement of 4k templates.

Further changes to {{userpage blanked}} can be discussed on the template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Inactive userpage blanked with Template:Userpage blanked.
Identical but for one short phrase ("of an inactive user"), which, if necessary, can be controlled by a parameter. Note also that the documentation of {{Userpage blanked}} refers to inactive users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. These are different, and are currently widely used for different purposes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the nomination, different by just four words. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: could you explain further, I just looked them both over, and I don't see any reason not to merge and redirect, but I'll hold off on placing a !vote pending further explanation, thank you. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just fixed the wording. {{Userpage blanked}} is not supposed to imply the user’s activity is a reason for blanking, it is meant for problematic pages of active and inactive users, although intended for users not active enough for it to be worth attempting to talk to them.
        This proposal to merge is work for no useful purpose. Adding the parameter makes it harder to use.
        Also, there is an active Pump discussion to which this discussion on this template should defer, see WT:UP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This proposal to merge is work for no useful purpose" thsi claim is false. The "pump discussion" is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors?. Its existence does not preclude a template merge. But thank you for confirming that the two templates have overlapping use for inactive users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The suggestion to merge, and then use a parameter to enable two separate uses is what I think is not useful, but it counterproductive because it would make it harder to use. That said, and put aside, my reading of the VP discussion is a consensus that inactivity is not a valid reason to blank a userpage. Noting that, with my understanding of the subtle different uses of these templates, {{Inactive userpage blanked}} should be deprecated (not merged) and all existing uses *Reverted*, unblanked. Consensus appears that it should not be done. Uses of {{Userpage blanked}} should be left as they are. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            The transclusion count is 4220, to be reverted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            {{Userpage blanked}} has 806 transclusions. A check of a sampling of these, for both, would be a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - same exact thing. It was even copied from one another per the edit summary, and even the text of {{Userpage blanked}} implies it's for an inactive user If this is your userpage, welcome back! - you don't welcome back someone who is currently here. --Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for now. per SmokeyJoe pending resolution of pump discussion. Neutral having reviewed the discussion, I think I see Pigsonthewing's point. Seeing as these would be used for editors whether long-established or not, and the discussion only references the former, and hence a discussion can proceed here prior to resolution. I don't see a merge as needed. But I don't see how the addition of an additional parameter would make things that much more confusing even when it changes the purpose of the template to some degree so long is the documentation is clear, so I guess my current assessment is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These templates have long-standing history, and I think we ought to have a moratorium on future tagging for action. Let's worry about other things. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You "worry" about what you want to worry about, and try not to impose that on other people. "long-standing history" is explicitly not a reason to keep something. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Pigsonthewing, Respectfully, it is. There's no consensus on what constitutes a clear cut criteria for deletion. Some people cite Wikipedia essays in favour of keeping; others cite the same essays in favour of deleting. This is fine because the essays generally argue both sides, depending on how you interpret them. However, we have important policies that can guide our "keeps" as well as our "deletes," and that's WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO, which mean, if there's reason(s) to keep (or delete) something that doesn't have a clear policy-based reason, we can do so. At the same time, we must also consider alternatives to deletion. Again, I'm not opposed to a merge, as that would essentially serve my rationale for keeping, but SmokeyJoe's rationale for opposing is compelling. We have to weigh that argument above other arguments, as that's part of determining consensus—that is, which arguments are the most compelling, since it's notionally not a vote. I'm involved here, but reading the discussion, SmokeyJoe's argument is more compelling than yours, mine, and Gonnym's put together. Doug Mehus T·C 20:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The text is so similar there is no reason to have to templates. While both do have a long history and many uses that is not a good reason not to merge them. Users wouldn't have to change their behavior as both names would work through a redirects and the history could still be accessed. If we have one template it is easier to decide on what version of the text is the best. Should we call users inactive as that can be highly inappropriate if used on an active user's page? Is it then good to keep "welcome back!" either, should we replace it with something else to keep the more casual tone of the message? Having to discuss these questions twice is a significant disadvantage which would be avoided at no cost by merging. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps we should hold off on this, or close as no consensus, as xaosflux has just quoted it as an option in his comment at the WP:VP. In short, call it a procedural close. Doug Mehus T·C 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this appears to be a purely technical merge request resulting in no loss of functionality. Using a parameter is one way to do this. Pigsonthewing if your intent was to add an "inactive" parameter to {{Userpage blanked}} and rewrite {{Inactive userpage blanked}} so it called {{Userpage blanked}} with that parameter, you could have been WP:BOLD and done that without a TfD. A TfD is only needed to discuss whether or not to remove {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. For the record, I support the following outcomes, in order of preference: 1) A full merge, adding a parameter to {{Userpage blanked}} and deleting {{Inactive userpage blanked}} (after replacing existing transclusions with {{Userpage blanked}} with the correct parameter of course) 2) an "effective merge" adding a parameter to {{Userpage blanked}} and rewriting {{Inactive userpage blanked}} so it calls {{Userpage blanked}} with that parameter, leaving existing uses alone. If #2 is chosen, I would prefer that {{Inactive userpage blanked}} be marked as deprecated but I'm okay with it being not marked as such. I am also okay with doing nothing. By the way, in most cases, I support merging templates with similar text and similar functionality, because in most cases it makes the project easier to manage in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. In a current discussion at VP there is a strong consensus that inactivity alone does not justify blanking. That discussion, as I read it, leaves the door open for blanking where there is sufficient reason; there is some divergence of opinions on what reasons may be sufficient, but that is outside the scope here. As inactivity on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary for blanking, this template may actually be misleading, as the current wording and name of {{Inactive userpage blanked}} implies the opposite. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: for the record, this template was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_2#Template:Inactive_userpage_blanked which had 3 participants and was closed as "keep". – Fayenatic London 14:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of their participation in the previous discussion, @Ricky81682, ToonLucas22, Nikkimaria, and Opabinia regalis: You may wish to participate in this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging ToonLucas22 renamed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - There is not really anything to merge here. Userpage blanked already serves the purpose described. I'm even leaning on delete IUB because the only scenario where you'd want to blank an inactive userpage is in the context of WP:G13, if the userpage is being used as a draftspace (which, to my knowledge, is discouraged, but I may be wrong on that), which IUB doesn't even mention. It's pretty much a limited-case usage version of its parent template. Unless the userpage in question violates some policy, leave an inactive user's userpage alone. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the one hand, it looks like this is strongly going towards a merge both by headcount and by strength of argument, but on the other hand it seems like the correct conclusion here is in part dependent on what Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors? ends up deciding. So relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are used for different things, and there isn't a convincing reason to merge them. Second best option would be to merge with a parameter to indicate why a page was blanked. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "used for different things" - No, they are not. As I said in the nomination: "the documentation of {{Userpage blanked}} refers to inactive users.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only so long as a parameter remains to document that the reason for the merge is inactivity. --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, to my reading there is a consensus at WP:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors? that inactivity is not an acceptable reason to blank someone else's sandbox. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Here's the issue. We need to be able to identify which user pages were balnked solely for inactivity in the past, even if there is a consensus not to do it in the future. Better to preserve the reason, even if it is not valid going forward. --Bsherr (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bsherr, I'm pretty sure we are on the same page, but I am not sure that we are clear on the direction to go from here. If I can state one possibility that I think is consistent with intentions:
(1). Modify {{Inactive userpage blanked}} to state that the page was blanked for user inactivity, but that editors should not continue to blank usersubpages for this reason.
(2). Leave {{Userpage blanked}} alone.
I don't see how merging will help anyone, creating a more complicated template with a parameter option that should not ever again be used? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 23 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).

South Africa rugby union tour squads[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. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These annual tours are not the same as a tournament for which a squad must be submitted to a governing body as with the Rugby World Cup. There is nothing special about these tours that links these players, and it is highly unlikely that readers would wish to link between the players on each tour. Furthermore, the existence of these templates leads to navbox clutter, especially among players who have had especially long international rugby careers. – PeeJay 13:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Using your initial logic, all British and Irish Lions touring squads should also be removed, since they are "not the same as a tournament for which a squad must be submitted to a governing body". These players are all named in an official touring squad, eg. see here and players are obviously linked by being named in the same squad. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a disingenuous argument, and I'm pretty sure you're well aware of that, since the Lions are a special case. Yes, the squads are somewhat "official", i.e. they are named by the coach as the list of players they're going to take with them on the tour, but there are no official criteria for selection other than the general criteria laid down by World Rugby that only players eligible for a nation may play in matches for that nation. Again, there is nothing special about these squads since they are named twice a year for matches that are essentially friendlies. – PeeJay 14:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is that a disingenuous argument? The B&I Lions choose a squad for a tour, test nations choose a squad for a tour; the latter just does it more often. The squads are not "somewhat "official"", they are official. The matches are not "essentially friendlies", they are test matches. And there's no official criteria for selection for most tournaments, eg. Six Nations, Rugby Championship, etc. The World Cup limits the squad size, that's it really. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the British Lions are a unique case within rugby union. Their tours are the pinnacle of rugby union outside of the World Cup. Being picked for a summer tour is an honour, sure, but it's nothing compared to playing in the Rugby Championship or Six Nations, and we don't (shouldn't) do squad navboxes for them. And no, the squads are not official because they don't have to be registered with anyone in the same way that a World Cup squad does. There's nothing stopping a coach from sending someone home and calling another player up in their place, no limits on the number of players they can take, anything like that. And yes, these matches are essentially friendlies. They're not played in service of any particular tournament. Calling them "test matches" may reflect the way World Rugby refers to them, but it's overglorification. – PeeJay 11:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on User:PeeJay2K3's special status for the Lions:
  1. Clearly these South African teams play test matches which are not "friendlies" – and they also have a better record in test matches than the Lions.
  2. These South African squads are official, moreso than a Lions squad. The Springboks have an officially recognised governing body, the Lions do not.

Ham105 (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you've failed to grasp the definition of "friendly". Here's a good one for you: Collins Dictionary says a "friendly match" is one "played for its own sake, and not as part of a competition". That is exactly what these "test" matches are. They are exactly the same as the friendly matches played by international football teams in designated windows, separate from major tournaments and qualifiers thereto. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make by pointing out the Lions' record; it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway, you've failed to establish the need for these navboxes, especially when there are two of them per year, which can stack up for a long-serving player. Look at Bismarck du Plessis, for example: he has 12 of them, and I'm sure there are players with more. How about Bakkies Botha? He has 17! The fact that there are so many of these is proof that they aren't really anything special. These should be limited to squads for major tournaments (e.g. World Cup, Rugby Championship, Six Nations) and Lions squads. – PeeJay 00:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're using Gish gallop on Lions and friendlies.
  1. The term "friendly", applies to soccer matches. It's not used for test rugby.
  2. Under your definition all Lions' matches would also be "friendlies", but anyone with knowledge of the game understands when the Lions play rugby – a full-contact sport unlike soccer – that those test matches are not friendlies.
  3. Springbok test matches are not friendlies either.
  4. The Lions' record simply shows the side for what it is – an all-star team that has only won 39% of test matches it has played. These matches are played less often but are not objectively a level above that of say a Springboks-All Blacks test.
–Ham105 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who brought up the Lions in the first place! Can we please deal with these templates on their own merits without side-tracking the discussion? I move to strike all the above comments from the record. – PeeJay 10:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on this: Does anyone other than South Africa have this many? I can't think of any other nation that has any of these at all. Lions tours are seperate things, they're named well in advance and have to be submitted, there are restrictions on replacements (see Wade Dooley and Martin Johnson (rugby union) in 1993 and limited in number. So let's leave that thread our of it. In the professional era they should be limited to Rugby World Cups and Lions squads, I wouldn't even stretch to Six Nations or Rugby Championship squads, are they really "squads" per se or just collections of players used. In the amateur era I can see a clearer argument for having naviboxes for tour squads.Skeene88 (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, would that be a Delete !vote? – PeeJay 12:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes, you're right, no other nation has this many. See the subcats of Category:National rugby union team navigational boxes, where (other than a couple of outliers that should probably be deleted) the only navboxes for squads other than Rugby World Cups are particularly successful teams, e.g. Australia's 1984 Grand Slam touring side. – PeeJay 12:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, over-navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I don't doubt it's a great honor to be selected for one of these squads this is an excessive amount leading to a lot of clutter. The first link I pressed here (Bakkies Botha) had 17 of these navboxes. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The big issue with the above list is its inconsistency. In 2009, the British and Irish Lions toured South Africa, and (as per the deletion proposal) the former can have a navbox, but the latter can not? This despite — as Ham105 pointed out above – the latter having an official governing body and the former not. This seems like serious WP:BIAS. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The governing body thing is a massive red herring, and talking about the Lions is also derailing the conversation. I fail to see any reason why we need a navbox for every South Africa squad. – PeeJay 09:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, talking about the Lions is exactly the conversation. You propose retaining the Lions' tour squad, but deleting their opponents'. That demonstrates biased, inconsistent thinking. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to propose the Lions tour squads for deletion, that's your prerogative. We're talking about the South Africa squads here, and apparently I'm not the one with the emotional attachment to them. – PeeJay 23:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem I see here is the fact that these templates ain't really needed as it wouldn't be special to be in a national team as say being in a British and Lions team as the national team consistently changes from match to match depending on who would be available. It's not like you have a set team and that is it for the year. The only reason you would have a national squad would be for the World Cup which a quick look they do have already in the category. So delete these templates. HawkAussie (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Overnavboxing and not needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 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_February_7&oldid=974326599"