Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13

[edit]

Template:YSG Entertainment

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YSG Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template for YSG Entertainment, an article deleted at AFD. It has only five links, four of which are redlinks and three are deleted articles. There is only one remaining blue link. Created by User:Coal Press Nation now indef blocked for as promotion only account. SpinningSpark 23:31, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lang-en-GB

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-GB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was used in Apheresis (linguistics) and Caramelization. I replaced them with plain link, "British English", so this template is no longer used in mainspaces, rendering it near-useless. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and reverse the WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore per SMcCandlish and IP comments.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear why it is particularly relevant whether the template is unused or massively under-utilized - six of one, half a dozen of the other. The issue should be whether it makes sense to have the template. Maybe I am missing something (and please tell me if I am), but it is not evident to me that this template accomplishes anything that a simple wikilink doesn't more simply accomplish. No wonder Wikipedia is having trouble keeping and attracting editors -- everything is becoming so damn overly-technical, including the use of templates instead of simple wikilinks. Maybe the ship on this has already sailed, so to speak, if the project is already littered with crappy templates like this one, but in my own opinion we should strive to keep things simple where we can. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add that this template was created almost 6 years ago (as was the US version - Canadian and Australian versions were created 2 years ago). Given how under-utilized the templates all are after that many years, I think the project has made clear that the task in question is better handled through a simple wikilink. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are missing something. Having the ability (note: not requirement) to metadata-tag something as a specific variety of English, in cases where this may be especially relevant (e.g. articles on differences between English dialects) is useful, and I at least was actually using it for this purpose. It appears that the nominator and someone(s) else in two cases have been removing the templates where ever they were being used. They are not supposed to be used frequently, by design. The idea that these five templates, which are for very specific uses in very narrow circumstances, and won't be used or even noticed by anyone but gnomes, is somehow related to people quitting wikipedia is untenable. This is not what TfD is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Tone moderated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive venting
[Linking this TfD to editor retention is] patently absurd psychodrama implausible melodrama. You're abusing misusing XfD processes to take an anti-template, anti-metadata WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONGS stand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Tone moderated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and please knock it off with your condescending/insulting replies like this one and the ones below.

When you are done accusing me of psychodramas or abuse, and are ready to discuss like a grown-up, please let me know. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeezix1000: WP:KETTLE. Instead of claiming aggrievement at being challenged on something, why not actually respond substantively to the challenge? Explain to us how it isn't position-pushing drama to hyperbolically claim that a handful of templates (that you characterize as "crappy", i.e. a slight euphemism for "full of shit", without any basis or explanation for such condemnation), intended and used (optionally) only for specific, narrow purposes in particular ENGVAR-comparison contexts, somehow constitutes the explanation for why "Wikipedia is having trouble keeping and attracting editors", and proof of "everything ... becoming so damn overly-technical". Just how high is that horse you're falling off of?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE? Unclear how I have been uncivil to you. I expressed my opinion, which I am entitled to do. You are entitled to disagree, but not to insult me or impugn my motives. You accused me of being abusive and creating psychodrama, and now of being on a high horse. I am happy to respond to the one substantive comment you made above, once you retract your insults above. I don't engage in substantive discussions with editors who do not assume good faith or who cannot be civil. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling shenanigans on that. Your refusal to engage in reasoned debate about the actual TfD – because you feel insulted, pretend you can't see that you've been insulting (e.g. with "When you are ... ready to discuss like a grown-up"), and won't talk until your ego has been salved – just means you choosing a melodramatic way to concede the TfD. Would you like Orff's "O Fortuna" as theme music to go along with that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the need to categorize for foreign languages, but is it really necessary for broad language variations (not even distinct dialects!) to carry this template? You're telling me that aside from the two articles George Ho linked, there were zero articles using this template? Zero, zip, zilch, after six years? I agree wholly with Skeezix about this being one of Wikipedia's biggest current issues: we need to aim our efforts in simplifying the process and trimming useless fat like this. This one is a no-brainer. - SweetNightmares 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first half of your rant needlessly repetitive, hyperbolic, sarcastic !vote, I addressed in reply to Skeezix1000 immediately above. As to the other half, what on earth are you on about? There is nothing "technocratic" (see definition here) about these templates, or about using language metadata in general (entirely voluntarily - there is no policy requiring their use, and their own documentation discourages their use except where especially pertinent. There are zero present uses of the template because the nominator and others have been removing it to make it seem unused. These templates have nothing at all to do with any "process" that needs to be "simplified"; see response to Skeezix1000 again; I don't like to repeat myself. The only "no-brainer" here is that your !vote here raises no cognizant policy issues and can safely be ignored by the closer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Tone moderated, while meaning clarified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive venting
SMcCandlish, I urge you to remain WP:civil when debating. Resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks does nothing to contribute to the debate at hand or WP:RETENTION and only serves to discourage users from becoming active editors. Please consult the following links for more information[1][2] Also, please do not strike out and insert text from other users' comments as you did when you moved the section here. Finally, I know what the word "technocratic" means, do you? The answer can be found on this page under the "What is a technocrat" section. - SweetNightmares 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SweetNightmares:. See reply to Skeezix1000, above; much of it applies to your issues as well. I am remaining civil. It is not incivil to point out policy and logic flaws in an argument. Accusing others of "resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks" is not civil. Nor is calling them "technocrats", which is really no different from calling them "fascists" or "communists" or some other form of exploitative governance by a privileged few; it's pure negative hyperbole intended to be personally insulting. So, see WP:KETTLE, closely. See also WP:REFACTOR; maybe reconsider next time you feel like lecturing someone on how things are done. Also, please use user talk for user conduct issues; your complaint doesn't belong at TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I finally got around to ooking at your BBC article. Their definitions are unsourced, but who cares anyway? Neither of them are applicable to this debate (or to WP generally), since it has no rulers, much less "a powerful technical elite", nor is anyone advocating "the supremacy of technical experts". Next.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Skeezix. It wasn't a fait accompli that rendered it useless. It was its lack of purpose that rendered it useless. The complaint above about a supposed anti-metadata position being problematic begs the question in its assumption that the existence of this metadata is actually beneficial. And with respect, SMcCandlish, you should not be browbeating others for apparently failing to provide policy based reasons to delete when your reasons to keep amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are any number of potential uses for distinguishing between ENGVARs, ranging from CSS styling, to using different voices with different pronunciation patterns in screen readers, to being clear on how to interpret IPA pronunciation markup, etc., etc. You assert that there is no and/or can be no use for such templates, but obviously there are. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL are actually valid arguments at TfD (alone among the XfD processes), where whether a template may be useful or not is actually a part of the decision process. I've not made any WP:ILIKEIT argument at all, meanwhile the bulk of the delete !votes are patently WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based, as they are simply opposed to templates with a technical purpose, as if somehow the actual cause of editorial decline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive venting
    • I mean, just go back up and read them. Not only are language metadata templates blamed for editor retention problems, if I defend the templates or counter-criticizes their critics, I too am personally labeled an editor retention problem! It's completely circular reasoning, a proposition that seeks to be its own proof and to insulate itself from any analysis. Also, "browbeating" is intimidation into taking an action (or refraining from acting) by the use of threatening verbal aggressiveness; look it up. Pointing out logical, policy and PoV problems with how some parties are [mis]using TfD isn't browbeating, aggressive, or any form of intimidation, even if I've leaned toward the WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE-calling side in addressing these problems (and I'm hardly alone in taking a serious-faced approach to addressing soapboxy deletion arguments).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is starting to heat up, and I don't see signs of cooling down yet. Look, maybe we should keep ourselves cool away from each other before we go any further. I nominated, you voted, and others voted already. You favor keeping it for future computer experts; I favor getting rid of it and making everything simple and neat. I cannot withdraw all the nominations I have done here just because of your conflicts with others (and me if you can count). I read your bio in user page, and I think you may have another COI here. (per WP:NPA) If you want to generally discuss this more, go to WT:NOT#"Wikipedia is not a technocracy"?, which I started there. The main purpose is discussing specific templates. Please go to either WT:NOT or WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? In the same breath, you're going to to suggest that we need to cool down the conversation, and suggest that not only can I not count, but I have some unspecified COI (actually you suggest more than one of them, by throwing in that weasely "another"). You don't see signs of the discussion cooling down yet? Hmm, could it be because you're being hypocritically antagonistic your posts are self-contradictorily hostile while decrying the lack of collegiality?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Tone moderated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...The more we ignore you, techno-nerd, the better. End of story. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (per WP:NPA and WP:ANI. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
For the record, I didn't file that ANI request, Skeezix1000 did. I don't involve noticeboards over minor civility kerfuffles, because it's an adversarial waste of the community's time and energy. I save my noticeboard reporting for the worst PoV pushers, original research pushers, and other problem editors who are wrecking reliability and content for our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Fixed for you; BTW, I'm not using templates to shrink font. --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SMC, over- or under-citing policy neither proves nor disproves one's argument. Regarding my being a "conspiracy theorist," you are out of line. I agree with George Ho: it's time for each of us to step away; we've voiced our opinions and are obviously not going to convince each other. - SweetNightmares 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know when to back off; that's why I left for a couple of days. There's no such thing as "over-citing policy"; either a policy says something and it's applicable, or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SweetNightmares, I advise you only once to ignore or not reply to this guy, especially for a couple more days, okay? Peace. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (Per WP:ANI and WP:CANVASS --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
This is the British English template for those who don't want to spell out "British English". To me, "British English: colour" "American English: color" is easier to type, memorize, and grasp than just {{lang-en-GB|colour}} {{lang-en-US|color}}. Both systems result the same, but must we favor (or favour) templates over simple spelling? And must we continually encourage templates and discourage simple spelling, especially per MOS:ACCESS (which I discussed in its talk page)? I brought up the "technocracy" issue in WT:NOT, so join there if interested. Must we rely on templates rather than easy spelling? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also doing lang="en-GB" encoding (unless another "anti-technocrat" has deleted that, too). [It is; I checked.] And much of the point of these templates is regularization and automation. This one in particular helps prevent colloquialisms like English English, as one example. As noted in one of these five related TfDs, someone's already planning to use at least one of them to establish frequency of usage. Etc. Peter coxhead gives more rationales below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Updated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and the other "Lang-en-XX" templates nominated below, and revert their removal). I suggest that those wanting to delete these templates read Template:Lang#Rationale. The two forms {{lang-en-GB|colour}} and [[British English]]: colour aren't equivalent. The first form clearly marks the span over which the unexpected language variant extends (unexpected because this template isn't used to mark a whole article), so a screen reader or a spell checker can take the right action. The template provides metadata, not data; it would still be useful for this reason even if the "British English" weren't made visible. The second form is just text for human readers.
    The argument about over-technicality would be valid if editors were required to use such templates. But they aren't. You don't have to use them in text you write yourself, and if a later editor adds them, or you find them and don't understand them, just leave them alone. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, thank you for the (civil and friendly) explanation. That's helpful. The first part of your explanation makes sense. With respect, I am not sure I buy the second part. Over-technicality, both in terms of wikicode and in our layers and guidelines, is one of the reasons the project is having trouble attracting novice editors. The problem doesn't hinge at all on whether or not we are required to use the template. Article text full of complicated wikicode can be offputting and it can seem hard to edit - not sure "just leave it alone" is a great answer. Now, having said that, we can't/shouldn't do away with templates that are helpful, necessary, etc. I was simply stating that where a template doesn't accomplish much (which you seem to be saying is not the case here), we should strive for simplicity (in fact, for a lot of good reasons above and beyond novice editors). Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive venting
Skeezix1000: Again, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:GREATWRONGS. Singling out these five particular templates for attack, as some kind of trial balloon, for larger, more general anti-"technocracy" campaign, is a patent abuse of TfD process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask you again to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Your (incorrect) assumptions above my motives are just baffling. I have no plans for an "attack" - I was merely concerned about what seemed like an unnecessary small group of templates which didn't seem to help the project. Please stop the steady stream of insults and accusations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skeezix1000, I advise you only once to ignore or not reply to this guy, especially for a couple more days, okay? Peace. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (Per WP:ANI and WP:CANVASS --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Skeezix1000, you weren't the nominator, so how could I be referring to you when I referred to "[s]ingling out these five particular templates for attack, as some kind of trial balloon, for larger, more general anti-"technocracy" campaign"? I was clearly referring to the TfDs themselves and Georege Ho's plans, which I've provided an entire diff-farm about below. In responding to you, I'm only responding to your agreement with these TfDs, not blaming you for the exact character of or motivation behind them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, indeed. For some if not all of these ENGVARs (and more, probably, e.g. Irish, NZ, etc.), having {{lang|en-XX}} as well as {{lang-en-XX}} variants [if anything at {{lang}} needs to change to enable use of en-XX] are called for, to do the metadata markup without adding the "British English: " or whatever before the marked up content every time. I'm pretty sure I had that intent when I was working on these, and then just forgot about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Update: The short version works fine, as demonstrated in examples elsewhere below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — While I believe everyone was working in good faith, this is actually not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent,) and it is not unused. I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. There is no valid deletion rationale. —PC-XT+ 19:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "unused", do you mean "useless"? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying there were use cases in the field where the template had benefit shortly before the discussion, which I consider current enough to call the template used. Technically, though, it could now be considered only potential use, since its mainspace usage has been at least suspended. —PC-XT+ 08:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominators' WP:FAITACCOMPLI deletions of the templates from articles to make them seem unused have been reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then my !vote stands. —PC-XT+ 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked over previous voters' comments here, and I can't see how the claimed advantages are significant in light of what I'm reading in the template's documentation. If we need metadata in a specific chunk of an article, it would seem simpler to me to have some sort of metadata tracking template that could be added in text — something invisible, comparable to the templates listed at {{Z number doc}}: just put it at the start and end of UK text and instruct bots to consider the enclosed text as en-GB. Using this template makes the code harder to understand, and after reading the discussion up above, I don't see a huge benefit in tracking this kind of metadata anyway. In other words, delete because it doesn't seem to be particularly useful, and if it is useful, we can do the same thing more simply a different way. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: You may have missed part of the discussion (it's hard to track because the nom made them all separate TfDs instead of a group). Peter coxhead and I were just talking about the invisible metadata in this (just above, actually) and, yes, clearly "{{lang|en-XX}} as well as {{lang-en-XX}} ... variants are called for, to do the metadata markup without adding the 'British English: ' or whatever before the marked up content." The need to use of a different, in the {{lang|en-XX}} form, in some contexts rather than one of these, in the {{lang-XX}} template series, is not a reason to delete this template, any more than need for a navbox sometimes mean delete all infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have to make my vote a strong delete. Little templates, accepting no parameters whatsoever (except for one to indicate the language in question) placed before and after text to indicate for bots its dialect or language, are simple, while apparently the coding is even more confusing than I originally thought. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Whether someone personally finds "the coding" of a template "more confusing than [they] originally thought" isn't a deletion rationale, it's just how well that editor understands template code; cf. WP:COMPETENCE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I still don't think you understand. When we need to do language markup, there are two ways to do it, that are used differently in different contexts, one with {{lang|XX}} markup, which silently adds metadata, and another with {{lang-XX}} markup that does the same thing but also prefixes a link to the name of the language (or variant) in question. They are not competing templates, but complementary. The former is best for cases where the language/variant is already known or being specified some other way (e.g. parenthetically). They can be used together, and this is expected: When the player cannot reach the cue ball with the cue, one can use the {{lang|en-US|mechanical bridge stick}} ({{lang-en-GB|rest}} or more specifically {{lang|en-GB|cross}} or {{lang|en-GB|spider}}). Please examine that source carefully to see what's being done here. The result displays (presumably in a pool article written in American English) as: When the player cannot reach the cue ball with the cue, one can use the mechanical bridge stick ({{lang-en-GB|rest}} or more specifically cross or spider). Nothing novel is happening here; the lang and lang-xx templates (there are hundreds of them) have been used uncontroversially for years. A faux controversy has been manufactured here, that there can't possibly be any use for doing this with English language variants as well as foreign languages; but several of us have now provided rationales and examples for how these can and should be used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the only difference is that this one prefixes a link to the name of the language or variant in question, we have no good reason to keep this. As noted by the nominator, it's substantially easier just to add a link to the name of the language or variant in question, and people not familiar with the template will find everything simpler. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They won't find everything simpler. To replace any {{tnull|lang-xx-YY's output, you can't just replace it with a link to the language in front of the content, but would have to do a link to the language and use {{lang|xx-YY}} to mark up the actual content. The language metadata has to come from one template or the other, as no one will add it manually and we don't want people to try to add it manually, because that process is very error-prone; the Category:Multilingual support templates all exist for real reasons and that is no. 1 among them.

If you don't know what the actual differences are between the templates and how they're used, don't you think you should actually go find out? Again, there are hundreds of these templates in regular use; we don't TfD five templates out of a series just to make a hole in the series; it's WP:POINTy. Anyway, I'm just going to cite WP:IDHT and move on; you're clearly not you seem clearly to not be interested in understanding these templates or what they're used for, and resistant to reconsidering your !vote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Moderated tone, added explanation to be more responsive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I advise you to ignore or stop responding to this person for a couple days. The more we talk to him, the more willing he will respond, the more aggressive he will become. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (Per WP:ANI and WP:CANVASS --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note on apparent campaigning and forum shopping: The nominator has also been taking actions to get rid of other {{lang-xx-YY}} templates outside TfD process.
Details
  • "...I've nominated "lang-en-XX" templates for deletion, and I don't want to nominate too many at this time. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)"[3] Straight from the horse's mouth; this is stage one of a larger campaign against language templates.
  • Note that this was immediately after this statement by Trappist the monk: "A user requires {{lang-de-AT}} for Austrian-related articles. The template makes no requirements on the user (except to type its name correctly etc).... Once again you've declared that {{lang-de-AT}} is a waste of space without giving us anything to support that assertion."[4]; that perfectly describes Ho's present TfDs as well.
  • Ho has also stated a general opposition to the use of templates on Wikipedia (yeas, really) including a blanket personal attack on anyone who disagrees with him as "template-fanatics" [sic]: "I have been questioning usefulness of templates lately. ... Somehow, template-fanatics oppose deletion on any kind .... People are expected to be computer scientists or engineers, especially on templates.... Sometimes, learning unnecessary and complex templates is frustrating.... --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)"[5] Learning anything new can be a challenge. Ridding the world of what one find sdifficult is not how to approach challenges, and it's not what TfD is for.
  • Closely related to this TfD are three intertwined topics (about {{lang-de}} and {{lang-de-XX}}), also started by Ho, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Using "lang-x" template or simple wikilinking and formatting, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:lang-de/sandbox, and Template talk:Lang-de#template:lang-de-AT stuff. A close analysis of them indicates a strong but unclearly reasoned desire to do away with templates relating to language variants (of any language, then a "false flag" masquerade at the German language template to merge German language variety templates into it, including a theatrical performance of making sure Austrian German is covered adequately (even though even German Wikipedia, which accounts for language variants with templates like the ones at issue here, doesn't account for that one because it's so close to mainstream German). It's not entirely clear what's going on, but it doesn't have anything to do with rationales for deleting these templates in particular. Note that at Template talk:Lang-de, Ho was advised not to TfD such templates, but did so anyway. Why is he surprised and defensive that he's being resisted in his deletion spree?
I reiterate that TfD is being misused here, as a wedge to attempt to drive in a wider campaign against language templates specifically and templates in general.

This update actually edit-conflicted with Ho striking several of his more egregious comments here, and I appreciate that. The point of the diff list above isn't to pick on George Ho, but to identify just how far-flung this discussion really is, and to demonstrate that this is not a normal quintet of TfDs but limbs of an octopus that needs to be addressed more broadly, as I have been. For more technical rationales why these and similar templates not should be merged or deleted (including {{lang-de-XX}}, which was left out of this nomination round, see my "* Clarification" post at Template talk:Lang-de#template:lang-de-AT, for example.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that {{Lang}} is expecting different category names. I posted at the project talk page. —PC-XT+ 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was intentional; the poitn was "don't use this for Cornish English for example since there's no such article. JMJimmy's idea below would work around this problem, and it should have been done that way all along.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there are so many possible languages see iso 639-6 database and the difficulty of reliably sourcing them it is a problem. (I mentioned the database to a pair of top level linguists - they got a good laugh at it, esp. for ones that might have 1 or 2 known samples.) The vast majority in that database are dead or dying languages let alone having a wikipedia editor. That might be a possible upgrade for the template - don't link if it's a red link, just display the language name. JMJimmy (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. While we should not create piles and pile of these templates without actually using them, it's certainly a good idea, your don't-redlink upgrade plan. If the templates are kept (which seems likely), I'll try to remember to do that. Half the code's already in there, it just needs an ifexist test.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a reasonably well constructed system of templates. No one is forced to use them, they are however simple to understand and to use. The conform to an RFC (I forget the number), and are therefore useful for all sorts of processes. In particular they facilitate advanced spell-checking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Additional information: Borrowing from Template:Lang/doc#Rationale (and editing as necessary to refer to English variant templates instead of foreign language templates), here are some additional rationales for these templates:
    • Useful for research or compiling statistics about encyclopedic use of varietal English terminology in articles.
    • Search engines can use this information when indexing text.
    • Facilitates better data-scraping, parsing and re-use.
    • Possibly useful for application developers who re-publish Wikipedia, or create WP-related tools.
    • For minor accessibility reasons – screen readers need language info to speak text in an appropriate voice, when the users want them to do so
    • Users can apply styles to language variants in their style sheets (useful for logged-in users, or those using custom style sheets at the user agent level; also probably a minor use case).
       — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep. Language subtags are well-defined W3C standard RFC 3066. Dodoïste (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lang-en-CA

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Absolutely useless, as "[[Canadian English]]" is more memorable and familiar to type than this template. George Ho (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell you; this template has been unused before I nominated this template. --George Ho (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? If you're so concerned about that, then get to work applying it. Deletion is not a solution.Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, normally it could be but: A) We have evidence that the nominator among probable others, in a what seems to be a nascent campaign (now being shopped to the Village Pump as well as WT:NOT) against metadata templates as the tools of a "technocracy" to be overthrown (or whatever; they tell me it's not a conspiracy theory, but I can't tell the difference) have been removing the templates from use to make them appear unused and useless. B) These templates are part of a series, and it's natural for some of them to remain underutilized for some time; e.g. some of the top level {{lang-xx}} templates are hardly used at all. (I'm sure you already understand this, but I want it on record in the TfD, as both of these points apply to all five of these templates.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'll change my !vote to eliminate the userfy option. I think this set should stay together. —PC-XT+ 02:24, 20 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lang-en-emodeng

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-emodeng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in only Glossary of nautical terms, Builder's Old Measurement, and English wine cask units. I replaced it with HTML formatting, like "Early Modern English". Now it's nearly useless. If that link is not always memorable, at least a reader can click or type "History of the English language" to search for past English languages, like Early Modern one. The template's redirect is {{lang-en-em}}, and it must be also deleted. George Ho (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lang-en-AU

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not at all used by pages. It is useless, as "[[Australian English]]" is easier to memorize and to type than just... {{lang-en-AU}}. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lang-en-US

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang-en-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in moustache and bachelor griller. I replaced them with the link (American English). Therefore, this template may be useless because it's no longer used in mainspace pages. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A side bar template with three incoming links and only three links is a bit of an overkill. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:34, 13 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color

[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously deleted unused template. 117Avenue (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hardcoded color code for transclusion, intended to be the color representing the party. In general, I believe these /meta/color subtemplates are used for party infoboxes, tables, navboxes, or whatever can be colored without breaking style guidelines. Hardcoded templates tend to be substituted and deleted if they are not going to be updated, or if they only have a few transclusions and no more places to transclude are found. This one only transcludes itself in its own documentation example. If anyone has some use for this, feel free to say, and I'll reconsider my !vote. Many /meta/color templates were created in case a use was found later, possibly just to document the party color, but it's better to wait for a use, and document the color in an article, if it is important. —PC-XT+ 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, this template is slightly different from {{Canadian party colour|BC|NDP}} => #F4A460 (test) {{British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color}} => #FF9900 (test) (On the other hand, if they were the same, it would be redundant. The /meta/color template uses the web safe color, which is less accurate, but more consistent with colors used in older browsers.) —PC-XT+ 05:36, 22 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_13&oldid=1250916262"