Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 17 September 19 >

September 18

[edit]

Template:FOW Light Heavyweight Championship

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, only a few links. StaticVapor message me! 21:48, 18 September 2019 (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:FOW International Heavyweight Championship

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, only a few links. StaticVapor message me! 21:48, 18 September 2019 (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:Sub_judice_UK

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 October 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:27, 2 October 2019 (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:FC Torpedo Minsk squad

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club withdrew from the league. All players released, template is redundant BlameRuiner (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:39, 19 September 2019 (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:Amarnibas

[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; deleted as G2 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template by an editor with 2 edits. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2019 (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:Uw-uall

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 October 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 2 October 2019 (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:2019 Netherlands Women's Quadrangular Series

[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 No consensus for deletion. Mgasparin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table is now in the article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on its current usage (five articles)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (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:Eerste Divisie seasons

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Eerste Divisie seasons into Template:Eerste Divisie.
Per precedent Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 31. The seasons can be included in Template:Eerste Divisie and create a concise and well-organized template like Template:Tweede Divisie. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (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:BLP others

[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 There is no consensus for the proposed merge.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BLP othersWas into Template:BLP.
Honestly not sure why we need this. Saying "BLP does not apply directly... but still applies" is a rather muddled message; BLP applies everywhere, and the {{BLP}} template explicitly refers to articles that are not biographies. Perhaps the wording of {{BLP}} could be revised (if necessary), but I'm not sure there's a genuine need for a separate {{BLP others}} template. PC78 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yahya Abdal-Aziz: The policy was adopted in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident, which involved a biography of a then-living person and framed the thinking that went into it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trialpears: I have added that one manually to quite a few articles. Are you saying that you want to set things up so that adding Category:Living people automatically adds the edit notice? Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case it's already added to every page in Category:Living people. My suggestion is a template adding pages to another category such as Category:Non-BLP pages using BLP disclaimer. All pages in this category would also have {{BLP editintro}} applied by MediaWiki:Common.js. You can add it to individual pages editnotices, but that wouldn't be a scalable solution since editnotices are template protected and we currently have 3000 {{BLPO}} disclalimers that I would like converted to an edit notice. --Trialpears (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above discussion. Ergo Sum 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose consolidation or deletion. The two templates serve subtly different purposes, with different statements, and it's not unusual for editors to misunderstand that an article that is not a BLP may still may have BLP issues. For example, an article about a murder is by definition not a BLP, but BLP issues are applicable in how it describes current or past suspects; investigators; or family members.
The categorization to Category:Biography articles of living people, already pointed out, is also a material difference, and we shouldn't rely on an article being within the scope of {{WikiProject Biography}} to do that lifting. There may be articles that are not strictly BLPs that may be of interest to that WikiProject; and there may be BLPs that for whatever reason are not of interest to that wikiproject. (You can argue that maybe they should be, but unless a WikiProject Biography member feels it is, it doesn't get tagged.)
I agree there's a problem with the current wording of {{BLP others}}; but the appropriate way to address that is to update that text, not to merge it. If it's merged, editors editing non-BLP articles with BLP issues will face the Hobson's choice of either taking the {{BLP}} template and misleadingly labeling the article as a BLP, with a misleading warning to that effect; or leaving it off completely without the appropriate warning that BLP considerations still apply. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is is possible? Sure. Is it desirable? Not in my opinion. The two templates serve different purposes, and there's no benefit to combining them. While it reduces the number of templates, you'll either have to multiply the complexity of the using the template by coding into it the two different uses, which users will then have to know; and if you make the same text serve both, it will be so opaque as to be useless. My take is that {{BLP others}} should set out clearly why BLP issues apply to the article despite its not being a BLP; and {{BLP}} should not. I really see no benefit to combining them.
Nor is categorization actually aside. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until full consideration is given to the consequences of this (especially given how widely this template is used - I came here from a notice at the top of {{BLP}}). The arguments about using the {{WikiProject Biography}} template miss an important point: not everyone knows about that template or the WikiProject. There needs to be a degree of separation between 'BLP' and the tools used to aid that important policy, and the WikiProject Biography set-up. Also, you may be surprised to know just how many people and BLP articles lack 'WikiProject Biography' templates. You still get BLP articles that lack the category 'Living people'. You cannot rely on BLP articles being tagged, and having several ways to do this tagging is actually a feature, not a bug, as it makes it more likely that BLPs eventually get tagged. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Some more good points here about how the current set-up is not ideal. I think this conversation should be the start of a wider discussion about when and how we show BLP notices, because it's clear that the real issue is not really just about these templates. SFB 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging or deletion, per reasoning of User:TJRC above. Perhaps the wording could be improved, but the two templates should both remain in place separately, IMO. Clearly the BLPO template is not required on biographies of long-dead historical figures (like the aforementioned example of George Washington), but may be needed in articles about recent homicides or mysterious deaths, etc. Muzilon (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per largely per Tbhotch and Muzilon's !votes above. While BLP and BLPO have some overlap, the former is in regards to biographies of living people, while the latter is in regards to other articles that contain material relating to living subjects. My full respect to the editor who made the remark, the the !vote that proposes that the two templates should be deleted is a bad proposal and a mistake Wikipedia should not make, as WP:BLP is a key aspect to editing that editors should be aware of, which these templates help in. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Inter&anthro.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate to one template through either deletion or merger.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:BLP is a strict policy in terms of what can or can not be placed into an article. If the info in question is about a section of said article then the policy would only apply to the section. My opinion is that the BLP template is too broad if used to cover an entire article with a passing mention of a living person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason given for consolidation. {{BLP}} adds pages to Category:Biography articles of living people while {{BLP others}} doesn't. I am far from certain that all biographical articles are tagged with {{WikiProject Biography}}, and it seems like a bad idea to rely on a project for categorisation in any case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason given was redundancy since the two templates have almost the same wording. Are there many (any?) biography articles tagged with {{BLP}} but not {{WikiProject Biography}}? The documentation itself says: It is preferred that the banner template be used instead of direct application of {{BLP}}. PC78 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I like the idea of doing away with them but we have eternal September and people need warning. The slight differences are important, if a template guru wants to drive that difference by the same mechanism that is used then that is fine. I am concerned that we end up0 with this on every talk page, since as Koavf says above, there's unlikely to be many articles that don't mention a living person in some way, even if that's an author or researcher. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose merger and/or deletion. Both templates serve a useful purpose and both serve a subtly different purpose. They should both be kept as separate templates. Safiel (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Appears that a discussion needs to occur first about the use of the BLP templates before any merger/deletion proposals. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:35, 4 October 2019 (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:ARP

[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template used to link to dead website Aireport in see also sections. Linking to an archive would be useless since the information would be outdated. There has been a previous nomination before the website closed down at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Template:ARP with outcome procedural keep. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and delete. The site does seem to be defunct, and I concur there is not much value in linking to an archive since the external link would properly imply current information. --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (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:AWBBot

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for deprecated process. --Trialpears (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 18 September 2019 (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/2019_September_18&oldid=1251528159"