Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

[edit]

Template:NaturalEventHurricane

[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⚡ 02:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused disclaimer template. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 1 September 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:Source assess table

[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 Snow keep (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violates a neutral point of view. This template seems to be designed for use in deletion discussions. The use of the template requires specific knowledge and puts undue weight on the arguments of the editor using the template. It prevents new editors or editors who do not know how to use the template to effectively participate in the discussion and adds undue authority to the argument presented in the template. In short, it causes lopsided arguments in discussions where it is used. There appears to be some reference and usage through User:DannyS712/SATG that may be of some help while assessing. (I'm somewhat sad because I do believe it is an elegant template and some good work and thought has gone into it....) Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as to whether it should be deleted or not, but if it is I suggest substituting existing uses to ensure context is not lost in discussions --DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep (as template creator). This is a completely absurd argument. There is nothing inherent to the template that gives its user "undue authority" – on the contrary, if the assessments are flawed or erroneous, the table makes it that much easier for the subsequent discussion to zero in on exactly where they went wrong. The table is by no means a requirement for participation in AfDs, nor does it purport to carry a weight greater than its contents would carry in prose – and it explicitly includes a disclaimer to that effect. Anyone disagreeing with a source assessment is free to say so, including adding a differing assessment table of their own – like all templates, there is a documentation page explaining its use in detail, and if that isn't enough, User:DannyS712/SATG makes it utterly simple to create an assessment table. And again, and this is key, there is no need to use this table to participate in the discussion or to have one's comments count towards the result, nor any reason to imagine that would be the case. If an assessment table is effective in AfD discussion, it is because it promotes careful, consistent application of the inclusion criteria, which everyone should be striving toward anyway, whether they use a table or prose. If an AfD commenter, to say nothing of a closer, has no familiarity with WP:GNG, and can't comprehend that a table format doesn't lend special weight, they have no business being involved with AfDs to begin with. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with providing a consistent format for assessing sources that puts WP:GNG front and center where it belongs. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/snow keep I can't even comprehend this nomination. This is widely used and isn't otherwise against policy. It is absurd to me to think that any experienced editor, much less an administrator would think that everyone who reads the SA table or more specifically the closer, would be unable to put due weight on arguments. This is a tool to help assess sources. It isn't a super vote. I suggest a trout and a speedy close of this nom. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: Speedy keep and snowball keep are outcomes, not !votes. I'm assuming you had good intentions, but using them as a !vote does not WP:AGF of the nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous. Speedy keeps are used all the time in XFDs. This has nothing to do with AGF. Further speedy keeps are also applied to wildly misguided nominations, as this one is (both misguided and absurd.) It's possible to still AGF while pointing out that a nomination has no basis in policy. Praxidicae (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I get the point that a new user might be intimidated because they don't know how to do that themselves, but how much more intimidating is it to be voting contrary to a sysop, or someone with a Rhodium Senior Editor III star on their user page :P? Seriously, the presentation of arguments in a table gives them no special weight, anyone competent to be closing AfD discussions would know that, and it is far less intimidating than the blue-linked acronym soup that's usually spilled over an AfD discussion, or indeed the hostile atmosphere that frequently develops. (Is there an XfD page where I can nominate hostility at AfD for deletion?) GirthSummit (blether) 13:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As of now. There's no expectation that deletion discussions have a neutral point of view, insomuch as the whole idea is that participants ultimately take a side. I understand the point that, if it discourages participation, it is irrelevant that our closers wouldn't give it undue weight, because the damage is done already. However, I don't know how one would show conclusively that it discourages others from participating in a discussion. I would want to see more support for that argument before taking it as a given and, at the least, some anecdotal evidence. The disclaimer contained in the template offers some mitigation. Adding to the template documentation to explain the template to new users, and then linking to it from the template's uses, would also help make it more accessible and less intimidating. I'm leaning toward improvement over deletion to resolve these concerns. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to note that there is already detailed documentation, such that anyone who knows how to use any template should be able to use this one, and the template (and thus its documentation) is already linked from its uses. I'm certainly open to more ease-of-use improvements, just want to be clear that the two you suggest are already in place. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment-here’s what they template looks like on an iPhone:

Not very usable. If it can be improved that would be good.—Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm assuming you can scroll to see the rest, but the scaling is a limitation of tables generally on small/mobile screens, not this template specifically. --Bsherr (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I had a request for a default collapse for the table which was addressed by Swpb on their talk page. I think the table serves a very useful purpose. A !voter would have to substitute a wall of text to serve the same purpose as the table does now, to make a point. I understand that some users maybe reluctant to use scripts, but closers always give equal weight to all arguments. No reason to believe otherwise. The table also has disclaimers explicitly stating that This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor and a hide option too. - hako9 (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This nomination is based upon personal opinion, and no specific evidence has been presented that this skews AfD discussions one way or another. It is a useful and functional template that provides an organized means to assess sources one way or another, either to qualify article retention or deletion. Lastly, that some users may not understand how to use the template is not a valid rationale for deletion. Otherwise, using this rationale, if a new editor was unable to understand how to, for example, add inline citations to articles using citation templates, then the citation templates would then erroneously qualify for deletion. North America1000 14:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep: A widely used template on AfD. Nominator has been participating in various mall AfD's where this has been effectively used to demonstrate non-notable sourcing, so they do not have a neutral point of view about this. This is a very useful template and the SA Table Generator script is very helpful in making it easy to use.   // Timothy :: talk  07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paulmcdonald, It's very usable for everyone. SA Table Generator script makes it extremely easy to use.   // Timothy :: talk  07:05, 5 September 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:Bradshaw

[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⚡ 02:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template, now orphaned, is linking to individual page scan on Wikisource; instead we should link to the rendered version of the work there, like this:

  • March 1843 Timetable . Bradshaw's Guides – via Wikisource.

using {{cite Wikisource}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 1 September 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:Kavala F.C. 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 delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only red links. Alex (talk) 19:34, 1 September 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:Technical non-redirect

[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⚡ 02:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hatnote. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:04, 1 September 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:Timeline row

[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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template doc says it should be replaced with {{Simple Horizontal timeline}} and has only 5 transclusions left. Replace the last and delete it. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 1 September 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:R2

[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 2020 September 16. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 16 September 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:Fermi paradox

[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) 00:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided. A template may work, but not like this. Requires discussion at Talk:Fermi paradox. jps (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to user space. Moscowdreams (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP

I removed the extra sections, the template now looks like this:

Which includes only the information from the "see also" section of the Fermi paradox page:

== See also ==

Moscowdreams (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two of those links from the article's See also section as irrelevant (Olbers' paradox and Time travel). And given that that section already lists related topics, the navbox still serves no purpose, as I said above. Crossroads -talk- 03:25, 2 September 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:Import

[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:Expand language. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Import with Template:Expand language.
Same template - both tell the reader that the article may be expanded with text from an article in another language. Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vague recollection is that this was a start at merging the various "expand" templates into a single template, but i abandoned it after reaching the limits of my technical abilities. It might be better if they were all merged into a single template, but someone other than me would need to finish the job! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that those should be merged as well. --Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 1 September 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_September_1&oldid=978620356"