Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26[edit]

Template:Article list[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 restrict to non-article (and by extension, non-template) space for the time being. There is no consensus on whether it should be deleted outright, but enough concerns about its use in the article space (specifically for template-updating purposes and page loading issues) to restrict its use. There is no prejudice against re-examining this template in the future (as the creator intends to start a larger discussion about the matter). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I am generally a fan of Wikidata, I don't think this template is a good idea. There are a couple reasons:

  1. It basically makes the wikitext unreadable in navboxes, which will make it difficult to trivially update specific navboxes (to wit, "add to")
  2. Because it uses the wrapper template (generally a fine idea), it adds to the processing time of most uses, when (huge) navboxes are already often the cause of processing time issues.
  3. Because it fetches info from Wikidata, this also adds to the time needed to render and use navboxes on arbitrary pages.

I accept that it might be valuable to have a solution to the 'redirect in navboxes' problem and have something to that effect in my own CSS (that colors such links red and styles italic), but I don't think this is the way to go. Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I genuinely believe this template/module has tangible benefits. (Please clarify, Izno, if you are nominating the module too or just the wrapper template?) It is currently in a limited trial after which I will initiate discussion before deploying further. Deletion would prevent this process. For those unfamiliar, the benefits are:

  • Automatic sorting of links alphabetically
  • Automatic update of link when article is moved
  • Automatic removal of link if article is deleted
  • Automatic display of link if article is created. For example, you could load up QIDs of all lighthouses in Tanzania, and if/when those articles are created they will display on Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania, without any further action.

I accept that it makes the wikitext less readable, but I hope people will agree that this slight downside is outweighed by advantages above :) This method may be too soon for the enwiki community, but I suspect it is the way that all linking will happen sometime in the future because of its robustness and stability — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The module as well, the template doesn't exist without the module. Izno (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with MSGJ. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think that there are some good ideas behind this template/module, namely making it easier to keep lists of articles in navboxes up to date and, optionally, alphabetized. Using Wikidata IDs instead of article names makes the template basically unusable, however. If it could somehow perform the sorting and link-checking functions while preserving article names, perhaps with maintenance categories to track red links and page moves, that might be usable. I don't know if this means that the template should be kept because with some editing it can be saved, or if it needs to be wiped out and rethought. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate the concerns about wikicode readability, although I disagree that it makes the template "unusable". I have been including the article name in HTML comment (please see Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania for example) which certainly makes it easier to remove a link which is misplaced. There is also a helper module to automatically convert article names into QIDs and add the HTML comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to WP-space and talk pages. Per Jonesey95, it isn't very readable or accessible, so will discourage participation in Wikipedia, reducing the editor population, and potentially relagating Wikipedia to becoming Nupedia or Citizendium (ie. moribund) if this were to be rolled out across the board as being suggested -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • restrict to usage outside of articles and outside of templates transcluded in articles. the use of Wikidata IDs instead of article names is too obfuscated and makes editing much harder (in addition to the performance hit from all the wikidata queries). Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to WP:PERF? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the advice in WP:PERF doesn't fix the The time allocated for running scripts has expired. at the foot of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada due to the reasons outlined in Wikipedia:Template limits. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template limit problems are probably fixable with {{Template cache}} (and definitely is with some bot improvements that I could do). --Trialpears (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to get a few more opinions on whether this should be restricted to non-article space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with its "module" and any other stuff it uses, this seems an absolutely terrible idea. I took a look at Template:Lighthouses in Tanzania and to edit it (add a lighthouse) I not only have to open the template to see what it contains, I see that I'd have to find out how to mess around with Wikidata in order to edit list Q123456789 or whatever which is a component of the main template. What!!! That's crazy: the proposal basically drives even experienced editors from fixing such templates. I'm sorry but you can't expect us all to go into such details of programming, not to mention tricky design; nor can you expect to be the sole curator and guardian of a template, which is the alternative. This is not acceptable; I'm not sure that the comment above about making Wikpedia as moribund as Citizendium is quite fair, but it is genuinely a move in that direction, and we should urgently resist such dangerous nonsense now. To sum up: this template (and its module, wrapper, any other incomprehensible clutter that goes with it) does not immediately destroy the Wiki, but it lays an axe to the root of the tree, and the whole tree shakes and is weakened by it. This is a move sharply down the slippery slope to an unmaintainable, unmaintained, Wikipedia, and we must reverse it immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikidata has many additional problems, (including trying to learn how to edit it). It doesn't have edit summaries, so you can't tell anyone why something changed. Editing Wikidata seems to require memorization of what fields are allowed in which parts of what interface, as something popping up in the selection box as a selectable class doesn't mean it actually works. And properties that should be assignable to some field as subfields don't work that way. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (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:User VRT-Wiki[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:User VRT. Izno (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User VRT-Wiki with Template:User VRT.
Template:User VRT-Wiki should be merged here. They are essentially templates for the same purpose, except for the option to link to a wiki page. I would add a "wiki" parameter and redirect Template:User VRT-Wiki to here. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Makes sense to use a parameter here. Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2022 (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:2009 International League - North Division standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single used score tables which are only used at 2009 International League season. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2022 (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:2009 Pacific Coast League American North standings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single used score tables which are only used at 2009 Pacific Coast League season. Should be subst there and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2022 (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:Cite Aviation Safety Network[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad creation. Usage removed by author here. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author did not need a new template for what he was trying to do, and he's stopped using it anyway. Rlink2 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2022 (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:Swearing[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODISCLAIMERS; there is a general consensus against this type of template. Note that if this is deleted, Category:Pages that contain profanity should also be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have no need for this kind of puritanism. Plus, whose definition of profanity should we use? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as it is against the guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what counts as a swear word? See for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_swear_words. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my answer to Gonnym below. SummerKrut (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, baseless nomination without arguments. SummerKrut (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SummerKrut, please try harder. The nom and every delete voter provides or supports an argument, your “argument” is WP:IDONTLIKEIT] Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I don't see any actual arguments given by the nominator. Readers should be advised of what they are reading. SummerKrut (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is citing Wikipedia:No disclaimers not an argument? Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said before, readers should be advised of what they are reading. SummerKrut (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to propose that at the WP:village pump but Wikipedia:No disclaimers is an accepted guideline and your opinion doesn’t trump that. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. Wikipedia, the place where your edits will be removed and where no one is interested in your opinion. SummerKrut (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s an immature way to deal with your template being rejected, especially since I literally just directed you to a place (WP:village pump) that accepts broad scope proposals and changes to guidelines. You can also discuss at the guideline’s talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If preventing people from knowing about what they are going to read is a guideline then I don't even know what people accepted it. SummerKrut (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NODISCLAIMERS and related guidelines. SummerKrut (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which you have now withdrawn. That's certainly an acceptable action, but it speaks to there being no current discussion (let alone conclusion of consensus) to change the policy. If the policy stands, then how is it okay to have a template that seems to explicitly contrary to it? DMacks (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless template that blatantly goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the guideline arguments above, who decides what counts as profanity? What next, censor Breast and Sex? Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT. SummerKrut (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what WP:POINT means. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to understand basic policies and guidelines or coherently respond to questions is getting into WP:CIR territory. Dronebogus (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. WP:POINT is "when you discuss a subject, do not bring on other subjects just to illustrate how absurd the initial subject is". Also, "Your inability to understand basic policies and guidelines or coherently respond to questions is getting into WP:CIR territory" - WP:NPA. Comment on the subject, not the editor. SummerKrut (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the examples I’ve seen of POINT refer to engaging in behavior, not discussion. What Gonnym is doing here is basic Reductio ad absurdum Dronebogus (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR is not a personal attack. A personal attack is “you are an idiot”. CIR means “you have not shown sufficient proficiency in editing to be trusted to do it without causing unintentional disruption, and should reevaluate your behavior lest you get blocked” Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone is incompetent is a very serious personal attack, as you are discussing the user instead of the subject. Please, stop. SummerKrut (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to censor terms that have become abusive in talking, I agree - this would be absurd. I would only suggest applying "profanity" to where it is indeed swearing. Biological and other terms in such cases should not be touched. SummerKrut (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss this at the Village Pump. Your arguments currently hold no weight here because they require changing an established guideline, which is not what this debate is about. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My first question was who decides what counts as profanity? which you haven't answered. I'm pretty sure that my definition is completely different than yours. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "who decides what counts as profanity?" - The community. SummerKrut (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an intractable concept, and the community has already consensus'ed that this sort of thing generally cannot be resolved satisfactorily. As WP:PEREN for this template notes, It is impossible to draw a line between "offensive" and "non-offensive" content that satisfies all cultural, religious and political norms. Any page could conceivably be offensive to somebody. Furthermore, once a page has loaded, the disclaimer is often too late. Your example use-case of this template, at Russian warship, go fuck yourself is a great example of "too late". DMacks (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contrary to WP:NODISCLAIMERS; this template is a great example of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Content warnings, an idea that has consensus to reject. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we can WP:SNOW close this. There’s an overwhelming consensus against this not only here but among everyone who supports WP:no disclaimers. Extraordinary proposals require extraordinary support, which is not happening here. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Content disclaimer Wikipedia contains content which may be objectionable -- this applies to the entire site. Thus rendering this particular template redundant -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why hasn’t this been WP:Snow closed yet? If anything doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell it’s this. Dronebogus (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2022 (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/2022_March_26&oldid=1081175602"