Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23 edit

Template:WikiProject Violin Notification 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Violin Notification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject Violin does not exist anymore. Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. No longer needed to notify anyone, but should be substituted so the recipients don't lose the info as to what they were notified about. --RL0919 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2013 (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:TalkPage2 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TalkPage2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. {{Talk header}} is well-established. Any suggestions and changes can be done there. Magioladitis (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2013 (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:MOS-TRANS 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. Regarding the post-relist comments, any proposal to merge other templates to this one should be proposed separately and the relevant templates tagged. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MOS-TRANS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the more used Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM templates. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) During the discussion about whether or not to delete MOS-TW, some users expressed the concern that MOS-TW misrepresented policy. (Indeed it does: it says "names and pronouns" where policy says "nouns and pronouns"; see Template talk:MOS-TW.) This template (MOS-TRANS) was created to quote the policy verbatim and in that way avoid misrepresentation. It was also intended that a single template would be unable to fall out of sync with itself, whereas MOS-TW and MOS-TM have spent most of their existences out-of-sync with each other because edits are made to one but not the other. For those reasons, I think it would make more sense to keep MOS-TRANS and delete MOS-TW and MOS-TM. -sche (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it says "names and pronouns" where policy says "nouns and pronouns" So could someone just WP:FIXIT on the TW and TM templates? I don't understand what the Trans template has that the two others do not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion for fixing is in progress at Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" → "nouns". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sche the problem is already being worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can see the need for a gender-neutral version of {{MOS-TW}} and {{MOS-TM}} for genderqueer people who prefer neither male nor female pronouns, but that's not the niche this template covers. I'd also be happy with rewriting as a gender-neutral version of those templates. —me_and 12:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and delete {{MOS-TW}}/{{MOS-TM}}. Amended after further consideration; I don't see the need for the duplication, but I think this template, with its direct quoting of the MOS, is preferable. We can set up MOS-TW/MOS-TM as redirects to this template, too, which doesn't work the other way around. —me_and 10:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template was being created to replace both the TW andTM ones with an added bonus that we could use it to reflect something appropriate for a gender and gender queer people. That can still happen. No need to throw out the work that has taken place so far. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find it in poor fast that the nominator replaced all many or all of the instances of this template with their preferred version. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a really useful observation, thank you. It does question the nom's assertion that this template is the less-used version. —me_and 10:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's less used because we were still working on how to make it all work. To our credit neither Sche or I pushed the template and we were trying to be mindful of all the Chelsea Manning fallout. What should happen is that we work to find ways to get it so we only need one template, that has variables for trans men, trans women, possibly both represented in one article. a variable for gender queer - which is an emerging concern, and a "I have no idea" option template that gives basic but relevant information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I removed them for being WP:POV. Aside from the notaforum bit the template duplicates everything that is in the TW and TM templates as quoted from MOS:IDENTITY. The last bit "This means that trans women should be referred to as "she", and trans men should be referred to as "he", throughout all phases of their lives." is disputed and missing the last bit (Unless the preference is stated otherwise) In addition, per consensus here Template talk:MOS-TW#Removal of possible WP:POV statement the bit about not a forum for such and such was determined to be WP:POV so this can be seen as a way of skirting around consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I recall was a few editors working the issue forward and a few editors who were on the 'Bradley' side of the Manning dispute throwing wrenches into the process generally driving others away. The core issue remains that we should have one stable template rather than two, and any POV issues can of course be worked out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The complaint that MOS-TRANS fails to say "Unless the preference is stated otherwise" is disingenuous, given that that line was only added to MOS:IDENTITY two days ago, after both the most recent edit to the template and the opening of this request for deletion. Above, it was suggested that the failure of MOS-TW and MOS-TM to correctly paraphrase MOS:IDENTITY was a simple WP:FIXIT issue; that MOS-TRANS does not yet reflect a change to MOS:IDENTITY that was made only two days ago seems equally easy to fix. Indeed, I've just fixed it. -sche (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: -TM and -TW are not suitable where multiple trans individuals are discussed, unless they happen to be of the same gender. Also, I see no need for those two if we keep this one. —Frungi (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that the wording of MOS:IDENTITY is still disputed, I really don't think it is appropriate to have a template pointing to that disputed language. I would say the same about Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a clean-up issue. The point remains is that it's more efficient to have one template for all the uses rather than two which have not been in synch. In theory the wording on all would be consistent or explain why they are not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it would be preferred to delete them now and re-create them after the IDENTITY discussion is settled? I respectfully disagree. —Frungi (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would be preferred is to not have any templates that give disputed advice and instruction. First settle what the policy is, then create a template based on that settled policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The policy currently stands. If the policy changes, then we can make changes to the template based on those changes. However it is still a current policy, and what we do needs to reflect current policy, not how it may change in future. —me_and 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no such policy; only a section in a guideline that has been shown not to have consensus anyway. This template misleads people thinking that they have to follow a "rule" which is not in fact a rule, just something that one group of editors would like to be a rule. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template serves to turn some terrible and non-consensus advice into a terrible and non-consensus instruction. Editors who want to apply common sense rather than follow ill-thought-out and politically-motivated "rules" should not have this sort of thing thrust in their faces. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's preferred to fix them with the least amount of drama. Unfortunately - like much of the Manning drama - some editors feel that their view of a binary gender world is a fact, despite evidence to the contrary. This trans template is designed to replace the -TW and -TM ones. Like all content, the prose can be improved and reworked as needed. All these templates are to quell the onslaught of disruptive talk page comments dehumanizing trans* people. Let's keep that in mind. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those other templates should be deleted as well. The advice they cite is simply wrong (in my opinion), and in any case has been shown in protracted discussion not to enjoy consensus. The advice should be (especially if we want to fight against a binary-gender world view, which the current templates merely perpetuate) should be to avoid gendered words wherever possible in such cases, and not to use misleading ones so as to make the person feel better. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were created for and still, unfortunately, serve to limit disruption from reasonable editors. The purpose is to make plain and accessible the best practices on Wikipedia. Good writing sometimes leads to making decisions how to present information and one common mistake is to eliminate all gendering on BLPs which is often bad writing. Likewise trans* articles get a tremendous amount of hostile vandalism so this is to help editors know where to turn for assistance. Some form of these template is still needed for the foreseeable future. My hope is that we can have one template with several options - as is generally common - rather than two templates that are out of synch with each other. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Before the Chelsea Manning controversy, we would occasionally put either {{MOS-TM}} or {{MOS-TW}} on pages like Talk:Chaz Bono, Talk:Roberta Cowell or Talk:Fallon Fox, and nobody seemed to mind much. We'd still get people going through the article exchanging he/she every six months or so, but after a revert and a note to "please see talk page", they'd desist. Talk:Chelsea Manning is the only case where not only did this approach not work, but the addition of {{MOS-TW}} was itself reverted with fire and brimstone. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • These problems arise precisely because the advice the templates give is entirely wrong. As noted, the binary point of view of gender is insufficient for these cases, and the use of either he or she (or other gendered words) is likely to be confusing or just plain wrong. The advice should be to try to avoid such words altogether in the case of such persons (in nearly all cases it is possible to do this). Then everyone's happy, apart from those whose purpose is to abuse Wikipedia to make various political points. Oh, you say this is sometimes "bad writing", and I agree it usually ends up sounding a bit odd or stilted, but that's a far lesser evil than being misleading, which is what you are if you specify a gender (and particularly if you specify the gender that seems inapplicable at the time being written about). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually that is precisely what this template will be corrected to: that it will offer options for trans men, trans women, both at the same time, and neither (a gender and gender-queer). All variables from the same stable template. Rather than having only a he or she template option that have traditionally been not in such with each other. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You seem to be talking about a different kind of option. Seems to me that once the options have been set by the template-placer, the template will actually be appearing to dictate a particular choice of option. Basically just to bully editors who may have better ideas about how to convey information to readers in a given situation. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The only reasons these templates exist is because the non-stop gender switching anions who turn every "she" into a "he" on trans women articles. Ideally we wouldn't need a template to state the obvious but real world experience shows us that a template like this is needed, that plainly states - this article is a bout a trans woman and she is to be referred to as such. It's common decency. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)be[reply]
  • Keep MOS-TRANS is more versatile than MOS-TM and MOS-TW. If anything, get rid of MOS-TM/W (which only work for some trans people) and use MOS-TRANS for everyone. MaxHarmony (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tentative "reverse" merge - I would prefer having only one template for all of these issues. It could have parameters to customize for TW or TM, if needed. I don't care which template that is. The others could then be deleted for redundancy. If policy changes, only one template would need to be updated. A merge may still not be easy to implement at this time, though. —PC-XT+ 23:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what this template is designed to be - the one template for all uses. It's to replace the MOS-TW and MOS-TM. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I agree that it would make more sense to delete those and keep this one. —PC-XT+ 00:10, 26 November 2013 (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:Right-wing and nationalist parties in the European Union 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Right-wing and nationalist parties in the European Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary mishmash that now includes both moderately right-wing parties like UKIP, right-wing populist parties like Party for Freedom, neo-Nazis like Golden Dawn, neofascists like Social Alternative and other openly far-right parties like JOBBIK. Totally useless, arbitrary, much room for disruption Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These parties have nothing in common apart from being 'right-wing'. But if so, the Conservative Party UK or Democratic Unionist Party should also be included as they're kind of 'right-wing', too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the parties once belonged to Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty, which was a political group in the European Parliament composed of 23 members from European parties variously described as right-wing and nationalist. If some of the parties outside of that group bother you, please remove or add and improve the template Right-wing and nationalist parties in the European Union. Olsonspterom (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, how are you going to define the inclusion criteria. E.g. if you created Template:Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty, then there would be objective basis for inclusion. But the template would still not be very relevant for today's perspective. Also, Ataka and PRM are avowedly far-right parties, something that PVV is not, let alone UKIP. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are very knowledgeable about the topic Right-wing, far-right and nationalist parties in the European Union. That is why it will be a good idea if you have time to improve this template or even if you want to create new one in order to be more comprehensive and accurate. To be honest I am not that knowledgeable in that area (Right-wing, far-right and nationalist parties in the EU) and I think you can help me in this to group them correctly.Olsonspterom (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbitrary template that groups neo-nazis with right wing parties. Nymf (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better if you try to help me with the template to include (only Right-wing and nationalist parties in the European Union) instead of deleting it? I removed the Far-right oriented parties in question here. Olsonspterom (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template. Olsonspterom (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Template:Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty for the inclusion criteria, unless a better criteria can be found. —PC-XT+ 23:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too broad to be useful as anything right of centre could be included. --Nug (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an incomplete, undefined and selective template which is better replaced by existing templates, such as EU parliament far-right blocks, or far-right in each country Tátótát (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (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:AbortionAIDNom 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AbortionAIDNom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 transclusion and WikiProject is defunct. Magioladitis (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template for a collaboration that hasn't been active since 2007. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2013 (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:39TPH 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:39TPH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have {{Not a forum}}. I don't understand why need a much larger box especially when it is placed in pages like Talk:List of teams in The 39 Clues: Revision history where there has been no discussion in the last 3 years. Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (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:Histrefeval 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Histrefeval (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of an inactive WikiProject. Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2013 (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:Weider History Group 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weider History Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to just two articles. ...William 16:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems to link three articles? but, no parent article, so I can see deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2013 (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:WPHinduismPeerreview 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPHinduismPeerreview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It can be replaced with {{Old peer review}}. Too few transclusions and categorisation does not bring anything IMO. Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2013 (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:Oldhwypeerreview 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. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldhwypeerreview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It can be replaced with {{Old peer review}}. Too few transclusions and categorisation does not bring anything IMO. Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2013 (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:Infobox religious leader 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. Unused and redundant. RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox religious leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have Template:Infobox religious biography for biographies of all religious leaders. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2013 (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:Plame 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. Unused and redundant. RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template isn't used in any articles and has been superseded by Template:Plame affair. —Neil 04:45, 23 November 2013 (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/2013_November_23&oldid=1078570526"