Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 12
December 14 >

December 13 edit

Template:2010–11 Bundesliga table edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per this discussion, these have now been merged with the parent season article with team season articles transcluding the parent. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SI multiples 2 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template was only used in a single article (kilowatt-hour). This template attempted to be able to control/eliminate "useless" higher multiples of SI units/prefixes (cf. {{SI multiples}}, which always shows multiples up to 10±30, which is honestly useless for real-world usage for things like kilowatt-hours). But note "Example 2" in this template's documentation, where the hidden column that creates "two tables" visually, continues through the footer row. This isn't fixable without rewriting this template as a Lua module (because it requires knowing a priori a variable rowspan at the start, before knowing how many rows are being suppressed).

The original version of this template, {{SI multiples}}, is only transcluded in about 30 articles. This version was forked a long time ago, hasn't kept up with additional rows added to the original, and hasn't been edited since 2015. This template is not needed.  — sbb (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see the technical problem cited about the divider height, but I agree that we don't need the special markup. All SI-prefixed units are technically meaningful, even if they are hardly used (e.g. 1 exasecond is longer than the current age of the universe). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: the divider: the narrow empty "column" that divides the left 'Submultiples' "table" from the right "Multiples" is a cell with rowspan=12. But if the table transclusion parameters cause some rows to not be printed, then the rowspan would need to be reduced accordingly, so the left & right cell borders of that empty fake column don't extend through the summary row.  — sbb (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see a difference now: There is no bottom on the reduced table's fake divider. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AI-generated notification edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 15:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be three AI-related templates at the moment. {{AI-generated}} is a maintenance tag for an article that was probably generated by AI and needs cleanup, which seems like a great template. This gives us a way to flag these for cleanup and gives us a category for tracking these. {{AI-generated notification}} is for tagging an article talk page that AI text was used in the article. {{OpenAI}} is probably an attempt to comply with possible copyright issues that might arise from using AI-generated text.

I am nominating {{AI-generated notification}} today, and I find it problematic for a couple reasons. 1) It is possibly redundant to {{AI-generated}}. For example, it could lead to a situation where articles with AI issues show up in two categories instead of one, or they have one tag or the other or both instead of just one tag. 2) It telegraphs to editors that AI/LLM-assisted editing is OK, which I don't think is a good message to be sending. I view AI editing as lazy, prone to difficult-to-cleanup errors, and at the same level of perniciousness as a WP:CCI. It's only a matter of time before we catch an experienced editor mass-editing using AI, which results in a bunch of subtle factual inaccuracies and/or fake citations, and it will be a massive effort to clean up.

For the above reasons, I propose we delete {{AI-generated notification}}. I am not sure if this will achieve consensus, but I think it is time to put the question to the community via this TFD, before this template becomes widespread in its use. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Large language models, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that, {{AI-generated}} is used in articles, and is in low usage in 10+ pages, while {{AI-generated notification}} is used in talk pages. There is only one talk page that make use of this template, but its companion article itself doesn't has the AI-generated template. As most maintenance tags don't have notification equivalents for talk pages, I'm sure to delete this template. However, those who placed the AI-generated tag to article may not know this template, so the nominated template needs to be reconsidered. Toadette (Happy holiday!) 07:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the purpose of this template is not as a cleanup tag (which goes on the article) but to disclose/attribute AI use in the article that has since been cleaned up instead of removed, as in Artwork title. I would like to upgrade this template to show the specific diffs where AI was used. This would also allow WikiProject AI Cleanup to quickly find and review disclosed AI edits as they occur (experienced editors need to understand that if they want to try to use AI constructively, they must disclose that use, preferably in the edit summary and with this template). 3df (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it does not serve a prupose that is not accomplished with Template:OpenAI or Template:AI-generated, it is the least useful fo the three. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3df's comments suggest the purpose of this template is to act as a badge of shame for an article that has at any point been suspected of having AI-generated content in it (regardless of whether that suspicion is correct), even if that content was not problematic and/or any issues with it have been cleaned up. This is not compatible with policy as it stands, and would not be supported by what is currently proposed (which does not look to be heading for a clear consensus in favour). Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LaundryPizza03 Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:OpenAI edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be three AI-related templates at the moment. {{AI-generated}} is a maintenance tag for an article that was probably generated by AI and needs cleanup, which seems like a great template. This gives us a way to flag these for cleanup and gives us a category for tracking these. {{AI-generated notification}} is for tagging an article talk page that AI text was used in the article. {{OpenAI}} is probably an attempt to comply with possible copyright issues that might arise from using AI-generated text.

I am nominating {{OpenAI}} in this TFD. Like my nomination of {{AI-generated notification}} below, I am concerned about the following: 1) It is possibly redundant to {{AI-generated}} and {{AI-generated notification}}. For example, this template places its articles in the tracking category Category:OpenAI-written articles, but there are already categories such as Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts and Category:Articles generated by AI used by the two aforemenetioned templates. 2) It telegraphs to editors that AI/LLM-assisted editing is OK, which I don't think is a good message to be sending. I view AI editing as lazy, prone to difficult-to-cleanup errors, and at the same level of perniciousness as a WP:CCI. It's only a matter of time before we catch an experienced editor mass-editing using AI, which results in a bunch of subtle factual inaccuracies and/or fake citations, and it will be a massive effort to clean up.

For the above reasons, I propose we delete {{OpenAI}}. I am not sure if this will achieve consensus, but I think it is time to put the question to the community via this TFD, before this template becomes widespread in its use.

I am doing this as two TFDs for 1) WP:TRAINWRECK reasons and 2) perhaps the copyright angle will result in more keeps in this TFD (although it's also possible that copyright experts may come by and say that OpenAI doesn't meet the threshold of originality, or that machines don't need copyright attribution, and doesn't need a copyright notice. I am not sure. We will see). –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Large language models, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a copyright template. It does not serve a maintenance purpose. It came about through discussions on whether OpenAI's terms are something that can or can't simply be ignored when incorporating text generated by their products, and multiple editors believed that they can't, and that attribution is required. So this template was created in response. This was also discussed a bit, afterwards, on the template's talk page. I think it's like any other attribution template. It's initial, proof-of-concept, and still extant application is in the Artwork title article.—Alalch E. 16:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are LLMs available from other companies than OpenAI. I'm not sure how to handle the claim that this is intended for attribution purposes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that this is intended for attribution purposes you may handle by accepting that the claim is a true statement, because it comes from the creator of the template. I asked User:Whpq about how to handle the supposition that this is needed and appropriate for attribution purposes and he said that This looks okay, and is needed if somebody is going to copy AI generated text. So maybe defer to Whpq.—Alalch E. 18:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement about the need for attribution is based on Wikipedia:Public domain. Although public domain text is freely useable and there is no legal requirement for attribution, we do attribute the text so that the source is known and can be evaluated as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As for how to provide this attribution, perhaps it may be best to have a generic AI-generated text attribution template with parameters to identify which AI implementation was used to generate the text. If this does get deleted, attribution could still be done using Template:Source-attribution. However, I think a specific PD attribution template for AI-generated text would be more informative. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I can support Keep then – but it would have to remove a hardcoded reference to OpenAI in order to be generalizable in use. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: If the WP:LLMPOLICY RfC results in an outright ban, this template should absolutely be deleted because it presupposes allowability of policy-compliant LLM-assisted additions, and an outright LLM ban means that such additions should always be undone, meaning that there will never be a moment during which this template should be placed in any further articles (instead of placing the template, the responding editor should remove the LLM-originated content). Since it is correctly used in only one article, it could be substituted or its content could be recreated within that one article (Artwork title). But it is not especially certain that that will be the outcome of the RfC, so this TfD truly hinges on the outcome of the RfC and it should not be closed on-the-merits (keep/delete) before the RfC. Which is a procedural difficulty because an RfC lasts much longer than a TfD. So maybe procedurally close now and procedurally restart later after the RfC concludes and quote the whole discussion thus far in a new TfD which will be started after the RfC ends. —Alalch E. 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging participants to consider: @Novem Linguae and LaundryPizza03: withdraw, close, and remember to restart.—Alalch E. 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the input, but I disagree with a procedural close. I think this TFD should proceed as normal. If a policy passes after this TFD closes, then we can re-align everything later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just says that one or more unspecified authors of some unspecified text in the article takes full responsibility for the content they added. This is not useful and could mislead people into thinking that authors who did not use AI do not have full responsibility for their additions (which is obviously false). Even if some attribution requirement is introduced in the current RFC (which does not currently have a clear consensus) this template would not enable compliance with it so it would still be useless at best and misleading at worst (as it could imply a lack of need to attribute at the edit level). Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Greek and Latin metre edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar with no main article, no transclusions, no documentation, and no incoming links from discussions. Created in May 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this template had been created. It would be a good idea to add it to each of the articles in question. I don't think it should be deleted. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more links to the template, and will add it to the articles. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No main article. This makes it hard to know if all the entries are related to each other. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are TWO main articles, namely Latin prosody and Greek prosody, to which all the other articles in this template are related. So I can't see what you mean by "no main article". (There is also an article called List of classical meters, but it is incomplete, and doesn't include articles on items of prosody such as "anceps", so at present it's not particularly useful.) Now that this template has been added to all the articles concerned, it seems to me very useful, helping readers to navigate quickly to the topic they want. So I say it should be retained. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link on top of the sidebar is the name of the sidebar. It's a red link. Clearly, that is supposed to be the main article. Two main articles don't mean anything in terms of sidebars. Sidebars are for one topic. Latin and Greek prosody are two different subjects. If these are the two main articles, then the template should be split into two. One for the Latin and one for Greek. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the problem is that the sidebar title is a redlink, maybe this would work better as a navbox than a sidebar? It certainly seems like a reasonable grouping and navigational aid, to someone with no education in the western classics. Folly Mox (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I made a contribution to this thread yesterday but must have forgotten to press "Publish changes". I wanted to suggest that if it is necessary to have a main overarching article to cover the template, it would be easy to write one, for example by taking List of classical meters, adding a few introductory paragraphs, and renaming it. There wouldn't really be any point in splitting the template into two, since, apart from Metres of Roman comedy and a couple of others, more or less all the same articles apply to both languages. I like the idea of a sidebar, rather than a navbox (what's that? something at the bottom of the page?), not only because it speeds up navigation, but also because it draws readers' attention to articles they might otherwise not know existed, such as Latin rhythmic hexameter and Sotadean metre. So I think it should not be deleted, but if necessary, I will write a covering article with the title Latin and Greek metre. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the title of the template to "Greek and Latin metre" (since Greek comes first chronologically). There is now an article Greek and Latin metre to support the template, as well as transclusions to all the articles included in the template. There is now therefore no longer any reason why the template should be deleted and I request the deletion process to be halted. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox Ethnic conflict in West Darfur (2020-2022) edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 16:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the links are related to the War in Darfur. There is no separate conflict in West Darfur making it distinct from the Darfur conflict. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I created the campaignbox with the intention of creating a page for the post-war ethnic conflict in West Darfur, which is distinct from the 2003-2020 war. Jebiguess (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need an article first. Articles first, then a template connecting all the articles in the template if they are related to each other. Right now, there is no proof there is a separate conflict. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Userbox section edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2023 December 24. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Int:dot-separator edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. No template parameters, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Content is just a couple of characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has been intended for {{Navbox}}, to use as separators between x · y.
I was copying a few modules, and came across this template on MediaWiki, so thought it could be useful.
- I have no objection for deletion, just thought it to be useful. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  09:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is transcluded in User:Pppery/noinclude list but doubt it has a big impact. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  09:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With |listclass=hlist that already happens automatically, we don't need a template for that. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what you were looking for is MediaWiki:Dot-separator. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't needed in {{Navbox}}. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete "int" is for I18N internationalization of template names. Clearly all templates should be named in English on English Wikipedia, so this clearly is not an English Wikipedia template -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module'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/2023_December_13&oldid=1191612864"