Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23

Template:R from Twitter username

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 speedy keep. No one is making any arguments that this template is doing a poor job of adding pages to Category:Redirects from Twitter usernames, or an argument that we shouldn't be using a template for populating this category. TFD isn't an appropriate venue for category discussion, since it potentially attracts a different crowd. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 25 for a deletion discussion for the category, and please remember to comment only on the idea of having a category for these redirects, since comments about the redirects themselves are irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from Twitter username (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Redirects from Twitter usernames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Posting this for deletion per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Mass creation of Twitter username redirects and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Twitter accounts as redirects. I am neutral in this discussion (though I am the creator) and am posting this discussion to prevent further discussion forks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(@Drmies, There'sNoTime, Dlohcierekim, Godsy, Paine Ellsworth, Kusma, Onel5969, Compassionate727, Legacypac, Davey2010, Wumbolo, and R64Q: Pinging all involved editors thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as not helpful. It encourages the creation of twitter handle redirects which we should not be doing except in extraordinary circumstances like where the twitter account has it's own article. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
neutral has/had uses. not sure it's all bad. merely misused.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LP & nom - I personally don't see the point in these as anyone would just search for the persons name as opposed to @Name ...... This would be appropriate for Twitter but for here ? ... not so much. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless we also delete every redirect from a Twitter handle. Otherwise this serves a purpose. It can be reworded to discourage/warn against the creation of redirects within its scope and left to categorize the already existing ones. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. IMO, twitter handle redirects should not exist, which makes this category pointless. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is implausible to suggest that even notable Twitter handles discussed in their target article, such as @realDonaldTrump, would be deleted. Therefore, this template will continue to serve a purpose, and should not be deleted. bd2412 T 01:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. If the subject has a Wikipedia article, the name of the subject or sufficiently close standard variations of it is already sufficient as a search term (our search engine is now actually quite good). I really can't imagine anyone using the '@' sign in a search string, and articles such as Trump have links to all the other pages concerning them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as a single redirect of this nature exists, this category serves a purpose. A note that such redirects shouldn't be created en masse or indiscriminately may be due. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 24#Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful redirect category template and its category and redirects are also useful, the redirects as search terms, since yes, people who know about Twitter usernames will know to use the @ sign when they type the username into a search field. If they don't use the @ sign, they'll get where they want to go, and if they do use the @ sign, they'll get where they want to go. This hopefully explains why these redirects are very useful just as any good search term is useful. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 03:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If people went to the extra effort to type the @ sign instead of just the person's name, wouldn't they be expecting to find an article on the person's twitter account rather than the person in general? I can think of very few twitter accounts notable enough for their own article. Natureium (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, if people know a person's or company's Twitter username, they would probably expect to be taken to an article about the person or company, and that's precisely where they would be taken. And what extra effort? It takes no more effort to type the @ sign than it does to type a capital letter or an asterisk. Anybody used to a keyboard would type in the @ sign as semi-consciously as they type in the C and K in Clark Kent, wouldn't they? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 04:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful categorisation that explains why there is an @ sign. —Kusma (t·c) 07:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are multiple redirects from twitter handles that are useful (which there are) then this is a useful categorisation template. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and a HTH. Miniapolis 23:39, 24 June 2018 (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:Oscar Nominated Best Film Editing 90th Academy Awards

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. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oscar Nominated Best Film Editing 90th Academy Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excessive templating, very few items to link. Since when do we have boxes for nominees in only one Oscar category for only one year? Ribbet32 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 00:59, 25 June 2018 (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:PEN

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. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used on one page, doesn't really serve a purpose Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 00:59, 25 June 2018 (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:SingSing

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 2018 July 1. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Disputed chem

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 keep. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed chem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has not been used in a very long time, has 0 non-demo transclusions, and the category it populates has been empty for a long time. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely no reason for why this couldn't be used again. That old problems have been cleaned up is no reason to make future problems impossible to flag. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above and cleanup categories can be empty (even forever). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 12:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbomb and Dreamy Jazz ^TOMASTOMAS_TOMAS 🆃🅰🅻🅺 01:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maintenance templates like this, which are supposed to identify problems, often appear unused. This doesn't mean no-one is using them, it just means that all the current problems have been fixed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:22, 29 June 2018 (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).