Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17 edit

Template:Royal and noble ranks in Iran, Turkey, Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan 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:Royal and noble ranks of West, Central, Southern Asia, and North Africa. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Royal and noble ranks in Iran, Turkey, Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan with Template:Royal and noble ranks of West, Central, Southern Asia, and North Africa.
Just forked the latter from in-article code within the article Shah. Yet, seems like the now properly standalone sidebar could be merged with said preexisting sidebar? Cf. Template:Imperial, royal, noble and chivalric ranks. PPEMES (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Looks good to me. --Bsherr (talk) 03:16, 23 January 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:Aviation accidents and incidents in South Sudan 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just three links but one is at AFD[1] and looks headed to deletion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alas, not enough links. --Bsherr (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but personally I think it's fortunate that there aren't more links. buidhe 19:11, 22 January 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:Wartime propagandists 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. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were repeated concerns raised on the talk page of this template over the past several years about the POV bent of this template, mostly targeting propagandists throughout wartime history who were on the "losing side". No attempts were made to address these concerns. After thoroughly reviewing this template, I've come to the conclusion that it's hopelessly selective and it needs to go. WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bias issue aside, I think categorization is preferable to the navbox here. --Bsherr (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that was the other thing I noticed; the category was more comprehensive than the navbox.--WaltCip (talk) 16:56, 20 January 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:NBA roster statistics full 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 January 25. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:22, 25 January 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:Uncategorized 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:Uncategorized. Clear consensus to merge, but with some implementation notes. The editors carrying out the merge should be aware of Bearcat's points regarding a) the difference between the message that needs to be sent for stubs (stubs are auto-categorized by the stub templates but that doesn't count as category for our purposes) and the more general message and b) the need that any categorization tool which depends on the "uncategorized stubs" queue be updated to account for the merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uncategorized with Template:Uncategorized stub.
Seem to cover pretty much the same territory without a whole lot of utility. Moreover, the generality is better because pages are not usually stubs forever. People interested in the cross-section of these two templates can intersect the relevant categories with Special:Search or with WP:Petscan. Izno (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request procedural delay. Merge but with caution. I'm not wedded to the utility of separate templates here, and have often thought in the past that they could potentially be merged into one, but there are some process considerations that need to be carefully managed here. Historically, they were treated as separate templates for two reasons: firstly, editors who are unfamiliar with categorization rules have often mistaken template-transcluded stub categorization as a reason to remove the "uncategorized" template from an article even if it had no direct declarations of content categories, so the "uncategorized stub" template included the "in addition to a stub category" language in order to provide extra clarification that stub-template categories don't render an article properly categorized by themselves if the article still isn't in any content categories. That's not a fatal issue, because that language could simply be included in a merged template.
    But the second issue is the bigger deal: historically, there was considered to be a difference between "completely uncategorized articles", which were deemed higher priority for quick attention, and "stub-templated but otherwise content-uncategorized articles", which were deemed lower priority. So as a result, these two templates actually populate two completely separate maintenance queues: the first template places articles in an "Uncategorized from [Month]" category queue, while the second places articles in a separate "Uncategorized stubs from [Month]" queue. This is the issue that needs more careful attention, because the last time XFD messed with categorization project stuff without consulting with the categorization project first, it actually broke project tools that were depending on the old categories — and here too, if these templates are simply merged without careful attention, the "Uncategorized stubs" queue will be permanently depopulated by the merger if the template that populates it is deprecated, and thus runs the risk of breaking any tools that are depending on it.
    Again, I'm not wedded to the idea that these need to be two separate templates — and I'm not wedded to the idea that we need to maintain two separate queues for uncategorized stubs and uncategorized non-stubs either. The "priority" difference between the two types of articles isn't really significant enough to require two separate queues, and a merged template could simply include the language about stub templates. But there will need to be some attention paid to ensuring that important categorization project tools aren't depending on the "uncategorized stubs" queue and/or template before this moves forward, so that any merger doesn't break other things in the process. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I don't think the category being used by tools is a good reason to delay a TfD. We are used to handling complex mergers in the holding cell. It is difficult to start working on fixing potential tool issues before there is a consensus to merge. I have also notified WP:CATP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat: Serious question here, would a stub=yes parameter resolve that concern? If so, then it would be a proper merger, and not just a delete and redirect. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would certainly be an option, but I don't really see a pressing need to retain distinct "uncategorized" and "uncategorized stub" queues — other than taking some care to ensure that any automated tools that do depend on the stubs queue are reprogrammed or discontinued, I don't really see a compelling or important reason to actually retain a distinct stubs queue at all anymore. Stubs should really just be sorted into the same queue as all the other uncategorized articles, and don't need their own special process.
    In actual fact, for a variety of reasons stubs generally already end up in the regular queue more often than the dedicated stubs queue as it is: Twinkle has a checkbox option to tag an article as uncategorized, but not as an uncategorized stub, so if somebody's tagging with Twinkle the article just ends up in the regular uncategorized queue regardless of whether it's a stub or not; if a user is running through a large batch of uncategorized pages in AWB instead of just tagging a few articles individually, then it's not a productive use of their time to have to switch back and forth between two different templates, so with a couple of specific exceptions in special circumstances we generally just tag the page as "uncategorized" and ignore whether it's a stub or not; and some people will tag an article as uncategorized without even knowing that the uncategorized stubs template exists. So in truth, more or less the only time the "uncategorized stubs" template actually gets used is if (a) I'm tagging an article where I've had to convert the direct declaration of a stub category into an invocation of the stub template, since the "in addition to a stub category" language helps to clarify why I'm tagging an article as "uncategorized" while simultaneously removing a "category", or (b) somebody has already revert-warred me over the inclusion of the regular "uncategorized" template on a stub, in which case I'll switch to the "uncategorized stubs" template (due to the "in addition to a stub category" language) instead of just reverting their revert.
    But as a general rule, we already bother with the distinction between an "uncategorized stub" and an "uncategorized non-stub" far less than the existence of two separate queues would make it seem — so it's not really worth retaining the stubs queue or finding alternative ways to keep it populated by a merged template, I'm just asking for a bit of care around ensuring that any tools that are depending on the stubs queue have time to get reprogrammed. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Template:Uncategorized stub to Template:Uncategorized and improve the template's text to say that the article is not in any content categories and to explain that stub categories are not considered to be content categories. DexDor (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The duplicated category trees are not useful anymore with a priority distinction not being necessary when it isn't backlogged. If there is interest in the intersection between stubs and uncategorised pages it can still be found using WP:PETSCAN which would also give a more complete list. A stub parameter wouldn't be necessary either since the clause about stub templates is more confusing then it's worth with most people understanding that a stub category isn't sufficient. We obviously need to take care not to break anything when implementing the merger, but that shouldn't be an issue. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's another thing I should mention about why separate queues aren't really necessary anymore: since the WP:AFC process has really cut down quite a lot on the creation of new articles by non-established users who don't already know about the importance of categorizing articles, the queues simply don't backlog the way they used to anymore. I used to have to check the Untagged Uncategorized Articles toolserver daily, because there would always be at least 500 new uncategorized articles per day, but now I can usually let that slide for three or four weeks before the number of pages on it comes close to hitting 500 — and even then, at least 25 per cent of what I now see is pages that do have disabled categories on them, and thus just need to have their categories undisabled rather than being tagged as uncategorized. So the queue used to backlog six to nine months at a time, because the number of articles in it was so overwhelming — but now, it rarely if ever backlogs more than one month, and priority-sorting stubs vs. non-stubs has a lot less value than it might have a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or in any other way get rid of the {{uncategorised stub}}. I sort a lot of stubs, and usually do some cleanup of them while I'm there, but I don't often take the time to add categories, apart from birth/death/living people which I add along with DEFAULTSORT using {{subst:L}} when it's a biog: I leave that to someone else who chooses to spend their time adding categories, each to our own. I add {{uncat}} or {{CI}} as appropriate (often changing the former to the latter, when I've added birth/death/living cats). I never add {{uncategorised stub}} because I don't see the point of it. Once upon a time, way back, I too thought that stub categories "counted" and made an article no longer "uncategorised", but I was put right on this. It is confusing for the new editor, and perhaps for the reader (do any readers look at categories, anyway?). PamD 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete {{uncategorized stub}} - the "uncategorized stub" template is essentially a fork of {{Uncategorized}} but with an extra condition for appropriate use, so there is no reason to keep the former. Redundancy is hindering when choosing which template to use. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going out on a limb here but adding an uncategorized page to one or more relevant categories is such a simple task that those employing this tag should be encouraged to do that instead. It's a bit like having a template for "The References section on this page doesn't have a level 2 heading yet. Please help out by adding one". ----Pontificalibus 12:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a viable expectation. Firstly, people don't always know what the appropriate categories are for any given article — if I come across an uncategorized page where I already know the correct categories, then obviously I'll just categorize it, but if I don't already know the correct categories, then it's not my responsibility to either spend ten minutes hunting for them or just ignore the fact that it's uncategorized and walk away without doing anything to alert anybody else who might be able to resolve it. Secondly, uncategorized articles are frequently processed in batches of several hundred pages, and it's entirely unreasonable to expect somebody to fully categorize 500 or 1,000 pages all at once. Even just tagging a list of that length can take several hours to finish; if the responsibility were to fully categorize every page immediately instead of placing it in the categorization queue, one batch would literally take days to get through. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think the caveat about excluding stub categories can be worked out in the template message language. --Bsherr (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix or merge. Do whatever is needed so that we never stick a reader visible caution banner that says anything like "this page has no categories" that will appear directly over a line that say "Categories: xxxx" which exists. This sends a bad message to readers that we don't take caution's seriously. It is just like putting an in-line {{cite}}{{citation needed}}, immediately followed by a reference. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (specifically, redirect {{uncategorized stub}} to {{uncategorized}}). The former has only ten or so transclusions, so it's no big deal to redirect it. (Also, I have slightly edited Xaosflux's comment above and hope that my change is more in line with their meaning; if not, please undo it and deliver one fresh trout to my talk page.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. PPEMES (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge this is a bad XY type of template. Tag as a stub. Tag as uncategorized. No need to distinctly tag something as an 'Uncategorized stub'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 21 January 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:2003–04 Ligue 1 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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:13, 18 January 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_January_17&oldid=937568764"