Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 20 December 22 >

December 21 edit

Template:2009 WNBA Playoffs 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) 18:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent articles. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 21 December 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:2021 Canadian Championship bracket 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) 18:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with 2021 Canadian Championship#Bracket Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 21 December 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:2018 ABL Playoffs bracket 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) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with 2018 ABL Playoffs#Bracket Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 21 December 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:2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage bracket 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) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with 2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage#Tournament bracket Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 21 December 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:Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need to link actors (and their films) for bad performances? Seems unnecessary. And this is the only Razzie acting award with a template. charge2charge (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason to justify deletion of a Razzie award navbox. The fact other awards for the Razzies haven't been created doesn't mean the only one should be deleted. That would be countering progress. Or at least might set a bad precedent just to delete a navbox. If linking the films is an issue, then remove the links to the films and that's that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But like I said, why are we linking actors for bad performances? That’s my issue. Hard to justify including those ‘wins’ alongside major honors. charge2charge (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Razzies are a notable award. Still no reason provided to not link and delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only notable because it’s poking fun at actors. That’s not a reason to include them alongside major honors. charge2charge (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is still notability. Regardless of whether it's just making fun. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template seems redundant to Template:Golden_Raspberry_Awards. Merging or otherwise getting rid of unnecessary and low relevance awards related Navboxes would be a great precedent. (Navboxes are not show to nearly half of all users, and any information of any value must be included elsewhere in the article.) They offer less value than a See also section, and editors are for more zealous about clearing out that clutter.-- 109.78.198.42 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an actor wins a Golden Razzie for Worst Actor, that's the company's decision, not ours. Also, Golden Razzies are notable awards. 173.187.240.22 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 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:Mastodon user 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems to be WP:PROMO for the purpose of promoting a new social media network. While maybe an interesting subject, not sure it deserves to be added to all these articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Fediverse, including Mastodon (social network), is not a new social media network: it dates back to 2008 with identi.ca, and has been evolving since then. We cannot claim to be an encyclopedia having external links to Twitter while not even allowing a template for external links to the Fediverse. This is not promotion of the network; it's enabling the reader to find extra information about the subjects of the articles that is complementary to the information in the body of the article. The subjects themselves generally claim that with typically 10 times less followers in the Fediverse than Twitter, they get as much "engagement" as on Twitter; i.e., they provide as much information about themselves on Mastodon as on Twitter, if not more (some have quit Twitter, others remain on both). The Mastodon component of the Fediverse is in the mainstream news almost daily now, in relation to the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and the December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions. Judgment of which articles should or shouldn't have the link is a matter for people editing those individual articles to consense on. Boud (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is not a discussion to delete Mastodon (social network) article, this is a discussion to delete the category that you have added to many WP:BLPs. Your justification above seems to support my WP:PROMO theory. We dont have categories for Facebook user, twitter user, etc do we? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In short, yes we do.
I think clarification is needed. Is the proposal to delete the template or to delete the category that is generated (in some cases) by the template? Which particular category are you proposing to delete? I don't see any urgency in creating the currently non-existent (redlinked) category Category:Mastodon username different from Wikidata - this comes up in a few cases because I made only minimal edits compared to Template:Twitter, which does have a rule for creating a category in the equivalent cases. It seems that the category is only created in cases where there's a Wikidata entry that has to be overwritten. Cases where a subject's Wikidata Twitter value has to be overridden should also lead to the Category:Twitter username different from Wikidata, which does exist and "may be empty occasionally or even most of the time". This is an issue needing a technical solution (I have an idea and will try it later if nobody else does), not the deletion of the template. As for your WP:PROMO hypothesis, I don't see the evidence: the mainstream media and notable individuals are talking about Mastodon - this is WP:NOTABILITY of these people using Mastodon, not advertising.
Incidentally, if you read through WP:PROMO, then you'll see that there's a strong emphasis on Information about companies and products ... External links to commercial organizations ... - but the Fediverse, including Mastodon, is not a company, not a product, and at least currently, not commercial (a component of the Fediverse could, hypothetically, become commercial; this is legally allowed for free software): there's software and a community of servers. Of course, there is a comment Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial .... I agree that the hypotheses of promoting either Twitter or the Fediverse should be considered for the deletion of Template:Twitter or Template:Mastodon user, even though only the former is commercial (selling users' data as the raw product to advertisers). Boud (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what Fediverse is and I will add it to my watchlist, seems interesting, however I am not sure how this discussion relates to Fediverse. Your logic that open source software is not subject to PROMO is absurd, and we deal with PROMO every day on the crypto articles that I follow. You have admitted you are adding it to document notability for Mastadon and I dont see how this is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You initially referred to a new social media network; I pointed out that that statement is incorrect, since 2008 is not recent. You have not clarified whether you are proposing the deletion of the template or of the (non-existent) category. You seemed to be unaware that Category:Twitter username different from Wikidata exists and were concerned that Category:Mastodon username different from Wikidata does not exist. I did not say that free software is not subject to PROMO: both Twitter and Mastodon/Fediverse links have to be judged to decide if they count as WP:PROMO for those articles where they are proposed as external links; what I did say, quoting from WP:PROMO, is that the priority concern is to avoid commercial advertising. There is a nuance there.
I did not state that the links are aimed to establish notability for Mastodon; on the contrary, the notability of Mastodon is what justifies the Mastodon/Fediverse links, and the notability of Twitter is what justifies Twitter links. We do not normally add a source after an external link: editors active on a particular article can debate whether the link is justified. The main source I used for selecting some individuals who were already Wikipedia-notable was this article on Forbes, which is generally a WP:RS with editorial oversight; see WP:FORBES. Deletion of the template would create a technical obstruction to editors active on individual pages, who would have to create the links by hand. Boud (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed to delete Template:Mastodon user as I think it is being used to promote a low-notability social network. We are not using forbes contributor articles to justify notability, see WP:UGC. You are really stretching here, this all sounds nonsense. Maybe I spend too much time in strict categories like BLP and cryptocurrencies, but we are not using this UGC trash anywhere on those. Maybe someone else will ring in on this discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that you are proposing to delete the template, not the (non-existent) category. I struck out WP:FORBES since WP:FORBESCON may apply, depending on whether or not Martine Paris is considered notable herself. So I agree that the specific list of which Wikipedia-notable people are notable for their Mastodon/Fediverse usage, similar to the way we use Twitter external links, is not strongly justified. That is consistent with what I have said: individual articles should be judged by editors of those articles about which external links to Twitter or the Fediverse are justified. That's not an argument for deleting the template itself.
You wrote: You are really stretching here. Personal attacks are not arguments; see WP:NPA.
Since you now write a low-notability social network, here are some sources: "Mastodon Is Hurtling Toward a Tipping Point", Wired (magazine) 21 Dec 2022; "I started my own Mastodon server on a Raspberry Pi. Here's what I learned", ZDNet, 21 Dec 2022; "Where to find Verge staff on Mastodon", The Verge, 21 Dec 2022; "Firefox and Tumblr join rush to support Mastodon social network", The Guardian, 21 Dec 2022; "Elon Musk news: Twitter CEO says suspending accounts for Mastodon links was "a mistake'", The Independent, 21 Dec 2022. That's five regular media sources in a single day confirming the notability of the Mastodon part of the Fediverse. One day earlier: "Mozilla to Explore Healthy Social Media Alternative", Mozilla Foundation, 20 Dec 2022, "In early 2023, Mozilla will stand up and test a publicly accessible instance in the Fediverse at Mozilla.Social ... we believe the potential of the Fediverse is bigger and broader than Mastodon alone". The template does not promote Mastodon; it is a technical aid for the Mastodon part of the Fediverse, a social network that clearly passes WP:GNG for its Mastodon part, and is also known for the broader Fediverse part based on the ActivityPub protocol, for external links in cases where the editors of an article agree that it provides useful complementary information just as Twitter external links sometimes provide useful complementary information. Boud (talk) 06:26, 22 December 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:Pennsylvania Quadrant Routes 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) 18:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one blue link, which is a redirect, and 65 red links, which were either deleted at AFD or never created. There is nothing to navigate. ✗plicit 06:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No need for this template since it has been decided to delete the quadrant route lists. Dough4872 11:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, provides no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:16, 22 December 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_December_21&oldid=1130122192"