Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 19

Project does not exist anymore. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These templates may have been orphaned incorrectly by an editor doing a badly managed merge of some content. See this diff and this attempt at discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no longer needed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alt

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

This is used to show character text as images instead of actual selectable text. This is extremally unhelpful. Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was helpful to me, for what I used it for (which is documented on the page).

Happy to hear if there are better alternatives for achieving the same thing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the text isn't selectable it is harmful. If you want to make unselectable text in your userspace, that's fine(?), but it should never be allowed in other places, especially no in an article. Gonnym (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would generally be a harmful thing to do. The exceptions to that general principle are exactly what I made Alt for, as is clearly documented on the page. Such as working around the generally poor state of browser text rendering of ᵘ̄ by alt-ing a smallsup-made ^ū (in case you have one of the better browsers out there, the first one often renders as a superscript u with a line following it, when it's supposed to appear as a superscript u with a line over it).

This is really not much different from the math genre of templates, if that helps. For example, sfrac produces ⁠12⁠, which is then selectable as "⁠1/2", despite the fact that it displays as different text. Sometimes this is the most useful thing to do for the user. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting to note is the mediawiki extension <math> which renders formulae like “

E=mc^{2}

” as images that when selected seem to copy as text like “E = m c 2 {\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}”, which is just some garbage. I'm not in favor of this, and think it's overused, but it does serve to show that unselectable text in practice is already fairly common in articles. — And, in fact, the point of Alt is to make things like this, which display correctly, but also give them the correct textual value when copied, unlike the current <math>. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fix a specific character, create a template that produces the character in a font that produces the correct output. Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaardebaach

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

Extremely excessive detail. This very small brook is not even mentioned outside Wikipedia, it seems[1] yet it has its own template, basically a step-by-step-guide of the few hundred meters this presumably exists. We are not a repository for stylized topographical maps of mainly non-notable entities (the Syre is notable, but hardly needs this overview of every minor thing it encounters in Contern)

The same goes for the other templates used on the same page:

@Fram Alright sure I admit I might have been a little carried away making some of these such as Réimeschbaach and Gaardebaach but the other rivers pass as far as I know WP:GEONATURAL and therefore the templates are potentially useful especially for Trudlerbaach and Syre. Although yes, I made those on the simple wiki a while ago and in hindsight, they are overdetailed and could do with some cleanup. As for Railways in Contern, I don't really see the problem to be honest, to me it seems like a useful addition for anyone trying to make Geographical sense of what is written in the Contern article. N1TH Music (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Fram, that most of these appear excessive as most of them cover small tributaries and brooks which as yet have no coverage on the EN wiki. I suggest that in the Contern article they should simply be listed in running text with any necessary explanations. Those developed as articles could be included in List of rivers of Luxembourg as some already are. There may well be a case for maintaining Template:Railways in Contern.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have been canvassed to comment here though. In any case, why would we want a template that lists every street crossed and every stormdrain along the path of a railway in some village? Seems like rather excessive detail. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram WP:Canvassing states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." and it also states that "Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." I clearly did the former so why are you referring to this as canvassing? N1TH Music (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] "there's one thing that I could do with some help with [...] templates for each which have since been nominated for deletion [...] I think the rest of the templates are useful" with an explicit request to join the TfD for someone who seems to like the excessively detailed Contern article (listing the number of votes every single of the 200+ candidates received in the national elections in this village? Images like File:F,6 panneau.jpg?) is canvassing. Fram (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I requested him for him to input his opinion and I told him my own, by no means did I tell him what to think. Additionally, it appears he’s leaning more towards siding with you in which case I’m withdrawing and no longer have much opposition to the deletion of the templates as now it seems there’s more of a consensus that this is too much detail as opposed to being just me against you again. N1TH Music (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterqual mid-high

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; deleted as G5 by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterqual mid-high (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary addition of a level to an existing table scheme; no consensus for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:39, 19 November 2024 (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:Wikimedia Commons redirect

Template:Wikimedia Commons redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 7 mainspace transclusions, so it has never meaningfully caught on. I'm not sure what sort of title it would be used for — perhaps a name of a photo that's somehow famous enough that people might reasonably search for it but not famous enough to be notable? In that case, I'd find it inappropriate, per a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}}. Sdkb ^talk 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to not delete it GAMERBOY102 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wrong venue. Nominate the redirects that use this at RfD, not the template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, my argument is that this template has no valid use case, so this is the intended venue. Sdkb ^talk 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibooks redirect

Template:Wikibooks redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 6 mainspace transclusions, so it has never caught on. It has a theoretical use for book titles that are not notable for an encyclopedia article, but in that case, a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}} applies. Sdkb ^talk 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to not delete it GAMERBOY102 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wrong venue. Nominate the redirects that use this at RfD, not the template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, my argument is that this template has no valid use case, so this is the intended venue. Sdkb ^talk 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect

Template:Wikispecies redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I start from the philosophical perspective that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should therefore make use of the sister projects when they help us build a better encyclopedia, but that otherwise we should give them no special preference over any other content anywhere else on the internet.

This template was boldly created in 2017 without a larger discussion (or at least nothing was mentioned in the edit summaries). It takes a similar form to the much more widely used {{Wiktionary redirect}}. However, unlike Wiktionary redirect, which helps us provide information readers searching for terms that would never warrant an article, Wikispecies redirect functions more like a loophole in our notability guideline. The vast majority of its uses are for biologists that would not be notable for an article.

We have notability standards to constrain the size of the encyclopedia and reduce the maintenance burden, and I do not see a reason that we should carve out an exception for biologists just because our parent organization also happens to run a non-encyclopedia project that — unlike us — finds it appropriate to create a database of biologists. Such an exception opens some floodgates: If the WMF created, say, a Wikipaintings project that had a database of all visual artists without a notability bar, would we want soft redirects there? How about soft redirects to any concept with a Wikidata item? Or let's say we find a highly reliable non-WMF database of musicians — why not create soft redirects there for all musicians that can't survive AfD?

Either a biologist is notable and should have an article, or they are not and should not be included in Wikipedia. The only redirect in the latter case should be "go search the internet". Sdkb ^talk 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion.

We must also remember that the general rule for the creation of a soft sister redirect is for a topic to have a less-than-encyclopedic scope and be either commonly wikified words or repeatedly recreated (WP:SRD and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project). At least some of the scientist soft redirects that use this template probably have several wikilinks on other pages in the encyclopedia (but, regardless, that is an individual case matter for rfd). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to not delete it GAMERBOY102 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. This is a discussion venue, and I'm using it to start a discussion about whether this template should exist or not. Sdkb ^talk 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Wrong venue. Nominate the redirects that use this at RfD, not the template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, my argument is that this template has no valid use case, so this is the intended venue. Sdkb ^talk 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is fundamentally about the merits of redirects, not templates. Suppose this were closed as delete. The template couldn't be deleted without orphaning it. The redirects that use the template couldn't be deleted without a discussion at RfD since TfD has no authority to delete redirects (other than those pointing to templates it deletes). So what would happen? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a template that is used to categorize redirects; an example usage is a page like this. If this is closed as delete, these pages would be blanked and then eligible for deletion under {{db-blanked}} or another criterion. I'm not sure TfD has authority over soft redirects.

Overall, this seems the most appropriate venue. If you're concerned about visibility, I can put notices on WT:Redirects or one of the village pumps. Sdkb ^talk 05:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't visibility. My concern is jurisdiction. What you're really asking is to delete a bunch of redirects, including ones that previously survived RfD. And this TfD would do that by the back door. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my concern is WP:BURO. If you'd like to move the nomination to somewhere you consider more appropriate, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll consider it here. Sdkb ^talk 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, RfD is the best venue to discuss redirects. So I suggest this nomination – which is really about redirects, not a template – should head over thataway. J 947 ‡ ^edits 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]