Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

January 1

Module:Main

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom It would clearly be better to have this discussion at a later time where it can proceed without causing unwanted controversy over relationships to my previous TfD nomination, and when I don't try to do too many things at once. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Five months after the previous discussion for this module, the same argument for deletion still applies: it is redundant to Module:Labelled list hatnote, and could easily be implemented in Wikitext as a call to it. {{main}} is no longer used on any categories after BrownHairedGirl converted them all to use {{cat main}}, so that feature could be easily removed (reverting Kingpin13's action of March 2010). After doing so, the only feature that isn't in Module:Labelled list hatnote is support for zero parameters, which simply doesn't make any sense. Sad New Year to module namespace bloat! {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. @{{3x|p}}ery, this is silly.

There is a open discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 29#Template:Cat_main where you propose deleting {{Cat main}}, on the grounds that it is redundant to {{main}}. You are aware of how these proposals are related, so it is disappointing that you have not waited.

Now you are proposing to gut {{Main}}, removing the basis of your other proposal.

Mercifully, it seems that {{Cat main}} is unlikely to be deleted, but the discussion has been open for less than two days, and the balance of opinion may change. So please hang on until the other discussion is closed ... and then return with a much clearer description of what you propose that {{Main}} should like after this change, along with a sandboxed version of the new setup so that editors can examine the difference.

It would be best if you withdraw this nomination in the meantime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: No, these two TfD proposals are not incompatible. My Template:Cat main deletion proposal was not based on the support for the category namespace in Template:Main (although many of the !voters misinterpreted it as though it was), and I in fact explicitly proposed this gutting there. In any case, I would have executed this proposal even if my other one passed: the goal of that proposal, as I explicitly said in my reply to Steel1943, was to abolish the sentence-style "the main article for this category is ..." hatnote entirely, which both that proposal (as its clear goal) and this one (as a side effect of standardization) seek to do. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a version of Template:Main using Module:Labelled list hatnote (which I propose syncing to Template:Main in this discussion) has been sitting in Template:Main/sandbox since June. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@{{3x|p}}ery, this is very very shoddy. You say here that the goal of that proposal .. was to abolish the sentence-style "the main article for this category is ..." hatnote entirely.

Yet at the other discussion your nomination said there is no reason that categories should use a separate style of hatnote than articles for describing their main page, which clearly implies that the hatnote will be retained, albeit in a different style. Your assertion now that !voters misinterpreted it is disgraceful: the meaning of your nomination is very clear, and it clearly contradicts the longer-term intent which you disclosed in your reply to @Steel1943.

It seems to me that you have used a pair of technical proposals as a smokescreen for a goal which you most certainly should have declared upfront. Whether intentional or otherwise, this is deceitful.

I urge you to withdraw both these TFD nominations, and open an RFC on your actual goal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that nomination statement was that {{cat main}} provides a different style (using a sentence) than {{main}} (using the words "main article/page" followed by a colon), and there was no reason for that. Therefore, there is no contradiction: solving the problem I specified in my nomination statement on the cat main TfD would require getting rid of either the sentence hatnotes used for categories or the labelled hatnotes used for non-categories, and my TfD was opened to propose the latter option. In retrospect, "language" would have been a better choice of word to use there than "style", but the meaning is the same and there was no attempt to decieve. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased my nomination statement on the previous TfD to be hopefully clearer. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hatnotes on categories pointing to their main articles will still exist if my cat main TfD passes, using a different style/language, that is a correct corollary of my nominating statement. However, the "different style/language" that I was suggesting is the same as that used by {{main}} on articles, so there is (in the world where my reasoning is accepted by consensus) no need for a separate template for it, or functionality in the generic {{main}} template that explicitly handles categories. All of this is non-self-contradictory and without any intent to deceive other wikipedians. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@{{3x|p}}ery, I still struggle to see this as anything other than deceptive. If that there really was no intent to deceive, then your command of English is poor.

Your latest explanation is convoluted and vague. Please stop trying to describe it in words, because you aren't good at that. Instead, just provide clear examples of the effect of your proposed changes, showing the output the both category and article space before and after each step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:52, 1 January 2019 (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:DYKissues

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template lying unused since 2008. Also, the notice doesn't look suitable to be added on articles, would have been better to make it a talk page notice. SD0001 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but mark as historical. Thanks for the notice to my Talk page. I'm sure I meant well when I created this template back in 2008, but honestly I don't recall it at all, and it is not linked from any mainspace articles currently, so I guess it is okay for it to go... but is there any way to tell whether many articles once linked to it? For one or two other templates no longer in use which were later deleted, I noticed their deletion messes up understanding of numerous articles' history. It's an option to mark this as "historical" and "deprecated" or whatever, without deleting it. Then previous versions of (i don't know how many) articles will make sense. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused! (ping toDoncram). Second best option that is also supported is mark historical --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, and inappropriate for use. Issues with a DYK nomination should be brought up on the nomination subpage or talk page, or tagged with the appropriate maintenance template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - stop with this "mark as historical" trend. Templates are code which are meant to be used. If it isn't useful anymore, it should be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Cymru.lass. --Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2019 (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).