Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29

[edit]

Template:Albums category/strip dab

[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. Izno (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @GKFX with the reason "This subtemplate has been replaced with regex on its parent template and is now unused." FASTILY 22:07, 29 May 2021 (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:Years, months and days before now

[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. Izno (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Age in years, months and days. It seems to be reformatting the date but this is unnecessary as that template is now also capable of accepting multiple date formats, e.g. {{Age in years, months and days|1998-02-24}} → 26 years, 8 months and 9 days User:GKFXtalk 20:25, 29 May 2021 (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:MuseumsWiki

[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. Izno (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #12 states: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors should not be linked externally. As this given wiki claims to have a whopping 469 articles, I don't see how linking to it would be compliant with ELNO. Thus, we shouldn't have a template for an external link that runs against ELNO #12. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The MuseumsWiki has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It was founded in 2006 with the task that museum personnel will participate in populating this wiki with museum-related material, perhaps more detailed than suitable for Wikipedia [1]. The Wiki has been edited since then continuously. The relative small number of editors and articles compared with Wikipedia should not be considered as non-substantial, because the number of museum experts is very small, and the conservative approach of many experts is a serious barrier for collaborative practice. Nevertheless the MuseumsWiki has operated as an experimental introduction in collaborative methods for museum experts, and as far as I know helped authors to find their way into the Wikipedia community as well. Best, --ThT (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The MuseumsWiki is stable since 2006 (15 years) and has a number of editors in the museum world. It also hosts the Virtual Library museums pages, established in 1994 (27 years ago) as part of the Virtual Library and older than Wikipedia itself, with editors from around 20 countries around the world. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to their Special:ListUsers there has only been 2 users who have made a single edit in 2021. That is definitely not a substantial number of editors. I don't see what relevant content readers would gather from these pages that isn't/shouldn't be on Wikipedia even if this wasn't a clear case of ELNO. --Trialpears (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which effects museum experts worldwide. Especially the cancellation of almost all conferences related to museums and museum organizations in 2020 impacts the MuseumsWiki very much, because in the past these conferences generated most of the utilization and editing. Best, --ThT (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ThT, Corresponding figure since the start of 2019 is 9 users with over one edit (excluding global bots). If you want over 10 edits we only have 5 users since start of 2019. --Trialpears (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to explain the relative small number of editors and articles compared with Wikipedia before with the general lack of collaborative practice in the small community of museum experts so far. Since the paper A Museums Wiki presented in 2007 at the Museums and the Web conference there's a substantial history of stability though. Best, --ThT (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trialpears; this wiki clearly does not have [...] a substantial number of editors * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an attempt to reach a consensus, I would suggest to consider the MuseumsWiki as a site that contains neutral and accurate material (WP:ELYES), because it utilizes collaborative methods for museum experts. Best, --ThT (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2021 (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:He or she

[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. Throughout this discussion, several mergers were proposed, some editors suggestted simply deleting the template and substituting its current uses, and some editors suggesting to keep the template. When viewed in light of the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, there is no consensus to support any individual proposal.

The proposal was to initially merge the two templates up for discussion (Template:He or she and Template:He/she) into Template:They. The proposer argued that the use of these two template, which they argued enforces a gender binary, was inappropriate in light of the existence of the merge target. Some other editors agreed, saying that this the use of the template disrespects non-binary individuals. At least one editor argued for a merge on the basis that the use of "he or she" is poor grammar, while others argued that the use of the two templates are exclusionary. Editors in opposition to the proposed merge argued that Wikipedia is not right great wrongs, that the use of "he or she" is actually perfectly fine grammar, that editors should be given the option as to whether or not to use the singular they as a matter of preference, and that substitution of the templates would lead to a refactoring of past talk page edits. At least one other editor stated that we sould not censor an individual's language choices should they wish to use "he or she" rather than "they", while others argued that doing so would be considered uncivil or that their use would be "blatantly disrespectful" to non-binary individuals or would otherwise constitute a personal attack.

An alternative merge was proposed to move all three templates noted above into Template:Gender and another hybrid alternative merge was proposed to wrap the two templates for discussion to be encompassed by Template:Pronoun, which contains functionality that would enable "he or she" to still be placed if a user would like. Some of the discussion focusing around this was on whether or not a user should be offered a template to use something other than the singular they, while other discussion was technical and focused on consolidation of templates. At least one editor stated that there may be an issue with wrapping the templates up for discussion into more complicated templates inasmuch as it would be less accessbile to editors without a strong command of English grammar. Another editor argued to deprecate the two templates for discussion but to not substitute nor delete them.

There were a few WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments made, which were discounted when ascertaining consensus.

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments on whether to keep and merge seem to be of relatively even quality when taken as a whole (as does the question on, if there is a merge, what merge should be undertaken). As a result, there is no consensus towards any particular outcome, and this discussion ends without a consensus on the question of what to do with the two templates for discussion.

(non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:He or she and Template:He/she with Template:They.
Recommending merge since the use of "he or she" solely enforces a false gender binary, and {{they}} already exists: as such, fold this template into {{they}}. I know that the syntax for verbs when used with "they" is different, and as such correcting those as the templates are merged will do. Additionally, if this is successful I'll probably double down (via WP:BOLD) and merge other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}. Casspedia (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The templates discussed are only used in userspace and usertalkspace. These templates are not used in mainspace. Casspedia (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace with {{They}} and delete. There doesn't seem to be anything needed to merge. This could just be redirected, however, the "He or she" name itself is problematic and even as a redirect it shouldn't exist. Note that {{He/she}} should also be added to this nomination. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vote changed - see below. Whatever our personal preferences, the use of "he" and "she" is still perfectly acceptable English in the outside world and applies to the vast majority of English speaking people. Wikipedia should reflect that world and not become a place to push a particular political or personal viewpoint. Clearly where the sources follow an individual's publicly stated-preference for some other term, Wikipedia can reflect that. Bermicourt:( (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding this: templates typically differ from real-world use, and the term "he or she" can be very insulting to someone who deliberately did not set their gender because they aren't male or female. This is especially notable if/when this template is transcended into other templates. Casspedia (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But Wikipedia isn't generally concerned about who it insults. It doesn't set itself up as judge and jury over that sort of thing, it merely follows WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I'm assuming that the latter would usually respect what people say they are unless it is obviously nonsense. But what we don't want to do is call the majority by pronouns they wouldn't accept either.
    There's actually a related problem which is nothing to do with personal preferences and only tangential to this nomination: converting the use of "he" or "she" to "they" in all circumstances often results in utter confusion about who we are talking about. In a gender-free world, "Fred fed the ball into the scrum; then they collapsed" leaves the reader in confusion about whether the entire scrum collapsed or just Fred. Our language is not yet geared up to dealing with this and poaching plural pronouns for singular objects just creates another, even more confusing problem. Which is why we should proceed with caution. Bermicourt (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of gender-neutral language is irrelevant to this discussion. All three templates allow the same functionality. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or just redirect). The templates appear to do the same thing, and "they" is the simplest and most inclusive formulation. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not the duty of TfD to try to force users to use singular they if they do not want to. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merge proposal - would merging all three into Template:Gender be a solution? All you have to do there is type in {{gender|(he, she, or they)}} and it will appear for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merge proposal per Knowledgekid87, just bundle it all into one template. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Notwithstanding the grammatical discussion above, if someone can confirm that the templates are only for use in User space, then I don't have an issue with that and would be happy to support a merge. What users choose to say about themselves is their choice. I would only be concerned if the templates were deployed in Main space. Perhaps the merged template should be "Template:User Gender" to make that clear. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the template usage is a mixture of userboxes and talk page discussions, with no mainspace uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. To speak to Pppery's concern, this template is being used only in project-focused spaces, not in articles, so our duty is to be inclusive, not to abide by what reliable sources say or anything like that. "He or she" is outdated, trans-exclusionary language, whereas "they" is a perfectably acceptable replacement for any situation currently using "he or she". I haven't looked into the alt merge proposal thoroughly enough to comment on it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Alt merge: "He or she" is a perfectly fine and grammatically correct phrase; while it is increasingly common, I do not believe "they" is an acceptable alternative for a third-person singular pronoun. English third-person singular pronouns are unfortunately gendered — it's not our job to rewrite the English language. If somebody wants to use this template, that should be his or her decision. I would also be fine with expanding {{Gender}} to support more options and then rewriting all of the other templates to use it. Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original merge The singular they is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable word. It might seem ungrammatical to some, but it is what people use in practice and is less clunky than "he or she". It has been used for literally centuries; see references at singular they. As such, redirecting the other templates to {{they}} is a good idea. User:GKFXtalk 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...with the caveat of subst in talkspace as discussed by others. User:GKFXtalk 14:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merge: per Knowledgekid87, although if we can't do that, then better keep it, since some people state their pronouns as "he or she", per Tol. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody states their pronouns as such and that is a failure of understanding how the template works. The template checks if the user set a "he" or "she" setting. If it doesn't, the "he or she" text will be used. That isn't decided by the user you are talking about, but by the user using the template. So no, you are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. --Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gonnym: For reference, I have my gender intentionally unset on Wikimedia wikis; however, I do not wish to be referred to with third-person plural pronouns such as "they". I prefer "he or she" (but am also perfectly fine with either "he" or "she"). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are very privileged to be able to be perfectly fine with the only two options available there, being "he" or "she", other people aren't and they do not have the privilege of having an option of chosing something else. Since you do have the option and are fine with either, pick one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @Gonnym: Let's please try to maintain a calm discussion. I do not wish to pick a single gender of pronoun, as I do not particularly identify with any gender. I'm fine with others using either feminine or masculine pronouns to refer to me, though I would prefer a construction of both gendered pronouns such as "he or she". I dislike gendered language and do wish there was a neuter third person singular pronoun for people (that is, not "it"); I believe that the best way to achieve this is with "he or she" and similar constructions. You say that users of this template are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that. With the same logic, somebody who refers to me with third-person plural pronouns is forcing me, who does not wish to be referred to as "they", to be referred to as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          It is extremely inappropriate to act as though you are the arbiter of who is privileged and to demand someone else change. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Thank you. Tol | Talk | Contribs 00:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{they}} and delete per Gonnym. The templates are only used in userspace and {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} are basically disrespectful of non-binary individuals. Strongly urge closing admin to disregard !votes by people who are pretending these are used in article text... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • process conversation refactored to talk page
  • Alt merge into {{Gender}}. Changing my vote based on usage. It might have helped if the intended usage had been made clear by the nom. Bermicourt (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If the consensus is to deprecate these templates, then the existing transclusions should be substituted (by the magic word) because otherwise there would be "they is" etc. Of course correcting the verbs is another option, but I don't think that would fall within what is allowed as WP:REFACTOR (someone's use of "he or she" rather than "they" itself could very well be a point of discussion). Also, I don't understand if this is successful I am considering merging other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{him or her}}. I can't imagine a scenario in which we'd deprecate {{he or she}} etc. but not {{him or her}} etc., or vice versa. Why not nominate all of them now? Nardog (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is because their merge targets would all be different; I don't want to create an excessively convoluted TfD thread. If consensus is established here I'll most likely just WP:BOLD my way through the other ones. Casspedia (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some templates which solve that problem already: {{they are|Male username}} → "he is". User:GKFXtalk 18:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the problem. You can always simply use the magic word, as in {{GENDER:Foo|he does|she does|they do}}, to accommodate any verb (I'm the one who made that template after all). The problem is that to replace "he or she" etc. already used on talk pages with "they" would be misrepresentation of the record proscribed in WP:TPG. Usage in userboxes and other templates can, of course, simply be replaced with {{they}}. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're rules-lawyering this too much. When someone invokes (without substituting) they implicitly give permission for future changes. No "meaning" is changed by being respectful of another editors gender identification. If this bothers someone, they can always go and revise their comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're perhaps coming from more or less the same place and reaching different conclusions. If someone, as you put it, made "a bad decision" on a talk page, I want the record to show that they made a bad decision. Nardog (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose anything that involves retroactively changing what someone said. If I say "he or she", then I meant to say "he or she" and retroactively changing it to "they" is not appropriate. I passionately detest the singular "they". If someone has self-identified as non-binary and prefers they/them, okay, fine. But requiring they/them to be used for all persons who have not self-identified a gender just in the off chance that one such person might be non-binary and we don't want to exclude them is ridiculous. --B (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - social issues aside, each of these templates produces different output depending on the referenced user's preferences, and the proposal is to replace some with templates that will render differently than was intended. It is not Wikipedia's job to force the use of one particular set of gender-neutral pronouns. The real problem underlying this discussion is that users currently can only select "male", "female", or "neither", and the templates follow that trinary (really a binary with an opt-out). If we really want to be more inclusive, that system should be replaced with one where the user can enter the pronouns they want to use, and then we can design templates around it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per B and others, if the templates are going to be modified to produce a different result than was intended by whoever transcluded it, then all extant transclusions should be substituted before any changes are made, so as not to violate WP:TPO. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Templates, by definition, hand off some text rendering task to someone else and their judgement. This feigned ignorance during a TFD is really startling. Y'all act like a template has never been changed in 20+ years of Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: Yes; but the point is that users of these templates selected these templates specifically. They did not use the templates which would produce "they"; they used the templates which would produce "he or she", with the intent of producing "he or she". Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't care if they chose them "specifically". You can "specifically" make a bad decision, it does not change the fact that the decision was poorly made and you should have chose another method. What, do you suppose, would happen should the MediaWiki software ever add additional gender choices? These templates would be updated to reflect those new options most likely. If you're that hung up on not having your words changed later, WP:SUBST is your friend... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the software is reprogrammed to change the way that gender settings are handled then the templates that rely on that parameter will most likely just break, and then we'll need to discuss what to do with them anyway. That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion Sure, that's it, just because you said so without a single logical reason behind it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even if it were the slightest bit likely we could convince MediaWiki devs to make a significant code change for entirely cosmetic reasons, we can't predict how they would implement it and so can't code a template now to handle that unlikely future development, so why does it matter to this discussion? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    entirely cosmetic reasons, and so we have yet another tone deaf response. It matters because such a change would necessitate changing these templates, and the entire reason we use templates is to make such changes easier. You're literally saying "don't change something" in something that is literally designed to be changed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you, we agree on such a change would necessitate changing these templates. You seem to think my point is that we shouldn't change them now because we may have to change them later, which it's not. My entire argument was that we should not change the output of the "he or she" templates in past discussions, because it retroactively changes what those users intended to write without their knowledge or consent. While using "he or she" to refer to a nonbinary person can be malicious, we have a policy of assuming good faith which tells us that if someone used {{he or she}} to refer to another editor, they were relying on the user having set a software setting which we know is woefully inadequate, absent very good evidence that their comment was intended to misgender (and that does happen, I've blocked editors for it). That is my rationale for not changing past discussions in this case. If we want to bring the templates together so that they're easier to change later, yes, I'm entirely on board with that, but that's only half of what's being proposed here. And if we want to propose adding more options to MediaWiki's gender settings, or completely overhauling that system to be more inclusive, I'll absolutely support that, but this proposal misses that mark by a wide margin - if it succeeds, a transgender editor will still only be able to select "male", "female", or "neither". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}, which was created (by you) soon after {{He or she}} was. These templates are similar, but have different functions. The function of {{He or she}} is to produce "he", "she", or "he or she" depending on the user's gender. The function of {{They}} is to produce "he", "she", or "they" depending on the user's gender. The basic functions of these templates are different, and they are intended to be different. You say that templates hand off some text rendering task to someone else, but this hand-off is done with the assumption that the template will produce results which are similar to that which it originally did. If somebody intentionally used {{He or she}}, that person did so with the intent that it would display "he or she" if the specified user's gender is unset. That intent should be respected. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tol: My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}} Objection, assuming facts not in evidence. created (by you) And? Were you going somewhere with the fact that I created it? Please, don't stop there, I'm sure we're all very curious where you wanted to go with that. The rest is a lot of assumptions and perverting templates in a way that is incompatible with people willfully using them without substituting them, as has been explained to you previously. WP:SUBST is, and continues to be, your friend. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: Yes, I'm sure we're all curious where I was going with that.[sarcasm] (For the sake of it, I created {{User:Tol/G}}, which is similar to {{Gender}} but uses "he or she", "him or her", et cetera, instead of "they" and such. I'm certainly not neutral in this either!) It still stands that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{They}}. It may not have been their intention, and perhaps they would have used {{They}} instead, had they known it existed, but they did not. I agree that substitution is for when one wants to keep something static. However, it remains that people (probably) used this template with the assumption that it would return the same result in the future (excepting any user gender choices — if somebody later sets his or her gender, the template would update). We even have {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, two different templates that have the same purpose (but are somewhat different), as a clear precedent for having two similar templates that fulfill the same job in a different way. My central point, still, is that {{He or she}} should definitely produce "he or she". Making it produce "they" would be as confusing as making {{They}} produce "he or she". Template users made that choice whether they were aware of alternatives or not, and we shouldn't force them to use one or the other. Also: we shouldn't censor language; people (such as I) may want to use "he or she" instead of "they". Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a matter of language, but more a matter of respect towards non-binary people than anything else. Considering how such a template would only ever be used in userspace, user talk space and template space, respect towards other editors supersedes everything else. Casspedia (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you've nominated my template for MfD. Really? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I'm done with pretending that it is okay to discriminate against non-binary people. This is perhaps the most common form of discrimination against non-binary people, which is why I'm so heavily against the use of he or she. Casspedia (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand, and have two hands." That statement is true, but probably discriminates against people with birth defects or amputations. It's still true. In a similar vein, "he or she" is perfectly fine. If you argue that using "he or she" is discriminatory against those who wish to be called "they", then how is using "they" not discriminatory against those who wish to be called "he or she"? Tol | Talk | Contribs 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your failure to understand that the aforementioned is discriminatory is the root of the problem here. Saying The majority of humans have four fingers and one opposable thumb on each hand is fine, but claiming that all are like that is misleading. Plus, absolutely no one wants to be called "he or she" when referring directly to themselves. That's a nonsensical argument. Casspedia (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casspedia: I do. I don't identify strongly with either gender, and am fine with people referring to me as "he", "she", or "he or she". I also detest usage of "they" as a singular pronoun and may correct somebody who refers to me as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue, in this case, deprecating he or she as a means to referring to everyone would be the priority. Since the template calls a user's gender, it should at least be limited to users who have specifically declared themselves to be fine with binarizing terms -- keeping in mind that non-binary people must be represented in a non-binarizing way. I would also perhaps enabling the use of neopronouns using these same gender templates wherever applicable, since these seek to mitigate the singular-plural confusion which the singular they may entail. Casspedia (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casspedia: It would be great if there was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. (I consider the lack of one to be one of the larger flaws in English.) Similarly, expanding MediaWiki software to handle more preferences would be optimal (but not something that the English Wikipedia community can do) — perhaps something like a checklist for whichever forms one is comfortable with. As for artificial pronouns, I would be fine with their inclusion but would prefer if at least one widely used pronoun was required (in subject form: "he", "she", "they", "he or she"/"she or he"). Language is messy, but fixing it takes a lot of effort. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above. It would be much simpler if MediaWiki provided an option for selecting pronouns the same way as license options; new pronoun options can easily be defined as such. However, those are just thoughts for another time. An example of a template using neopronouns could be he-she-xe, in a similar vein to {{they}}. Honestly, at this point, I think using the alt merge proposal and redesigning {{gender}} from the ground up to accomodate non-binary genders would be the best choice. Casspedia (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one area where we should not be changing anyone's preferences. If users have the right to choose, we respect their choices however they wish to express it. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, precisely, if a user chooses a gender we don't recognize we should be respectful of that personal choice and not force the binary terms on them. Glad you agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector; we should not be rewriting past conversations or changing anyone's choices no matter how much we disagree. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority (99+%) of people do fit into a gender binary (they don't identify outside of male or female), and some of them may consider "they" to be misgendering; we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS based on personal views. Crossroads -talk- 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RGW is only applicable to mainspace and/or content namespaces; additionally, attempting to use an argumentum ad populum to dismiss the argument that he or she is trans-exclusionary is fallacious in itself. A template solely used in userspace to refer to users must be inclusive towards all users, not just 99%. If going solely by IAR, this template should have been instantly deleted owing to that. I'm struggling to believe that this even needs to be debated. Casspedia (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the rather large amount of (rather polarised) debate, it would appear that it actually does need to be debated. I'm even wondering if there's going to be an RfC for this at some point. Tol | Talk | Contribs 18:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossroads, not rewriting past discussions is a valid point. Adding an addendum to my !vote: For the 10 transclusions of this template in the talk namespace, subst and delete instead of merging. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nomination. Alternatively, delete and redirect to Template:Pronoun, Template:They, or whichever is deemed to be most appropriate. ExoticViolet (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hybrid alternate proposal: - there's a proposal above to convert all of these templates to wrappers to {{gender}}, which is a good idea for streamlining, but that template does not support "he or she" constructions so the proposal would still change the content of 12 years of conversations. I suggest wrapping all of the "he or she" templates to {{pronoun}}, and all the others to {{gender}}. That way the two versions of the pronoun templates (the gender-binary "he or she" set and the gender-inclusive singular they set) are both streamlined, and if a proper subsequent discussion determines that the gender-binary templates should be retired, it will be simple to subst-and-remove them. Also, should more options be added to the software in the future, there will only be one template that needs updating. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure when or how it became acceptable to treat others poorly here, I see WP:CIV is still policy, and that WP:NPA is still a thing. But just to throw it out there, consider this from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center - Gender Pronouns - What are some commonly used pronouns?: Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals. And there's more. "He or she" was borderline a decade ago, in this day and age it should be a no-brainer that it's unacceptable. Grammar wonks don't get to use their disdain for singular they as an excuse to marginalize or mistreat people. In article text? Sure, let's discuss it. When communicating respectfully with other editors on talk pages? Absolutely not up for debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an opposing point, this suggests to use "he or she", and to not use "their" as an alternative to his or her, but recommends rewriting the sentence to avoid these constructions if possible (which is in line with my view). It's not an offensive slur, and I consider it perfectly fine to use (though unwieldy). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... *sigh* are you seriously using a style guide for writing as an "opposing viewpoint" on how to deal with LGBTQ issues? A page that was published in 1994 (making it nearly thirty years old)? We're talking about dealing with other editors, not article content as I noted in my !vote above. Please stop being this tone deaf. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can kind of see where this is coming from, but this would result in altering the context of previous conversions which is generally considered unacceptable. If a person said "he or she", they intended to say that regardless if you agree with the underlying implications of that phrase. 78.152.252.48 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} uses in discussions to avoid changing the text of past discussions, merge other uses per nom. The purpose of these template is to automatically use the pronouns that a user has configured in their preferences, with the option that {{he or she}} produces "he or she" for reading Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions"). However, "he or she" is not gender-neutral (as it only includes those who use he/him or she/her pronouns) meaning that {{he or she}} template does not fufill its purpose ({{he/she}} has the same issues). In contrast, {{they}} produces "they" (which is gender-neutral) for this case and can therefore be used instead. GreenComputer (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all with Template:Pronoun: Second choice is to redirect {{he or she}} and {{he/she}} to {{they}} and convert {{they}} to a wrapper of {{pronoun}}. JJPMaster 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with one that gives they when user hasn't specified that their pronouns are he/him or she/her. This is partially to show respect to people who may use they/them because we want to have a collaborative community, and it helps to be nice to each other. It is also partially because singular usage of they is grammatically-appropriate English, and a lot simpler syntactically than having a conjunction. I slightly prefer that they don't merge into {{gender}} or {{pronoun}} because those assume the editor knows a fair amount about sentence structures and grammar. It'd be an unnecessary barrier to usage. I do like JPPMaster's suggestion a lot as a work-around. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate but don't delete/subst. After reading the whole discussion, I think it's clear that some people still prefer being called "he or she". I also don't think it's a good idea to edit other people's comments, regardless of how "wrong" you think it is. However, I think that in general, it's on the safe side to use "they" when referring to unknown or nonbinary people, because "he or she" is not inclusive. Template messages such as userboxes should always use {{they}} (or {{they are}} etc.) by default. (I also do heavily support PEIsquirrel's proposal for allowing more options for picking a pronoun.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Templates are not here to enforce the sole use of "singular they", in addition to the other points raised above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:51, 17 June 2021 (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:Gender unclear

[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 relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (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:Indic script needed

[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. Izno (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deprecated maintenance template requesting indic script to be added to the lead. Per this 2011 RfC indic script shouldn't be used in this way however. It's been blanked since 2012 and currently does nothing. Should be removed and deleted. --Trialpears (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also open to other outcomes here. {{Script needed}} exist and perhaps it's warranted to keep this template as well, consensus can change after all. Even in that case I think the current ancient uses should be removed or at least checked to be appropriate. In my small sample a lot of the articles already had indic script in the infobox. --Trialpears (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much of the India-related articles here on the English Wikipedia use either a romanized version of Hindi or Indian English. The template calling for Indic script to be added could mean hundreds of languages. For example, there is already an Arabic script needed and a Hebrew script needed templates. Those are specific templates for a specific purpose. This template is too broad for a specific purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 29 May 2021 (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).

Defunct minor league baseball team roster deletion

[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. But, no objection to recreation any of these if the teams come back. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League Baseball underwent a significant reorganization in 2020-2021. Some teams have suspended operations and will not play in 2021. The rosters are therefore either outdated or contain TBDs that will never be replaced. Therefore they should be deleted. Mustangeagle (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Hagerstown and Charlotte are defunct. Lancaster is still looking to return to pro baseball. Jackson is tentatively planning to start up its own league in 2022. If either Lancaster or Jackson resume play, the templates can be recreated. Otherwise, there's no need in keeping rosters for teams that don't have rosters of players. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 29 May 2021 (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:Str crop

[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 relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (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:Astro price table

[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) 13:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, and seems like it's intended to create price catalogues against WP:NOTCATALOG. User:GKFXtalk 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - one usage is in an old sandbox, where it is said that the template didn't work out and was abandoned. This is evidently an old experiment that failed. Hog Farm Talk 15:19, 29 May 2021 (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:Namespace detect showall/test1

[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) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to keep a test like this around as a separate template. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I meant that's it's not a template because all it says is "template". Regardless of subpage or not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_29&oldid=1029194726"