Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22
November 24 >

November 23

[edit]

Template:Metamask.com

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a purpose of this being a template, as it appears to just be a copy of the text of MetaMask. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:15, 23 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:Editnotices/Page/Home video game console

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice blanked as no longer applicable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 23 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:Editnotices/Page/Hippocrates

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice no longer in use. It was blanked when FA status was removed from Hippocrates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 23 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.

Module:Archive/sandbox2

[edit]
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. Izno (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork, hasn't been updated in over five years. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is still a viable approach to solving a still-present user-visible bug in the template. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the current talkpage regarding the bug, so it's now part of an active discussion. Hopefully the bug will get fixed (in which case, sandbox not need) or this TFD has reminded me to take another look at it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I moved this when moving the module for a merge, but the sandbox2 page is not needed. Like the nominator says, it hasn't been used in years. Rjjiii (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SandboxN pages should only be kept if work is still being done to them. These are not pages we should keep indefinitely. Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It it literally linked in an active discussion. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? "What links here" has no "Talk" namespace link there other than your talk page from the TfD notification. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template_talk:Archive#Later_archives_not_linked,_take_n+1 the diff link in my "(alternately..." comment from 12:12, 24 November 2024. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you used a URL and not a wikilink so there would be no way for it to appear on the link list. That said, calling it an active discussion is a bit of a stretch, as it was only active after the sandbox was nominated. If it wouldn't have been nominated, the template would likely continued to be forgotten. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ABF is noted. Seems pretty simple to consider that things get forgotten-about until someone else notices to remind one to revisit and act. Otherwise it would be forbidden to object to XFD of anything that was ignored for a while. As can be seen from several recent XFD of my old items, I have no problem letting things be deleted (or even explicitly endorsing such) when I no longer have current plans to act use them. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ABF is noted, well when you try and make it seem that my argument was incorrect on the verge of lying, yes, I have no problem with you assuming whatever you want. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete or move to a user sandbox if the user wants to keep working on it. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 6 December 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:Use Ugandan English

[edit]
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 Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 03:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find any discussions leading to the creation of {{Use Ugandan English}} by Cobaltcigs. Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away. I have found no information about whether Ugandan English is based on British or American English, so I can't recommend conversion to a redirect at this time. Evidence supporting a redirect is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uganda's sole official language was English through 2005, and it remains one of the country's two official languages. There is a distinct variety of English that took hold there (Ugandan English), and it makes sense to keep this template specifically for that variety in line with MOS:ENGVAR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sourced evidence for differences between Ugandan English and standard American or British English that would be relevant to written work here at Wikipedia. I was unable to find any in the Ugandan English article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this stage nom has failed to provide any compelling reason to delete this template. English is an official language of Uganda. Per WP:TIES articles related to Uganda should use the variety of English used in Uganda. The nom admits they have no idea what spelling variety is used in Uganda. That's not a reason to delete the template. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English [edited to add: that is usable on Wikipedia]. Please provide sources or an example of Ugandan English spelling or vocabulary used in a Wikipedia article that would not be used in an article about another place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that you consult the relevant scholarly literature, such as this 2016 paper and this paper from 2000. That there is a distinct variety of English in Uganda is totally uncontroversial among scholars.
    I don't understand the basis for your claim that [t]here is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English. In fact, I would kindly ask in return: do you have scholarly sources that you are basing that radical claim on, or is the push to delete this template based merely on sloppy guesswork? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Ugandan English different from British or American English in a way that is applicable here on Wikipedia? We can't accept misspelled words or non-standard phrasing that would not be understandable by the majority of English speakers, so this template is not usable as a guide for writing articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I keep seeing "keep" votes in these related discussion that read as if their pride is hurt, and not arguments based on the actual issue. These templates are meant to inform editors that the spelling of this article should use a specific variant. If Ugandan English has no unique spelling to it and it uses American English, then there is no need for that template. We could, to quite the masses, add to the documentation and banner that Ugandan English also uses this. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Ugandan, so my pride is certainly not hurt. What evidence is there that Uganda uses American English? AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or replace. As in this example, the participants of this discussion will likely have a very Eurocentric worldview where the English language is more homogeneous and the differences between their western counterparts are better documented. If this template is deleted, a new template should replace it to prevent Use American English from dominating articles by default. Not only that but that template should also make known that the English variant used in so-and-so article may have differences common to the region. As someone who had actually lived in the third world, I can't support deleting this template without either more representation in this discussion or preferably a proposal for an adequate replacement. Considering the fact that the nom has depreciated the EngvarB template at the same time without proposing a replacement, I'm opposing this deletion for now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:
Something tells me nom is running blindfolded straight into a cultural and linguistic minefield... my advice: don't do it, it's not worth it...
I can tell you're trying to help and I can see your thinking. You're looking to standardise articles, based on language - and language, involves morphology, syntax and semantics (leaving out phonetics and phonology, WP is written). And you're trying to do it, by enforcing the use of codified or standard variants of language.
The problem is, most variants of English and indeed most languages are not codified, including Ugandan, Kenyan, Indian English and many more. There are no standardised versions of most variants. This is even more the case with a language used as a lingua franca because those languages are means of communicating through a secondary language between people who speak different native tongues - expression of ideas is more important than the agreement of words.
If you want Ugandan English in a nutshell: it has evolved from and retains most features of British English (this is broadly the case for most of the Commonwealth/ex-Empire), and especially when used at a higher register and written, it is much like standard British English, although it may have borrowed some Americanisms, just as British English does. It also has incorporated a lot of words from Bantu languages, especially those describing local things, concepts, topics, people, nature, etc, i.e. it has its own Uganda-specific lexicon. Mostly, these borrowings or introductions are from Luganda (indigenous) or Swahili (mostly non-indigenous Bantu language). Sometimes, expressions and grammar has entered from Bantu languages too, but again, this will feature more in spoken vs. written Ugandan English.
At a broader level, Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ugandan English together are often treated as forms of East African English - they share lots of words, and similar changes are seen across the English variants (also, Swahili is a bantu-language, and much of the populations of all countries are Bantu).
As far as WP is concerned, or language in general, an overly rigid set of rules will always cause problems. The Ugandan template, to me, says use Ugandan English terms to describe Ugandan things. Sure, explain the meaning of those terms well for an international audience, but don't rob a culture of its own rich cultural lexicon.
Also think, if you got to delete the template as you wished, what would you do with all the other English variant templates on WP? (also, have a look at the Kenyan English WP article, because it explains a lot of what Ugandan English involves, in a better way than I have here).
If you really want to get into it, here's some reading for you....
Release notes: East African English https://www.oed.com/discover/release-notes-east-african-english (A list of Ugandan English words most recently added to the OED).
Schmied, Josef, 'East African English', in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Devyani Sharma (eds), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, Oxford Handbooks (2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Dec. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199777716.013.35/ [Available here]
Schmied, Josef. "East African English (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania): morphology and syntax". 4 Africa, South and Southeast Asia, edited by Rajend Mesthrie, Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008, pp. 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208429.2.451/ [Available here]
Schmied J. Standards of English in East Africa. In: Hickey R, ed. Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Studies in English Language. Cambridge University Press; 2012:229-255. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139023832.013/
Fisher AEC. Assessing the state of Ugandan English. English Today. 2000;16(1):57-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400011470/
N Nassenstein. A preliminary description of Ugandan English. World Englishes 35 (3), 396-420 https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12205
Ssempuuma, Jude. 2013. Ugandan English. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), The Mouton world atlas of variation in English, 475–482. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ladefoged, Peter, Ruth Glick, Clive Criper, Clifford H. Prator & Livingstone Walusimbi. 1972. Language in Uganda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Isingoma, Bebwa, 'The Sociolinguistic Profile of English at the Grassroots Level: A Comparison of Northern and Western Uganda', in Christiane Meierkord, and Edgar W. Schneider (eds), World Englishes at the Grassroots (Edinburgh, 2021; online edn, Edinburgh Scholarship Online, 23 Sept. 2021), https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474467551.003.0003/
Ssentanda, M. E., & Wenske, R. S. (2023). Language ideologies in the promotion of English in Uganda’s educational system: a historical overview from the 1890s to 2007. South African Journal of African Languages, 43(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2023.2294601/ Montezuma69 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry for the wall of text... Montezuma69 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that Ugandan English is real, but we simply cannot write articles using Ugandan English spelling and syntax here at Wikipedia, per various sections of MOS. Regarding specific vocabulary, we have MOS:COMMONALITY for that, which is why "mandazi", one of the words in the helpful OED list that was linked above, is linked to its article when it is used in Impurity after childbirth#Tanzania. No Ugandan English template is used or should be used in that article. It would help for the "Keep" proponents to link to specific parts of specific articles for which the Ugandan English templates provide guidance to editors that helps them write articles in a specific variety of English. Without those specific examples, it is unclear whether these templates are actually useful in providing guidance to editors, which is their purported purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. Even if Ugandan English as suitable for use on Wikipedia is not, at the moment, any different from British English, what is the problem in keeping it? (I reserve my opinion on that particular question.) There is a clear upside, viz. that if/when UgE does clearly require distinct treatment, we shan’t have to relabel all the relevant pages. (For example, at the moment, I think it is quite clear that the default assumption should be BrE orthography; but matters could change. Keeping the template tracks that.) Docentation (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The downside, and the reason for this nomination, is that Ugandan English, as described in the article, contains grammatical constructions and spelling differences that should never be used in Wikipedia articles, except as examples on pages describing Ugandan English. Since the purpose of the templates is to guide editors in how to write articles, the templates are providing invalid guidance about the grammar and spelling that is to be used in articles. They are contrary to MOS, a Wikipedia guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first preference, which seemed to be the way everything was going around 10–15 years ago, would be to delete all of the "Use X English" templates and fold all of them into {{EngvarA}} and {{EngvarB}}. Life is easy then, we don't run into endless arguments on pages whose "TIES" status isn't immediately clear about exactly which of the near-identical flavours of English using the British/Australian/Commonwealth spellings are in use. Minor differences in usage between the UK, Africa and elsewhere can be sorted out locally on talk pages as they arise without needing to label the whole thing with a broad brush. (And if EngvarB isn't the best title then people can brainstorm ways to improve it, but that's also not a reason to ditch it). But it seems that effort was never completed, and maybe it ran into roadblocks from people who wanted to retain nation-specific templates without considering the benefit of axing them. But anyway, given where we are, with seemingly more articles now being switched from EngvarB to "Use British English", the solution for Ugandan articles is emphatically not to remove all the English-variants of all the individual nations that speak English and label them all "British". That would be a massively arrogant and colonialist step to take - "British English" is not a valid way to describe the English spoken in Uganda, Kenya or anywhere else other than the UK.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please provide a specific example of how this template guides editors to write article prose differently from how they would write an article tagged with "Use British English", given that MOS needs to apply. The Ugandan English article provides examples of English usage that would be considered incorrect here at Wikipedia. If this template is unable to provide useful guidance, it is not useful. Not being useful or usable is a good reason to delete a template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 5 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_23&oldid=1262191019"