Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26
November 28 >

November 27

[edit]

Template:Railway accidents and incidents in 1972

[edit]

Unused copy/paste without attribution duplicate of Template:1972 railway accidents, Template:1973 railway accidents, Template:1974 railway accidents, Template:1975 railway accidents, Template:1976 railway accidents, Template:1977 railway accidents, and Template:1978 railway accidents . Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' is the format currently accepted within Wikiproject Trains for these templates, as opposed to the old 'xxxx railway accidents' format. However, all existing 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' (about forty of them, from 1972 to 2022 or so) were erroneously created as copy-paste from the old templates, instead of the old templates being moved to the new title. I'm not sure what's the best way to tidy this up. All years before 1972 will now be done the proper way; for later years' templates I suppose some admin action is required to sort them out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History merge is needed for those that aren't tagged here. These can be deleted and then the current one moved. Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not that the template content is the same between old and new templates (I'm talking about template years 1979-2022): the content has been reformatted to make it neater and more legible, which was the main idea behind the migration from the old style templates to the new ones. The content of the new templates should be preserved; only the histories should be merged. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, including history where possible. See also User talk:The Emperor of Byzantium#Railway accidents and incidents in 1979. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new ones, which have no significant history. If there is a new consensus name, the existing templates can be moved to the new name(s). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not that simple, it's not just a case of WP:CUTPASTE: the old template's content was reformatted and then put into the new templates, giving a neater and more legible layout based on the {{vad}} template. Deleting the new templates would wipe out a lot of good reformatting work that was indeed backed by project consensus on both the new template's name and its new layout. I'd be happy to do the work required to sort out this cock-up (since I did most of the aforementioned reformatting work), although I'm not an admin (nor do I aspire to become one), so I'm a bit limited in what I can help with. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To clarify the work that was done here: compare the old template for the year 2002 with the new one. It's not just that the name has changed; the content is significantly different (and is laid out in a much improved format in the new template). Any action intended to restore the full template history should ensure that the current content is preserved. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinema chains in Canada

[edit]

Navbox template with only one item in it. As always, the purpose of navboxes is to navigate between related articles, so a navbox serves no purpose if there's only one thing in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The related category has more entries, but it's neither's the nominator's or other editors' job, to fix or transclude navigation templates that the creator of the template didn't care enough to do. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikispecies redirect

[edit]

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 (TALKCONT) 05:38, 19 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. J947 ‡ edits 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a lot of these while linking up new enwiki pages to Wikidata. There are a number that have articles on other Wikipedias, which might be worth investigating. For others, the wikispecies articles might provide interesting bases for new enwiki articles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibooks redirect

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia Commons redirect

[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive-index

[edit]

This template is only used on a handful of manually-curated archive indexes. It can be replaced with {{archive|type=index}}. Something similar was suggested at the previous merge discussion several years back but not implemented. Rjjiii (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_27&oldid=1259797486"