Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 February 27

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

February 27

[edit]

Template:Elections in Delaware sidebar

[edit]

Redundent with Template:Elections in Delaware footer, they cover the exact same subject making having both unnecessary. If it is determined that this one should stay and the footer is deleted then I am okay with that, but one of them needs to go. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merged-from

[edit]

Propose merging Template:Merged-from with Template:Copied.
{{copied}} has all the parameters {{Merged-from}} has (including a merge parameter for explicit language), allows multiple articles to be listed in a single banner, and includes more tracking parameters (to_diff, from_oldid, etc.). Could instead propose adopting all the features into merged-from, but seems redundant considering the good work that has gone into Module:Copied. Tule-hog (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge Merging and copying are distinct processes that should be kept separate. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this isn't merged, I suggest that from_oldid (source page from where merged material originated) and from_diff (source page before and after merge) and to_diff (target page before and after merge) be added to the merger template ; this would handle split-and-merge situations;;; The COPIED template should also accept a from_diff -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that COPIED needs a from _diff, as the article the material is copied from isn't altered by the act of copying. Sometimes the section copied will be cut as well, sometimes the entire "from" article will disappear, but it's not an integral part of the "COPIED" process. PamD 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging templates. I have used both these templates in distinctly different situations. I use the Merged-from template and also Template:Afd-merged-from as well as the companion Merged-to in situations where an article has been redirected to another article, often because they have been proposed for deletion or merging. There is no need to identify which version of the article text was copied because it is generally obvious from the page history of the merging article when the redirection occurred and what the text of the original article was. Normally, when this happens the information in the original article is not copied, but rewritten to fit into the target article. In their existing format, these templates are easy to use. The Copied template is far more complex to use, and many editors do not use it properly. It only needs to be used where some text from one article is copied verbatim into another article. Wikipedia's attribution requirements then requires identifying the source and target versions in the articles concerned to be identified and these details should be added to the copied template. Technically, this also needs to be done in the edit history of the target article at the time of copying, for attribution reasons, but this is often not done well. (See WP:CWW) These talk page banners are really back-up notes to alert editors to the history of an article. So should be kept as simple as possible, or they won't be used properly, if at all. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While the usage might be slightly different, it's communicating broadly the same information regarding article merges. I don't see why with the merging of parameters that this couldn't happen and it would clean up article talks which would be a doubleplus. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syntaxhighlight

[edit]

A simple wrapper around the <syntaxhighlight> that adds no functionality. Used only ~800 times (~200 times with the shortcut "sxhl"), and can just be subst'd away. Using this template instead of the plain extension tag makes the experience in VisualEditor significantly worse, as the extension has native VE support. ed g2s (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph color

[edit]

No transclusions. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this helper template, now that the merge is wrapping up. {{Gcolor}} was used by an older version of {{Pie chart}}. As noted during the recent decision to merge that template with the newer Module:Piechart, this helper template is no longer needed. The following subpages are also no longer needed:
Rjjiii (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neoauthoritarianism in China

[edit]

The Neoauthoritarianism in China template should be deleted because it duplicates the Conservatism in China template, which already covers PRC conservatism since third opinion confirmed that "China" refers to the PRC. Guotaian (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition and strong KEEP - A template to unite the 'pro-Beijing' political forces of Mainland China (PRC), Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan (ROC) is essential, and the "Neoauthoritarianism in China" template is currently in charge. ProKMT (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Neoauthoritarianism in China template is largely similar to the Conservatism in China template, which covers largely the same topics as the earlier template. HarukaAmaranth 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Guotaian promises never to remove non-Beijing camp conservatives (pro-ROC camp and conservative localists) from the "Template:Conservatism in Hong Kong", he may not oppose deletion. ProKMT (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2023 Joe McDonagh Cup Team of the Year

[edit]

No article on the team, seems to be another "fantasy" team. --woodensuperman 09:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Far from being a "fantasy" team as you call it, this is actually the official team of the year as announced by the Gaelic Athletic Association (see link here to the official GAA website: Carlow to the fore in Joe McDonagh Team of the Year). While not everything needs a navbox, not every navbox needs an article. Reference to the Team of the Year could be added to the existing 2023 Joe McDonagh Cup page if you think that would help? --CorkMan talk 23:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Every navigation template needs an article to show where this is about. And the "team of the year" of a second tier tournament? The notability of that team is highly questionable. The Banner talk 01:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social media post

[edit]

Unused fork of Template:Tweet. The only functionality this adds to the standard {{Quote}} and {{Quote box}} is to add decorative logos and mimic the appearance of posts on external websites, which is contrary to MOS:CONFORM. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wait per Hex. I think we should figure out what to do with Template:Tweet first, and then reassess. (Full disclosure; I'm the one who attempted to create this template (and i guess i could be blamed for its lack of being good). Also, I was actively participating in the convo on Template talk:Tweet). I also agree with Hex on Joe boarding conflict of interest here. It's worth noting that they previously removed the twitter iconography from the Tweet template without any consensus, and they implied that there was consensus for Tweet to reworked to be more like {{Quote}}, but when pressed cited a 10 month old RfD with a consensus to keep the Tweet template unchanged, and a half dozen short talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago. Tantomile (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that they previously removed the twitter iconography from the Tweet template without any consensus, and they implied that there was consensus for Tweet to reworked to be more like {{Quote}}, but when pressed cited a 10 month old RfD with a consensus to keep the Tweet template unchanged, and a half dozen short talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago. No, they cited MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR and MOS:LOGO.
MOS:LOGO is a guideline, and there is consensus to follow it, even if you disagree with that consensus. It says (among other things):
The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged: While illustration of a logo may be appropriate at the main article on the topic to which the logo pertains, use of logos as icons is not useful to our readers, and often presents legal problems.
It is fine that you disagree with Joe, but please don't misrepresent what they say. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Tweets don't perfectly fall into being quotes, so I would argue that MOS:VAR also applies here, as the manual of style does not contain guidance for how to deal with Tweets. If we think of tweets/social media posts as being quotes, then it falls under VAR's recommendation that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", and if we consider tweets/social media posts to not be quotes, then an argument can be made that the Tweet template is a common and consistent way of citing tweets, and under VAR; "Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style." and "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there."
I don't think that I entirely misrepresented Joe, at least not intentionally; It is true that Joe deleted the logos from the template with no prior consensus to do so beyond MoS, and against the results of the earlier TfD that decided to keep the template unchanged, including that iconography. They only mentioned that they'd removed the logos days later in an only semi-related talk page conversation. Also, while they did later cite NAVBOXCOLOUR and LOGO, they did initially claim that "As discussed at the recent TfD and just about every other section of this talk page, the whole concept of this template is a blatant violation of MOS:QUOTE and WP:NOTPROMO". When I asked for more details because I couldn't find this deluge of consensus against Tweet, they did provide the 10 month old RfD and a half dozen talk page conversations from 3-6 years ago, which is why I say "when pressed". I do suppose that I could have provided more information here, and I'm sorry for any confusion that caused, but I maintain that my previous statement was factual.
I do understand that MOS:LOGO is a guideline (and please don't make me out to be some kind of delusional egotist who thinks that my opinion overrides the MoS.), although I would argue that the use of a small twitter icon in the corner of a tweet would be allowed under MOS:DECOR, which states that "[Icons] should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". The Twitter logo (and other social media logos, if we end up using {{Social Media Post}} ever) are often widely recognizable icons that quickly communicate to the reader the source of the post. It's common for the twitter logo and a basic outline of a tweet to appear whenever a tweet is cited in a book or shown on the news.
Also, @Polygnotus, I hate to ask, and I know you have a right to be here and participate, but did you have a previous connection to Joe? You replied to me without being mentioned and with no prior activity on Tweet an hour after I replied to Joe, and you've voiced a near identical opinion to them throughout this whole ordeal. Also, you and Joe both seem to be fans of quoting content by putting it in light green text without quotation marks. Your account appears to be mostly used for AWB, and this looks like a departure for what appears to almost be a single-purpose account, so in the interest of revealing in any conflict of interests that may be applicable to this TfD, I just want to ask if you are an Alt or Shared account that Joe Roe has access to or if you've been asked off-wiki by Joe to support them in this. Sorry, I just have to ask, please don't feel like this an attack in way, that is not my intention. Best, Tantomile (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joe uses Joe Robot for automated edits. While I am not Joe, and Joe is not me, we do agree. I don't think we have ever communicated. And you shouldn't use words you do not understand, single-purpose accounts are used for a single purpose. Any further accusations will be treated as casting aspersions and you will have to explain your behaviour on WP:ANI. Although it is flattering that you think I could be that sexy. Polygnotus (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the attempt at wikilawyering makes little sense. Polygnotus (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This narrative of events is so divorced from reality I don't know where to start. Others can read the actual discussions on Talk:Tweet. Though this TfD, I'll note again, is about a different template which you created and which is not used anywhere.
P.S. The light green text without quotation marks is {{talk quote inline}}. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My representative on Earth means Template talk:Tweet not Talk:Tweet. Probably still a bit dazed from our soulmerge. Polygnotus (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_27&oldid=1278263515"