Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8[edit]

Template:2020 Summer Olympics men's volleyball match A1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete per the discussion below, as well as this discussion at WT:OLYMPICS. Incidentally I've already started converting some of these, and I will be doing the other (similar) ones in the coming days. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; Content has been merged into the main article Volleyball at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. In place section headings replace the need for endless templates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

delete after content merge. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason to keep these in templates. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (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:Keaton Henson[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:01, 16 March 2020 (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:Gold Coast (Baja California)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for this template, Gold Coast (Baja California) has been deleted, so no use for this template. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the article is not notable, then the navigation template for the same thing is not notable and does warrant a template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (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:Di-replaceable fair use disputed[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only 14 transclusions, mostly on talk pages, although the template carries a footer saying "This template should only be used on file description pages." Appears to only have been used for brief period in 2013. Purpose is said to be to dispute speedy deletion of non-free images, for which it is non-standard, not needed and not something most editors are aware of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Templates like this are very short-term in use — whenever this template is used, either (1) the file should quickly be deleted or (2) the situation's murky enough that this deletion process shouldn't be used. In the first case, the file obviously won't appear anymore, and in the second case, the "disputed" template won't persist because it's meant for a process that's not being used for the file. Moreover, this is just another component of the file deletion process, and shouldn't be deleted without consensus at a bigger forum that's specifically related to deletion or file management. Deleting this template would amount to going against what's written at WP:MFD: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." Andy's rationale demonstrates that he wasn't trying to change anything of the file-deletion process, so I'm not objecting one bit; I mention this as rationale for saying that this probably ought to be a speedy keep for procedural reasons. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This template is meant to be transcluded only while a discussion is in progress, hence it should rightly have very few translations. It serves a work flow that is currently standard in fair use disputes. Deryck C. 00:20, 9 March 2020 (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:Issno[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:47, 16 March 2020 (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:Middle-earth races[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 16. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:48, 16 March 2020 (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:Inadequate lead[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Discussion moved
By nominator, to here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_13#Template:Inadequate_lead

Due to my intention no longer being a simple merger due to new information. Couldn't easily incorporate the new plan or info into this discussion; it was just too messy.

I take it that because this is not a talk page, I'm allowed to do this. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to proper closing format by * Pppery * it has begun... 02:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Inadequate lead with Template:Lead too short.
Note from nominator (10 March): do not merge if the discussion succeeds. The nominator is assessing each use of {{Inadequate lead}} and converting to {{Lead too short}} or {{Lead rewrite}} as appropriate (would welcome help). A redirect of {{Inadequate lead}} to {{Lead rewrite}} could then take place (reflecting the name). Merging/redirecting will remove the parameter use case page of {{Inadequate lead}} (because it won't have TemplateData).

Don't quite see the point of having both of these templates exist. The wording is almost identical, and the intention described in the documentation of {{Inadequate lead}} seems to be better covered by {{Lead rewrite}} (which could be edited/expanded to suffice, as mentioned by several editors).

{{Lead too short}} is older (2006, vs. {{Inadequate lead}}'s 2010) and has about 16x more transclusions (8,326, vs. {{Inadequate lead}}'s 527). Those links will also show you some invalid "reason" use cases, which show that the use been practically identical for both templates.

This merger was previously nominated in 2011, and in 2012 the template was boldly merged, reverted then nominated for merging immediately after.

This merger was also previously discussed in 2014 (section "{{Lead too short}} vs. {{Inadequate lead}} (2014)", can't link it due to transclusions). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything I said in the discussion eight years ago still stands: I had forgotten this even existed to be honest. I'm aware there are subtle differences in semantics, but to be quite honest the only use case in which this one really applies is where a lead is long enough but talks about the wrong things, and in that case it's redundant to {{lead rewrite}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging, as the template "Lead too short" is definitely more clear and means the same. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Shortness is apparently the reason for inadequacy in most cases, and if Lead rewrite won't suffice, we could add a parameter to Lead too short that allows the addition of free text, so someone could add something like "Details about ___ are missing". Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. New explanation. The number of cases for lead too short 8,326 vs 527 for inadequate lead does not mean it's a good template. It remains that all these 8,326 cases could be renamed as inadequate summary without conflict, because too short always implies inadequate summary. It's the only valid reason why we say it's too short. The converse is not true: a lead could be a long and well written introduction and yet fails to summarize the key points, because an introduction is not the same thing as a summary. Failing to summarize the key points needs a dedicated template and Lead rewrite is not that. It applies as well when the text is not a good introduction. The same is not true for not too short, because it's not a requirement by itself: being short (if it is a good summary) is a good thing. It's a bad title for a template. Even if it is used 8,326 times, it can be renamed with only positive effect. It makes clear what is wanted. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Old explanation. The purpose of the lead is to introduce and summarize (i.e., list the main points of) the article. Length is not an issue in itself. If the lead lists all the main points and introduces well the article, while being short, it's even a good thing. Note added: I just learned that there is apparently an expectation of some minimal length. Still, I feel the most important is that it introduces the article and summarizes all its main points.Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dominic Mayers: I agree, but you can't deny that there are some leads that are too short. Single-sentence leads on multi-paragraph articles. I've seen that a lot. So there's no denying that there's such thing as a classification of "too short lead". What you say about summarising points basically supports that concept. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SUM1: Yes, I believe I understand that for some people "too short" is more special than "too long", "fails to summarize all points" and "fails to introduce clearly" and thus needs its own template. I disagree. I think they are all special. In fact, I believe "fails to summarize all points" is the most important, it is very different from the other ones and should have its own template. In particular, a lead can be a clear introduction, be well written, even be very long, but not at all a good summary. Summary is important when we search for specific content. I would not disagree with a merging if the final title and the text below emphasize the need for a summary of the key points. Too short is a bad title. It's not an objective in itself. In fact, between two good summaries, the shorter is better. Being short is a good thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note added. I just read the discussion for the previous merge request. The argument in favor of "too short" was that it is an heuristic to avoid a summary that does not cover the key points. My counter argument is that obviously this heuristic is not easily understood because we would not need this discussion otherwise. So I strongly disagree that "too short" is a good heuristic to achieve the goal. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The present proposal is to merge two templates that simply do nt address the same issue. You are raising an additional proposal here. So after this discussion is closed, feel free to propose a merge of inadequate lead and lead rewrite, and I'll consider it. For procedural reasons, this is not the place for that proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: As I'm sure you know, the issue turned out to be more nuanced than I could've expected. I'm trying my best when it comes to sorting out these 3 templates. It's too late for me to radically shift the purpose of this discussion. I'm doing what I can while people continue to give their views on this mess of a discussion. I should probably just close it and start all over. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a short while ago, I had to decide between these two templates for the Beyond Tomorrow (TV series) article. The issue with the lead section of the article (at the time of this comment) is that it doesn't describe the topic of the TV series, that a person reading the lead section won't know what the show is about unless they read the next section. My point here being, {{Inadequate lead}} is a general template which is applicable for a lead that lacks a brief summary, while {{Lead too short}} addresses a lack of specific details such as broadcasting network and dates. I would support a template merge if these two distinct usages are addressed in the post-merged template. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DeNoel: I wouldn't say at all that {{Lead too short}} requires specific details like broadcast dates. It says it on the name of the tin: lead too short. If the lead is not too short but is not an accurate summary, {{Lead rewrite}} (with possible improvements). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read several times what the template boxes actually display, and also how they are described on their template pages: Template:Inadequate lead, Template:Lead too short). I had to come to a conclusion—or that neither of them describe a lead section that lacks a summary, using the Beyond Tomorrow (TV series) article exampled—and would have to select a make-up-your-own-template template (Template:Ambox being the one I came across). I ultimately decided to use the one that appears as a general "not adequately summarize" while the other specifically mentions "key points of its contents" as part of its display box. Both templates are used very similarly (to the point of redundancy), but I had to select one to demonstrate that said article's lead included specific details, but fails to describe what the TV series was about. Template:Lead rewrite wouldn't be applicable, because the lead in said article is already short and focuses on specific details (key points), but it fails to summarize what the TV series is about. Whether my specific interpretations are right or wrong, that is the problem I was presented with, and thus I wanted to bring my dilemma here so that the template/s could be cleanup up or merged, with that in mind.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeNoel:. Yes, perhaps if we read the text, they appear redundant, but the title is very important. If we are going to change the title (and perhaps the text) to emphasize the need for an adequate **summary**, then yes, I would totally agree with a merge. The key point is that too short does not convey the most important. A longer lead is not at all a good objective in itself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; an article lead can be inadequate in many ways, which makes choosing from a selection of templates designed for specific purposes difficult. Of course, if one is able to correct the problem without having to use the template, that's the preferred option, but a flexible template definitely helps. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really think that there are essentially two main criteria for a good lead: it must be a summary of the key points and it must be an introduction. In French, we call it the "résumé introductif", which translates as "introductive summary". The "not too short" criteria is implicit in the summary criteria. It's useful to bring out these two different aspects using templates. An introduction is not at all the same thing as a summary. For example, in a business plan, the summary and the introduction are two separate components. I like that Wikipedia has the concept of combining both: we avoid these summaries that nobody understand and are only good for search engines. At the same time, we need to bring out these two aspects clearly with the help of dedicated templates. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from proposer. I just wanted to remind everyone of Nyttend's comment from 2012, which perfectly summarised how I saw these templates. I didn't even know they were two different templates for years until investigating. I was wondering why I was sometimes seeing it in yellow and sometimes seeing it in orange.
Also wanted to remind all opposers of {{Lead rewrite}}.
Let me reaffirm: I would envision that {{Inadequate lead}} is merged to {{Lead too short}} in the way it reads and is being used now; but that {{Lead rewrite}} take up much of the former intended role (which itself is quite redundant; I probably mean name) of {{Inadequate lead}}, which reflects how {{Lead rewrite}} being used now (i.e., it could be expanded/clarified to mention, "This lead may be inadequate or in need of rewriting."). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (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:Arda Realms Age1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge/delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Arda Realms Age1 with Template:Middle-earth.
3 links in the template, 2 of which are already in {{Middle-earth}}. Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, template has outlived its usefulness. I've put the third link into {{Middle-earth}} also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that you have removed it from at least one article. This pre-judges the outcome of a delete, and you should generally start with the TfD, rather than by substantially orphaning the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, sorry, I'm not used to templates-for-deletion. The template was and again now is transcluded only in the three articles (Lothlórien, Moria (Middle-earth), Beleriand) that remain in the template, all the others having been deleted by various editors as redirects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, now that all three links are present under “Locations” in Template:Middle-earth. — Tonymec (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this seems to have no real reason for existing separately. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (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:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Palestine topics. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine with Template:Palestine topics.
I was thinking first about merging the two minor templates. But then I thought, why not merge them both with the larger template for a better overview and less duplicate information? PPEMES (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Duplicate nominations from 25 Feb merged here. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2020 (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:Category navigation television stations established in year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates. Replaced by {{Television channels and stations established or disestablished in year category}}. Gonnym (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I created the new {{Television channels and stations established or disestablished in year category}} and the old {{Teldisestcat}}). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 8 March 2020 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_8&oldid=982339614"