From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30
October 2 >

October 1

Template:Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan

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 no consensus. Izno ( talk) 00:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a fairly nonsensical template created by a blocked user who was using multiple accounts to push POV. For instance, it lists Takushoku University as an "anti-Korean group" and Japanese war crimes as an "anti-Korean trope". It also accuses prominent living people such as the Egyptian actress Fifi of being racist against Koreans, with no citations. It seems easiest to delete it, and if such a series template is needed it should be rewritten from scratch, perhaps with a broader focus. NotBartEhrman ( talk) 21:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Toobigtokale - ping. You may be interested in this. I need more time to think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I think the topic merits a template, but in its current form it is mediocre at best, and at the very least could have some of its entries pruned.
I may take a shot at redoing it; may only take an hour or so. I think given the important nature of the topic, it'd be a shame to lose the template altogether until someone at an indeterminate time is willing to make a new one toobigtokale ( talk) 04:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree the topic is important, but is this type of template the right way to group related articles? For instance, do we have a sidebar on anti-Black racism in the United States? (I looked for one but couldn't find it.) If we did have such a template, it seems to me that it would cause problems. For example, would J. Edgar Hoover be listed an example of an influential anti-Black racist? He certainly did have that impact on American history, but would we put the sidebar on his article?
Anyway, I'm open to discussing this on a more generic level, but I do strongly think that this specific template created by a banned user is a mess and needs to be removed. NotBartEhrman ( talk) 15:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
There is Template:Antisemitism sidebar. I've been trying but I can't think of a reason against having a sidebar for the topic, even if the Antisemitism one didn't exist as precedent. I had actually independently previously found this Anti-Korean sentiment template useful in discovering pages (even if I winced at how bad it was); you can see my edits all over the pages in it. I think others could similarly benefit from a better one.
For inclusion criteria, to my understanding sidebars should be more sparsely and conservatively populated: broad, explicit, and prominent pages only.
If someone simply harbors anti-Korean sentiment, I don't think they merit inclusion. If they're the leader of an explicitly anti-Korean group (namely Makoto Sakurai and Zaitokukai) and that's the main thing they're famous for, then I think they could. Ultimately I think inclusion will always be subjective but that's the case for much of Wikipedia toobigtokale ( talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ toobigtokale I agree with that much-reduced scope. If we are going to remove stuff like Japan–Korea disputes and Unification Church and shrink the template to just those articles like Makoto Sakurai and Zaitokukai, I am ok to withdraw my nomination. NotBartEhrman ( talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, those pages and similar will be removed. I'll get around to redoing this template in the next 1–3 days toobigtokale ( talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Please check the edit I made changing the scope, as I feel this makes for a more useful and appropriate sidebar NotBartEhrman ( talk) 14:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes that looks like a good change in scope. I haven't looked but assuming a similar sidebar doesn't already exist this is more needed than one specifically for anti sentiment.
I may add a few things to it at some point toobigtokale ( talk) 15:18, 4 October 2023 (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:Lx

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 merge to Template:Pagelinks. This looks basically uncontroversial, but I'd suggest implementer review the comments here. Izno ( talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:Lx with Template:Pagelinks.
Duplicate functions, but Pagelinks ( Module:PageLinks) has more features. Lx is meant to support a broad category of shortcut templates, but they can also be served by PageLinks. (See also the no-consensus of merging a bunch of link templates.) SWinxy ( talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge. Duplicative. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question - will Template:Lx still redirect to Template:Pagelinks? - jc37 22:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Probably? What I'd do is to change its uses (e.g. Template:Lc) to use {{#invoke:PageLinks}} before redirecting. SWinxy ( talk) 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: SWinxy, the TfM tag seems to be messing up XFDcloser. See Special:Diff/1174719924. I know it's against convention, but perhaps put the TfM tag at the end of the template to prevent this? CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 07:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Should be sorted. Primefac ( talk) 11:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Primefac, the same is happening with {{ lx}} at CfD. Could you fix that too, please? CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sure, fixed. Primefac ( talk) 09:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Concern: I tested using Pagelinks instead of Lc at a CFD and it omits the "Category:" prefix from the page name. This is not acceptable in that context. Can Lc be changed in such a way as to retain the category namespace in the page name? – Fayenatic London 08:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    How did you test it? According to the testcases, the "Category:" prefix should be shown. Lc will add that prefix when it invokes Module:PageLinks. SWinxy ( talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Note: This was previously discussed here. The shortcut templates such as Lc don't need the full namespace to be written out, whilst Pagelinks does, which is why the template doesn't work when they're swapped out unless the page linked is from the article namespace. Happily888 ( talk) 03:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment since this merge is occurring... some additional work on it could be done at the same time. Has thought been given on making a separate transclusions link for templates? ({{ tl}}) and a separate redirects links for all of them, and a separate non-transclusion--non-redirect links; as these are used on deletion discussions, those would seem to be relevant. -- 67.70.25.175 ( talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Like, individual templates for (Page+WhatLinksHere) and (Page+Transclusions)? SWinxy ( talk) 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would become Template (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | transclusions | watch | logs | subpages ) or Talk (edit | subjectpage | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs | subpages ) or Page (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs) or something like that. -- 67.70.25.175 ( talk) 06:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't know if I get what you're saying. But if you wanted to create multiple templates with slightly varying results, with Module:PageLinks, it's as easy as creating a template with {{#invoke:PageLinks|main|page=Example|separator=pipe|edit|t|h|wlh|w|tl}}. SWinxy ( talk) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, almost no discussion on the actual merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 20:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • OK so it's been through two relists, and I would hope there isn't any more concerns or objections to my proposal. I'm interpreting the silence as a thumbs up. SWinxy ( talk) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (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:Joe Boyd Vigil

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 00:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Only one of these linked articles actually mentions the subject, and that article might not even be notable. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: The article I was referring to above was Toonami: Deep Space Bass, which I did determine was non-notable and is now a redirect. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 15:00, 4 October 2023 (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:RAMlink

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

No transclusions. Created in 2006. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2023 (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:MTV.com

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; deleted as G7 by GB fan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Oh yeah, MTV shuttered their artist platform ages ago. As the creator of the template, full steam ahead for deleting it, IMO. -- FeldBum ( talk) 23:46, 1 October 2023 (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:Palatinate-Neuburg graphical timeline

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Single-article timeline with no template parameters. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (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:PDC Pro Tour 2020 Rankings

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Single-article table that is unlikely to see further updates. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (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:Policy-discuss

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Apparently used once at Wikipedia:Notability (people), which is a guideline, not a policy. No documentation or categories. Created in 2010. Recommend deletion in favor of templates that are actually used. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (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:Pobóg-varieties

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Navbox with no blue links in the body. Not useful for navigation. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:05, 1 October 2023 (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:Police-civilian encounters

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Single-article table with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2023 (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:Election box 2nd round no party no change

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 14:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:44, 1 October 2023 (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:Categorify

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 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not have a rule that lists and categories are always mutually exclusive to each other, so this recently created maintenance template betrays a deep misunderstanding of the relationship.
For one thing, a list can have references added to support an entry's inclusion, while a category cannot -- and for another, in both of the two lists where this template was added to date, the corresponding category already exists, but has been diffused on size grounds into subcategories, meaning that a list is needed alongside the category tree as a finding aid since people might not necessarily always know which specific subcategory to find any individual person in. So for both of those reasons, the standard rule on Wikipedia is that lists and categories are allowed to coexist for the same topic, since they serve different purposes and organize the information in different ways.
It was also created by just one user, with absolutely no evidence that either the list or category WikiProjects ever established a consensus that it was needed.
Also, since the template doesn't require any specific reasons to be provided why the placer feels that the list isn't warranted, this has the potential to just get indiscriminately added to every single list that exists in Wikipedia at all. And at any rate, if and when there actually are content issues around whether a list is warranted or not, that can be very easily handled through the normal AFD process without needing its own special queue. Bearcat ( talk) 12:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Very weak keep (author). I agree it was a mistake to make the template without consulting the project, I agree that I’ve been poor in applying it, but, from what I’ve read, I think there is one narrow instance where this template makes sense: very narrow intersection lists that would not survive an AFD, but could be added (if the category does not currently exist) at the bottom of a category tree. If relevant PAGs are cited against this interpretation, or other editors with more experience in this area vote delete, I’ll change my vote to delete. Mach61 ( talk) 12:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, lists at AFD are not busy enough for this template to be useful Mach61 ( talk) 01:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This template proposes a backwards process. Just AFD the article and propose converting it to a category. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't like the process this template proposes. List of Dutch naval personnel, in its present form, would make more sense as a category. But it would be even better to contextualise the personnel listed and turn it into a proper article. List of Netherlands international footballers born outside the Netherlands is already better as a list than a category, because it has vital dates and sources.
    I'm of the opinion that Categories are useful for tracking things and organising pages only: they're no good for navigation or for getting an understanding of a topic. Lists can fill those roles. What would be better than this template would be its opposite: something en route to {{ Prose}} or {{ List to table}}, with output like This list presents little or no information about its entries. Please add some. Folly Mox ( talk) 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Jonesey95 and the nom are correct. Folly Mox's idea also has merit, but is not necessary to resolve to delete this template which misunderstands our processes and rationales.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2023 (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.

Rugby World Cup Pool templates

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 09:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a precedent for the pool stages of events: templates are fine during the event as it makes updating much simpler for the lay editor, but that after the event finishes they are less necessary. These two groups of templates should be replaced by section transclusion from their parent articles ( 2007 and 2019) before deletion. Primefac ( talk) 08:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete, the precedent is to use LST (note the parent articles are the Pool stage articles, not in the main article). Frietjes ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2023 (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://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_1&oldid=1179739863"