Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PC-XT (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 17 August 2014 (→Template:Lang-en-GB: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:50, 17 August 2014 by PC-XT (talk | contribs) (→Template:Lang-en-GB: keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13

Template:YSG Entertainment

Template:YSG Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template for YSG Entertainment, an article deleted at AFD. It has only five links, four of which are redlinks and three are deleted articles. There is only one remaining blue link. Created by User:Coal Press Nation now indef blocked for as promotion only account. SpinningSpark 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-GB

Template:Lang-en-GB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was used in Apheresis (linguistics) and Caramelization. I replaced them with plain link, "British English", so this template is no longer used in mainspaces, rendering it near-useless. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and reverse the WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and restore per SMcCandlish and IP comments.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Unclear why it is particularly relevant whether the template is unused or massively under-utilized - six of one, half a dozen of the other. The issue should be whether it makes sense to have the template. Maybe I am missing something (and please tell me if I am), but it is not evident to me that this template accomplishes anything that a simple wikilink doesn't more simply accomplish. No wonder Misplaced Pages is having trouble keeping and attracting editors -- everything is becoming so damn overly-technical, including the use of templates instead of simple wikilinks. Maybe the ship on this has already sailed, so to speak, if the project is already littered with crappy templates like this one, but in my own opinion we should strive to keep things simple where we can. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would just add that this template was created almost 6 years ago (as was the US version - Canadian and Australian versions were created 2 years ago). Given how under-utilized the templates all are after that many years, I think the project has made clear that the task in question is better handled through a simple wikilink. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing something. Having the ability (note: not requirement) to metadata-tag something as a specific variety of English, in cases where this may be especially relevant (e.g. articles on differences between English dialects) is useful, and I at least was actually using it for this purpose. It appears that the nominator and someone(s) else in two cases have been removing the templates where ever they were being used. They are not supposed to be used frequently, by design. The idea that these four templates, which are for very specific uses in very narrow circumstances, and won't be used or even noticed by anyone but gnomes, is somehow related to people quitting wikipedia is patently absurd psychodrama. You're abusing XfD processes to take an anti-template, anti-metadata WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONGS stand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I would ask that you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and please knock it off with your condescending/insulting replies like this one and the ones below.

When you are done accusing me of psychodramas or abuse, and are ready to discuss like a grown-up, please let me know. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skeezix1000: WP:KETTLE. Instead of claiming aggrievement at being challenged on something, why not actually respond substantively to the challenge? Explain to us how it isn't position-pushing drama to hyperbolically claim that a handful of templates (that you characterize as "crappy", i.e. a slight euphemism for "full of shit", without any basis or explanation for such condemnation), intended and used (optionally) only for specific, narrow purposes in particular ENGVAR-comparison contexts, somehow constitutes the explanation for why "Misplaced Pages is having trouble keeping and attracting editors", and proof of "everything ... becoming so damn overly-technical". Just how high is that horse you're falling off of?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE? Unclear how I have been uncivil to you. I expressed my opinion, which I am entitled to do. You are entitled to disagree, but not to insult me or impugn my motives. You accused me of being abusive and creating psychodrama, and now of being on a high horse. I am happy to respond to the one substantive comment you made above, once you retract your insults above. I don't engage in substantive discussions with editors who do not assume good faith or who cannot be civil. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I understand the need to categorize for foreign languages, but is it really necessary for broad language variations (not even distinct dialects!) to carry this template? You're telling me that aside from the two articles George Ho linked, there were zero articles using this template? Zero, zip, zilch, after six years? I agree wholly with Skeezix about this being one of Misplaced Pages's biggest current issues: we need to aim our efforts in simplifying the process and trimming useless fat like this. This one is a no-brainer. - SweetNightmares 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The first half of your rant, I addressed in reply to Skeezix1000 immediately above. As to the other half, what on earth are you on about? There is nothing "technocratic" (see definition here) about these templates, or about using language metadata in general (entirely voluntarily - there is no policy requiring their use, and their own documentation discourages their use except where especially pertinent. There are zero present uses of the template because the nominator and others have been removing it to make it seem unused. These templates have nothing at all to do with any "process" that needs to be "simplified"; see response to Skeezix1000 again; I don't like to repeat myself. The only "no-brainer" here is that your !vote here raises no cognizant policy issues and can safely be ignored by the closer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I urge you to remain WP:civil when debating. Resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks does nothing to contribute to the debate at hand or WP:RETENTION and only serves to discourage users from becoming active editors. Please consult the following links for more information Also, please do not strike out and insert text from other users' comments as you did when you moved the section here. Finally, I know what the word "technocratic" means, do you? The answer can be found on this page under the "What is a technocrat" section. - SweetNightmares 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@SweetNightmares:. See reply to Skeezix1000, above; much of it applies to your issues as well. I am remaining civil. It is not incivil to point out policy and logic flaws in an argument. Accusing others of "resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks" is not civil. Nor is calling them "technocrats", which is really no different from calling them "fascists" or "communists" or some other form of exploitative governance by a privileged few; it's pure negative hyperbole intended to be personally insulting. So, see WP:KETTLE, closely. See also WP:REFACTOR; maybe reconsider next time you feel like lecturing someone on how things are done. Also, please use user talk for user conduct issues; your complaint doesn't belong at TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Skeezix. It wasn't a fait accompli that rendered it useless. It was its lack of purpose that rendered it useless. The complaint above about a supposed anti-metadata position being problematic begs the question in its assumption that the existence of this metadata is actually beneficial. And with respect, SMcCandlish, you should not be browbeating others for apparently failing to provide policy based reasons to delete when your reasons to keep amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There are any number of potential uses for distinguishing between ENGVARs, ranging from CSS styling, to using different voices with different pronunciation patterns in screen readers, to being clear on how to interpret IPA pronunciation markup, etc., etc. You assert that there is no and/or can be no use for such templates, but obviously there are. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL are actually valid arguments at TfD (alone among the XfD processes), where whether a template may be useful or not is actually a part of the decision process. I've not made any WP:ILIKEIT argument at all, meanwhile the bulk of the delete !votes are patently WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based, as they are simply opposed to templates with a technical purpose, as if somehow the actual cause of editorial decline. I mean, just go back up and read them. Not only are language metadata templates blamed for editor retention problems, if I defend the templates or counter-criticizes their critics, I too am personally labeled an editor retention problem! It's completely circular reasoning, a proposition that seeks to be its own proof and to insulate itself from any analysis. Also, "browbeating" is intimidation into taking an action (or refraining from acting) by the use of threatening verbal aggressiveness; look it up. Pointing out logical, policy and PoV problems with how some parties are using TfD isn't browbeating, aggressive, or any form of intimidation, even if I've leaned toward the WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE-calling side in addressing these problems (and I'm hardly alone in taking a serious-faced approach to addressing soapboxy deletion arguments).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is starting to heat up, and I don't see signs of cooling down yet. Look, maybe we should keep ourselves cool away from each other before we go any further. I nominated, you voted, and others voted already. You favor keeping it for future computer experts; I favor getting rid of it and making everything simple and neat. I cannot withdraw all the nominations I have done here just because of your conflicts with others (and me if you can count). I read your bio in user page, and I think you may have another COI here. If you want to generally discuss this more, go to WT:NOT#"Misplaced Pages is not a technocracy"?, which I started there. The main purpose is discussing specific templates. Please go to either WT:NOT or WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
SMC, over- or under-citing policy neither proves nor disproves one's argument. Regarding my being a "conspiracy theorist," you are out of line. I agree with George Ho: it's time for each of us to step away; we've voiced our opinions and are obviously not going to convince each other. - SweetNightmares 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the British English template for those who don't want to spell out "British English". To me, "British English: colour" "American English: color" is easier to type, memorize, and grasp than just {{lang-en-GB|colour}} {{lang-en-US|color}}. Both systems result the same, but must we favor (or favour) templates over simple spelling? And must we continually encourage templates and discourage simple spelling, especially per MOS:ACCESS (which I discussed in its talk page)? I brought up the "technocracy" issue in WT:NOT, so join there if interested. Must we rely on templates rather than easy spelling? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (and the other "Lang-en-XX" templates nominated below, and revert their removal). I suggest that those wanting to delete these templates read Template:Lang#Rationale. The two forms {{lang-en-GB|colour}} and ]: colour aren't equivalent. The first form clearly marks the span over which the unexpected language variant extends (unexpected because this template isn't used to mark a whole article), so a screen reader or a spell checker can take the right action. The template provides metadata, not data; it would still be useful for this reason even if the "British English" weren't made visible. The second form is just text for human readers.
    The argument about over-technicality would be valid if editors were required to use such templates. But they aren't. You don't have to use them in text you write yourself, and if a later editor adds them, or you find them and don't understand them, just leave them alone. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep — While I believe everyone was working in good faith, this is actually not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent,) and it is not unused. I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. There is no valid deletion rationale. —PC-XT+ 19:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-CA

Template:Lang-en-CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Absolutely useless, as "]" is more memorable and familiar to type than this template. George Ho (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you; this template has been unused before I nominated this template. --George Ho (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So what? If you're so concerned about that, then get to work applying it. Deletion is not a solution.Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-emodeng

Template:Lang-en-emodeng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in only Glossary of nautical terms, Builder's Old Measurement, and English wine cask units. I replaced it with HTML formatting, like "Early Modern English". Now it's nearly useless. If that link is not always memorable, at least a reader can click or type "History of the English language" to search for past English languages, like Early Modern one. The template's redirect is {{lang-en-em}}, and it must be also deleted. George Ho (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-AU

Template:Lang-en-AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not at all used by pages. It is useless, as "]" is easier to memorize and to type than just... {{lang-en-AU}}. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-US

Template:Lang-en-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in moustache and bachelor griller. I replaced them with the link (American English). Therefore, this template may be useless because it's no longer used in mainspace pages. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A side bar template with three incoming links and only three links is a bit of an overkill. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously deleted unused template. 117Avenue (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)