Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PPEMES (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 28 May 2020 (→Template:Brazilian Imperial Family (present): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 25 May 27 >

May 26

Template:Buddy Jewell

Template got some pruning. Two singles were redirected for being permastubs, and the rest were taken off for being cover songs of his that didn't chart. With the irrelevant clutter gone, this template now links only four articles which are all sufficiently interlinked, thus failing WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free image to be reduced

JJMC89 bot, the current bot handling oversized non-free images, does not notify uploaders since, per its BRFA RonBot's notifications appear to be mostly ignored, meaning that this template is no longer necessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Private colleges and universities in Washington (state)

Duplicate content of another template (Template:Colleges and universities in Washington (state)). Rytyho usa (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distressing article

Inappropriate talk page banner. This was originally on Talk:Timeline of the far future and was later copied to Template: space and transcluded onto a handful of others. But none of the uses are particularly warranted. I suggest outright deletion and removal rather than subst:ing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see why this is needed. Some people do tend to find certain wikipedia articles distressing, and complain about it in the talk. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so this can be an issue, so that's why it's important to use this template on talk pages. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have multiple talk page banners warning people that talk pages aren't a forum. We don't need this one too. People also like to use talk pages to say that the boys in their favorite band are just the dreamiest or to offer their own theories about the JFK assassination, but we don't craft a different notice for each type of reason people might want to use a talk page inappropriately. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that. However, this is a different type of talk page not a forum warning. we do need this template because it is used to mark articles that stand out due to it being distressing/hard to read, so as I mentioned above, people may complain to tone it down. This is be used to remind them not to do that. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see how this can be useful, but I also see how it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of NPOV by placing the adder's attitude of what constitutes a "depressing/disturbing" article onto the talkpage (a la spoiler templates, albeit in the talkpage). Lots of articles from a variety of disciplines and topics can fit that category, but this is only transcluded on 4 talkpages, all of which are about the future. (Oddly enough, the original instance on the Timeline of the Far Future talkpage is not this template [and has a link to Asimov's The Last Question as an "antidote"].) I have no opinion on what should be done, whether this should be deleted or its use expanded, but the status quo is suboptimal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John M Wolfson: To clarify, that article transcluded the template when I made this nomiation. At some point after, Serendipodous apparently restored it, again in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL, which I had removed from the template for that reason specifically. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, my comment still stands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eiei-year-table

These templates are all now unused. They are part of a series listed at {{Eiei}}, which are category header templates used to create the subcats of Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment, Category:Educational institutions by decade of establishment, and Category:Educational institutions by century of establishment.

I have today restructured {{Eiei-year}}, {{Eiei-decade}}, and {{Eiei-century}}. The changes make those templates parameterless, and they now use {{navseasoncats}} (and its siblings) rather these topic-specific navigation templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia essays

Propose merging Template:Essays on building Wikipedia, Template:Civility, Template:Essays on notability, and Template:Humorous essays with Template:Wikipedia essays.
The four more specialized essay lists each contain a warning in their documentation that it's probably better to just use {{Wikipedia essays}} with the relevant section expanded. They also include a (futile) plea to please also update {{Wikipedia essays}} to keep them synced. Let's just merge them, and turn the specialized templates into wrappers that expand the relevant section. My second choice would be to have WP essays transclude the content from each of the specialized templates. But something needs to be done to make these easier to maintain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincoln memorials

Propose merging Template:Lincoln memorials with Template:Abraham Lincoln.
Already some overlapping content. Irrespectively, would it all fit into the larger biographical scope altogether? PPEMES (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazilian Imperial Family (present)

There is no Brazilian imperial family, and hasn't been since 1889. The titles are a fantasy: "His Imperial and Royal Highness" is not a recognised title in Brazil, and the sources supporting these fanciful claims are, in the main, terrible: a culture of blogs and deprecated fan sites (per WP:RSN) devoted to royal succession, rather than actual reliable sources. Guy (help!) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems relevant as royal stuff, irrespecive of status in contemporary Brazil. PPEMES (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PPEMES, there is no Brazilian imperial family, there is no Brazilian empire, the titles are hypothetical and not used, there are even two completely separate competing sets of claims (and further divisions within those) which will never be resolved because there is no Brazilian empire and no Brazilian imperial throne so no mechanism for settling them and no reason to do so. The further we get from the 19th Century, the more vague and fanciful this gets. You could make a case for two templates for the two competing houses, but this would not be either of those templates. Guy (help!) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. Template:Pretenders to the Brazilian throne since 1889. Should that be deleted as well according to your rationale? PPEMES (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedians should not be inventing royal titles for people, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of indulging their private fantasies. Brazil's monarchy was abolished and there is no Brazilian imperial family. The idea that this fact is somehow irrelevant is absurd. Kahastok talk 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly ridiculous fantasies and I think all the listings are BLP violations, it is an insult to these people to imply that they are so delusional as to refuse to accept that the Brazilian Empire was abolished well over 100 years ago.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_26&oldid=959433227"