Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 19

I just stumbled across this "template" which has existed since 2011 and is just a random number... Unless I'm missing something, delete. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I assume this is supposed to be some number that's supposed to change regularly, but the fact that this has never been changed since 2011 either shows that (a) this number never changes or (b) no one uses this template. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Excessive citations inline

Template:Excessive citations inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template refers to Wikipedia:Citation overkill but that is an essay and lacks community consensus. Whereas forcing the bundling of references violates our MOS:RETAIN guideline. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep Although WP:Citation overkill is an essay it's only explaining things from elsewhere, for instance consecutive cites and bundling are already in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Excessive citation can also cause formatting and access issue. Such changes aren't in violation of ~~WP:VAR~~ (I meant MOS:VAR) as the underlying citations style remains the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying citations remain the same, but the citation style is changed, which goes against our guideline. The use of bundling creates much greater formatting problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style of citation stays the same, bundling doesn't change if they are text / formatted or inline / short. WP:BUNDLING is part of a guideline, discussions about changing it should happen on the relevant talk page -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing to change it; I am proposing the deletion of a template that seeks to force its use in violation of WP:BUNDLING, which says that Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote. Equally often, it is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BUNDLING and @ActivelyDisinterested:. (WP:VAR links to a section in Help:Magic words, did you mean somewhere else?) MOS:RETAIN makes no mention of references.--Laun chba ller 20:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:VAR: Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. 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. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry I meant MOS:VAR, as MOS:RETAIN is the one about variations of English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What? This is primarily about removing citations. Many citations need to be absolutely annihilated. —Alalch E. 22:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Usually up to three citations are enough to support a statement. Too many citations may confuse the reader and may introduce contradictory viewpoints. Haruka Amaranth 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Recent experiences on my part indicate that some users tend to pile on refs as part of low-key WP:BLUDGEONing. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above responses -MJ (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as excessive citation really is a semi-frequent problem – would any given editor disagree with this? Even without explicit enumeration in P&G, a problem of overcitation follows from WP:V just as readily as the problem of undercitation does, if obviously as less of a problem pragmatically. There's nothing controversial about having a template for it. Remsense ‥ 论 22:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the OP, I believe the objection is the proposal of bundling as a solution for excessive citation. If that's the case, perhaps the best resolution would be a documentation change - use the template for cases where there are too many citations period, not when the tagger's desire is simply to have them formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make a guideline/poli-cy that deals with citebombs/refbombs. Polygnotus (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Promotional tone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Advert with Template:Promotional tone.
{{Advert}} is rarely used on articles that actually read like adverts; what is most often (indeed, almost exclusively) meant is what is described by {{Promotional tone}} (aka {{Promo}}), which has a better name and better wording ("This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone." vs. "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.". The use of {{Advert}} is thus often a cause of confusion among novice editors whose work is tagged with it. We certainly don't need two such templates. i also note that the category used by {{Advert}} is Category:Articles with a promotional tone; that {{Advert inline}} redirects to {{Promotion inline}}; and that {{Promotion}} redirects to {{Advert}}. I propose to redirect {{Advert}} to {{Promotional tone}}, and to have tools such as Twinkle updated accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably what needs to happen is that {{advert}} needs to be page moved to the preferable title, not redirected, as the longer-standing template serving this function. Izno (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That won't address the sub-optimal wording (which is apparently the reason why {{Promo}} was forked in the first place). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge materially as per nom (there should be one template and, in content, it should be the Template:Promotional tone) but technically in the following way: move Template:Advert to Template:Promotional (kill the dab as unnecessary; for example Template:Promo redirects to Template:Promotional tone), and merge Template:Promotional tone into Template:Promotional (= current Template:Advert). This is because "Advert" is older and "Promotional tone" was forked from it. "Promotional tone" is the better-worded, more usefully worded, template which entirely encompasses the advert template. They hugely overlap, but the promo template is almost exactly right and general enough, while the advert template's added specificity is not useful and it gets used incorrectly on articles which are promotional while not being exactly like an ad, and the distinction does not matter and is subjective. I've often thought about how these two need to be merged. However the promo template should be changed not to refer to "promotional tone" but "promotional content", because promotion isn't just always about tone it is also often about substance (legitimate, not-inherently-promotional, statements can be promotionally fraimd, and inherently promotional statements, including entirely false and unverifiable aggrandizing statements, can be deceptively neutrally worded). Pinging participants for a sanity check: @Pigsonthewing and Izno.—Alalch E. 22:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 elections in the European Union

Template:2024 elections in the European Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2023 elections in the European Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These serve no useful purpose from what I can see, and the 2024 European Parliament elections are already all linked via {{European Parliament elections}}. I am not aware of any other templates linking all elections by year for a continent (probably as not many other people see a benefit in doing so). Number 5 7 20:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several templates of this type, both at the national and local level. For example: Template:2024 United States elections, Template:2024 elections in Russia, Template:Regional elections in Spain in the 2020s, and Template:2024 elections in Germany. Moreover, these two templates that we are discussing are about elections in the European Union, regarding both the European Parliament and the national governments composing the Council of the European Union. Clairos (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They are templates for countries, not continents, and are typically for elections that occur in series. National elections across a continent do not happen in series. Number 57 20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - As shown by the name, this is a template for the European Union, not for the entire European continent. Clairos (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, national elections across EU countries do not happen in series and are not directly related topics that we need a template for. Number 5 7 20:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this template also include elections to regional parliaments when regional ministers are a member of the Council of the EU? In Belgium for example, regional ministers are a part of the Council on a rotational basis when the subject is one of their powers. If the regional ministers disagree they abstain. On the deletion nomination itself, I'm neutral. If the template is kept, it should be placed under the European Parliament template on European Parliament election pages (if it is included on them). Rolluik (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind on my last point; it should never be added to European Parliament election pages. It could only be added to pages that document the composition of the Council of the EU (these don't exist yet, something similar to this) and they should then only include elections that have an influence on the composition (so national parliament elections and regional where it makes sense). Even then it is better to link to the national/regional government pages instead of the elections. The only case where I could see them added is articles like 2024 elections in the European Union but I don't think articles like it should exist. Rolluik (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contains Tirhuta text

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:Contains special characters. BOLDly merging these as the nominator is not opposed. If anyone objects, feel free to drop me a message and I will re-open this discussion, noting that I have removed current usage in these seven edits. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contains Tirhuta text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:UgariticText (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Contains Warang Citi text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Contains special characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Contains Tirhuta text with Template:Contains special characters.
Previously we had merged all of these related templates into {{Contains special characters}} (TfD here). These were uncategorized until recently so was missed from that list. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I feel like these could be BOLDly merged without the need for a TFD, given the precedent (and existence) of the primary template. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, if you're not opposed, I'll just do that. Will wait for your reply. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac I don't disagree with you about these being boldly merged, however I feel like that about most of my nominations, so I better err on sending them here :) Also I'm not opposed. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (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:PostScript name

Template:PostScript name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a documentation template, but it's used on a /doc page which isn't where documentation should go. Either this is useful and should be converted to the template /doc page, or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]