Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 22
In this article, we will explore the various facets of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 22, a topic that has captured the curiosity and interest of numerous people over time. From its impact on modern society to its relevance in history, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 22 has played a fundamental role in different aspects of our lives. Through an exhaustive analysis, we will delve into the nuances and dimensions of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 22, exposing its importance and influence in different areas. Likewise, we will examine the different perspectives that exist around Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 22, thus allowing a broader and more complete understanding of this very relevant topic.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
This is a bit of a mess. {{Stock Car Brasil}} has existed since 2009. In 2018, someone made a copy of it at {{Stock Car Brasil seasons}}. Now there are multiple articles that contain both navboxes. They are identical.
Ultimately, this duplicate template should be deleted. First, all affected articles should be changed to contain only the original template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created a little over a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete Looks abandoned to me, and the creator has not commented here despite having edited since this discussion started. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary note used in a dozen or so citations. It is always true that downloading of a PDF may be slow. Browsers show download status, and readers can decide whether to wait or cancel the download. Delete without substitution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep. No, these are different. I started using some NRHP documents which were available from the Texas Historical Commission to write or improve some NRHP articles, which I rather expect few others, or no one, has been doing, because they are so unreasonably inaccessible. This after finding that the National Park Service does not provide their version of same NRHP document for a given place, which would download quickly. And also finding that NARA does not have the given document, in their system (which also can be slow for some documents, but which I believe would prove faster if compared for cases where a given document is available both at THC and at NARA). I am a very experienced editor in this area. I have worked with these types of documents since about 2008, have surely downloaded more than 10,000 of them, and have seen state systems with varying performance come and go, and have national systems rise and decline, too. I literally wrote the book, or most of it, on how to find and use these documents, meaning the documentation for NRHP editors available at wp:NRHPHELP. The reason there are only a dozen or so usages of this template is that I personally happened to move on from working on Texas NRHPs after I had just learned to try and use TRC when other options wouldn't work. No one else stepped in to create and improve Texas NRHP articles systematically the way I had started. I have more recently been working on places in Kentucky and Colorado and scattered other places. When I come back to working on Texas places, or any other editor seriously takes on a campaign to expand our Texas NRHP coverage (properly, including the NRHP document no matter how hard it is to find and use), there will be more usages.
Please know: I have never felt a need to provide a note like this, besides for some THC files and some NARA files, where it seems truly unreasonable, and in these cases I feel it is appropriate to give some indication to the reader. And note that the warning is given only on certain files; there are many short files which do not require warning. And, sure, the wording could be different, but it is hard/impossible to provide time estimates about how long a reader's wait will be, so I have left it as it currently stands: "Downloading may be slow". Yes, that may come across as vacuous, but it's there for a reason which the reader will come to appreciate. Note also that the use of the template to provide some warning is brilliant, because it allows for the possibility that the THC server will be upgraded or something else to happen which speeds up their service, in which case the warning can be cancelled or modified for all of the difficult articles. The alternative is to make a hard-coded warning in each of these articles, and build a list of the articles where the warning has been placed, and periodically review them. That's unreasonable; this is a brilliant use of a template.
For one example, i picked the Montana Avenue Historic District document out of the references that link to this template, and it just took 14 minutes to download, with me on a fast wifi on a fast internet and a decent laptop, from 1:16 to 1:30 pm in my time zone, with the laptop running no other activity to give it the best chance. Others could have much worse experiences. That one is a 72 page PDF, and I imagine it took that long to download because it is likely scanned badly and also because the THC server is slow. I have recently had other another document which took more than an hour to download (from NARA not from THC), and it turned out to have about 500 pages, which I also imagine was scanned badly. Most persons nowadays would not believe that the document would ever show up, and would give up and close the window.
The template serves the good purpose of giving the reader a clue, that if they'd like to see this document they probably can, if they are patient enough. And that there is not some other mistake like the link going to something other than the document. Many readers in this topic area will have had experience of downloading similar documents in reasonable time, and they will tend to think there is some error when they encounter one of these difficult cases. I do agree with User:Jonesey95 think it is incredibly unusual nowadays on Wikipedia (or on the internet in general) for there to be a warning about how slow a download might be; so I believe this brief warning does stand out and accomplish the task of giving the would-be reader a clue, in these unusual cases.
sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment: the 70 MB pdf document from Montana Avenue Historic District just took me 11 seconds to download. That's about 60 Mbit/s, which is not very slow. I don't think the template is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, or categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete Also article content that should be substituted in the appropriate article if it were used. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Subst if applicable. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Merge these two navboxes cover largely the same ground. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 12:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to {{4TeamBracket}}. – Pbrks(t • c) 03:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
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).
He or Her
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Propose mergingTemplate:He or she with Template:They.
While there are still a number of people who reject the notion of the singular they, it has become an increasingly common an accepted part of vernacular. Personally, as a wikipedian who uses such as their pronouns and does not want to be referred to by the reductive he/she, I just seem no reason for said templates to exist. It is intended (and realistically can only be used) with regard to other users. While some wikipedians have not set their gender and will have {{them}} render "them" versus {{he or she}} rendering "he or she", I can't foresee this causing any form of issues in communication. In the absence of wikipedia's ability to let users set a gender-neutral pronoun explicitly, it seems both inline with the increasingly common singular they and being inclusive to migrate from "he or she" to they. TartarTorte 00:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Merge all as proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is a repost of a proposal that previously failed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 29#Template:He or she. Nothing meaningful has changed in the last year, and I continue to believe that t is not the duty of TfD to try to force users to use singular they if they do not want to. To be clear, I'm not opposing the use of singular they (I think it's perfectly fine English), merely opposing the attempt to systematically replace "he or she" with "they" (or any other form) in the countless places these templates are used including archived discussions, which I view as a form of righting great wrongs. * Pppery *it has begun... 01:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You are correct, nothing has changed. WP:NPA is still policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that "he or she" is a personal attack? How? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that "he or she" is a personal attack? Yes. How? If someone says their pronouns are they/them and you explicitly use "he or she" you are basically being disrespectful to those editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Even if it is disrespectful, that's still a very long way from being a personal attack. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Misgendering is absolutely a personal attack when done with intent, although I doubt most editors using these templates are doing so. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Snow keep as it has already been thoroughly discussed before and nothing has changed. In my opinion if you want to change how people talk to one another that should be through a behavioural guideline, not through merging some templates. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Or you can just remove the template enabling personal attacks and enforce WP:NPA. And "snow" !votes should really be for situations where the prior discussion is recent, not nearly a year and a half ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Snow keep, opposed in the strongest possible terms. It is to be applauded that non-binary people increasingly have recognition of their pronouns, I rejoice in that (check my pronouns). But I don't know any non-binary people that would insist that all of their cis acquaintances and friends be uniformly labeled with "singular they" regardless of their own preference for 'he' or 'she'. That turns personal freedom and preference on its head, makes a mockery of personal preference, and turns it into the dictatorship of the minority. Kill this truly awful proposal with fire. Btw, Locke Cole: it appears that you have replied to every !vote recorded so far; kindly read WP:BLUDGEON. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Perhaps you should strike your !vote until you understand what these templates do. 🤦♂️ I'm aware of WP:BLUDGEON. I don't care about essays, I care about policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep all per recent discussion. Nothing technical has changed, and consensus has not shifted regarding these templates. TFD is not the right venue for discussing if and how these templates can be changed to be more inclusive. If one or more of them can be modified to always output the right preferred pronoun, then there will be more persuasive grounds for a merge or redirect. Do the technical work before restarting this discussion, please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Merge all as proposed, I think an avoidance of accidental misgendering is always good. It doesn't seem like all the oppose voters understand what these templates do - They don't force a gender-neutral option on editors, they read a users preference and select the option that's applicable. It could only render a user's pronouns as they/them if that user has already explicitly indicated in their settings that they want to be referred to with gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor"). That said, the bludgeoning isn't helping the merger's case. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 05:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand perfectly what these templates do, and maintain my opposition. And, given that preference you quoted is the default for users who have never set preferences, your last sentence isn't even true. * Pppery *it has begun... 13:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I was really only responding to the idea that this somehow turns personal freedom and preference on its head, makes a mockery of personal preference, and turns it into the dictatorship of the minority, which is the most ridiculous overreaction to a proposal I think I've ever seen on this site. It makes complete sense to use gender neutral pronouns as a default setting in pretty much any context, so it's still unclear to me where the actual problem with this arises - Does the Wikimedia Foundation force users to use singular they in a way that warrants correction as well? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 15:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose merge, though I wouldn't oppose some form of deprecation (e.g. removing them from Template:Pronoun templates). And if they are to be merged, subst the existing transclusions per WP:TPNO so that the record accurately shows what was originally said. Nardog (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep - I don't like retroactively changing the words that someone used. I think that the Mediawiki software SHOULD be modified to allow someone to identify as "non-binary", rather than making "non-binary" merely "unspecified". That would settle these discussions. People who have a binary gender, but have not shared what it is can be referred to as the grammatically correct "his or her" and people who WANT to be called "they" can be called "they". --B (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Retroactively changing how something is rendered is uncool. NE Ent 20:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
If these templates were to be merged, they can be substed as User:Nardog proposed, which means that what was originally said is maintained. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
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).