Template:LIRR Babylon platform layout
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as low usage duplicate, replacing usages with ((Talk header preload)). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like ((Talk header preload)) actually has fewer instances of usage (30s vs. 50s). Is the "preload" one meant to be an editnotice? Both seem like attempts to make a friendlier/more informal version of ((Talk header)). A merge would certainly be nice, but given the latitude we traditionally allow in userspace, if someone shows up objecting, I won't try to force it. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I support overall consolidation of user space templates, however these ones are quite different. One is, I assume, intended to be frank, is grey in colour, and just states to leave a message. The otherwise is, I feel, intended to be more welcoming, has more text / formatting / colouring, so I think their intended tones and messages are different. There is no harm in having some variation in messaging between our tens of thousands of editors, so I support keeping these. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).
Template:User is blocked
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. No significant opposition to deletion. No prejudice against some form of recreation if a consensus can be shown that inline designations of blocked users in this manner is acceptable (and isn't covered by other extant templates). Primefac (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this falls under G4 per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17, since the content is substantively the same (not identical, but the intent of that discussion was pretty clear.) Nonetheless, I don’t have a problem taking it here since
Anomie doesn’t think it falls under it.
The short of it is that the same logic from the April 2019 discussion applied: there’s a community consensus against simply tagging as blocked, and there are better tags for socks. There’s no valid use case in line with consensus as expressed at multiple ANs/ANIs over the years (against people going around adding tags for no reason) culminating in the April 2019 TfD deleting their most prominent tag of this type. This one was used today out of the blue on a long blocked account for no reason, so it appears we need to delete it too.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
[reply]
- Weak Support The template was originally created to be part of Template:CUU, however it was effectively substed into that template in 2011 in Special:Diff/408409114. From that perspective, I support the deletion.
OTOH it remained an inline template, and was used as such at least twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakur (musician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Men). OTOH, I don't know if we actually need a template for that use case, and if we do it could probably be restyled to be more like ((single-purpose account)). So that slightly weakens my support for deletion.
The attempt to change it into a block template for use on user pages as a replacement for Template:Blocked user as seems a more recent phenomenon, and deleting for that reason alone seems like it would be erroneous reasoning. Anomie⚔ 12:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Banner intended to be used on archive indexes such as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive index. The problem is that these are bot generated and legobot would remove it if you tried to add it. The solution here would be to modify the top text of all pages by updating the bot to include this message not having a banner on 23 random pages that either are normal archives where ((Archive)) would be more suitable or indexes that don't update anymore. --Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep? Trialpears, I'm having trouble understanding your nomination. If this is included to standardise text on those pages, which are still actively being updated, then it should be kept and the template's documentation should be updated. It seems by deleting this we will just be requiring manual instead of grouped updates to the text on those pages?--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom (LT) They are intended to be included on actively updated index pages, but it can't be because the bot that updates the pages removes it if one is added. If we want a message like this we should instead ask Legoktm to add it in the text added by the bot. I also don't see any value in keeping any of the current transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not all index pages are bot updated, some of them are manually updated (such as ones where there are non-chronological and merged-in historical talk pages listed). Though, the bot updated ones could have the bot itself updated to include this template. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 relisted on 2020 October 16. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).
Reference search tools talk page templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 merge to Template:Talk header. There is a large consensus that these templates should be consolidated. To do this, two main methods have been presented and argued: consolidation into Template:Talk header, verses consolidation of these templates into a single template (eg Template:Find sources notice).
As a raw count of numbers, the weight falls slightly in favour of Template:Talk header as the merge target. At a closer analysis of the arguments, particularly shared points and reasoning between editors, as well as the shift in arguments after a mockup was presented by the proposer, the weight seems even more heavily in favour of this option. Supporters in favour of consolidation into ((talk header)) argue that extra templates are redundant, and that the functionality of ((Find sources)) would be useful and helpful for any talk page. Those against the idea argue that the talk header should be limited to an introduction of the talk page only, and that adding additional words to it would be bloating it. They prefer the idea of shorter templates, like ((Find sources notice)). Some other comments reflect the idea that the functionality is helpful and should be preserved, but with weak preference on how it is preserved.
As far as doing the merge into ((Talk header)), there was little discussion on whether the find sources should be opt-in, opt-out, or forced visible. There appears to be general support for the functionality, and so opt-out seems to roughly be the preferred approach. There is notably some opposition against forced visible. This is something that may benefit from further discussion before completion of the merge. Regarding current usages of the templates, after the functionality is implemented into ((Talk header)) it should be ensured that all pages using any of the current templates transclude ((Talk header)) (with the option to show find sources, if it becomes opt-in), before deletion of the templates. There should not be duplicate transclusions. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of banners on many talk pages has reached comical proportions. We need to start more aggressively limiting them, and these banners are a good place to start.
Their problem is that they offer general editing advice rather than advice specific to a page. Referencing is obviously important, but so is being bold, and we don't put a Remember to be bold when editing this page!
notice on talk pages.
We don't have any clear inclusion/exclusion criteria for which pages should have these banners, so the pages they end up on are just those where someone felt like adding them. If we really wanted something like this on general talk pages, we'd add ((Find sources)) as a line in ((Talk header)). (There's also a clear consolidation problem; deletion is one way to solve that.) ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace and delete I agree with the nom having so many things doing the same job is pointless. I think sometimes these notices are useful as they do prompty you to upgrade references and provide ways to search for this. It is confusing when editing to have templates doing similar things with different names, so I think these templates should be replaced as they are merged. I think the final template should be called ((Find sources notice)) because this is closest to plain English. A parameter or wrapper can be used to include these where the field is relating to health or biographical data. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace and delete per Tom to standardize on one name. No need for wrapper for med or bio (or any other), just add a
|med= that when set, includes whatever unique sources it needs. --Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as proposed. I agree with Sdkb that there are rather too many banners on some talkpages. I don't agree, though, that these particular banner are the ones to delete. The search banners are specific to the article talkpage they are placed on because the search function is just for that particular article. They are one of the most useful banners to place on a talkpage as they give assistance in helping to find material and sources for an article. Articles should not be written purely from editors' personal knowledge or understanding of a topic as this knowledge may be out of date or slightly wrong or simply lacking. Editors should be encouraged to look for sources not just to cite what is already in the article, but also to find new information. So, a solid no to deleting search tools templates. There are however, suggestions within Sdkb's nomination statement which are worth discussing. Should we have a search function on every talkpage? Hmmm. Perhaps not. While all articles can be improved, even FA and GA articles, there is less of a need for a search function tool on the talkpages of such articles. Should they be included on the talkpages of articles that have some sort of "cite needed" tag on? Should they be included on the talkpage of every article below B grade? Perhaps, given that such articles may be missing content and or citations. Can we trust that editors who see an article that may benefit from a search tool template will put one on? Perhaps not, but that's probably a better way of doing it than forcing them on millions of talkpages, many of which may not need such a banner. Can they be merged, as Tom suggests? Perhaps. But merging has been tried previously with no success. And when templates get merged, as with the recent merge of the archive templates, some functionality is lost. Perhaps it's me, but I'm not seeing the confusion of people going to talkpages and finding slightly different wordings in the search tools banner. After all, there are many talkpages where the selection and arrangement of the banners is different. We have Wikipedia:Talk page layout, which gives some guidance on these matters. I think Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout is probably the best place to be discussing these templates and matters related to them. As regards talkpages with too many banners, ((Banner holder)) with "|collapsed=yes" can hold them neatly. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SilkTork, interesting thoughts. To respond to a few: the idea that they'd be less needed on GAs/FAs is an interesting point. If we did wrap it into ((talk header)), I think it might be possible to code so that it'd only show up on articles without one of those designations. It could also be made an optional parameter. Here's a quickly-thrown-together demo of what it might look like:
- Regarding merging as a general practice, see the arguments at WP:CONSOLIDATE (about infoboxes currently, but applies more broadly). The most salient point for me is that even the most stable templates develop over time, and when there are duplicates, that increases by multiples the amount of work needed to maintain them and, where that work is just not done, slows it down.
- I wasn't aware of WP:Talk page layout, but I put a ((Please see)) notice there, and we could use that page for hosting future discussions.
- And it's funny you mention ((Banner holder)), since the thing that led me to making this nom was actually building a list on that page's documentation of which banners are generally collapsed and which are not. I noticed that these banners were generally not collapsed, which struck me as odd, and thinking about it then led me to question whether they should exist at all. I don't think it'd be practical to enforce putting this within the holder, especially given that many pages with too many banners don't yet use the holder (it only has a few hundred transclusions). ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your talk header with the search function. Though the reason some of the additional "friendly" search templates were made was to nudge or encourage people into building articles by using sources - the brusque "Find sources" may not always be addressing or attracting the right people. Indeed, the sort of person who would completely understand such an imperative would in fact not need the instruction, they would already be engaged on research. The guidance should sometimes be friendly and attractive and eye-catching (with an appealing image) to serve as more than just a shortcut for those of us who already know how to research. Indeed, lets be honest, the best research does involve a little more than simply the name of the article. I think there is a lot of benefit to be gained from discussing that idea further, though I'm not sure this is the right venue as discussions here tend to be time limited and may be closed without warning by a well meaning editor who feels it has gone on long enough. SilkTork (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if possible: I frequently use these templates to find references for stub articles. To avoid link rot, the redundant templates could be redirected instead of deleted. Jarble (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I support consolidating these templates. Indeed, I remember some prior work to do so, back when there were even more of these banners. I don't support adding this to the talk header. The talk header does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is provide a summary explanation of a talk page. Consolidating additional functions (as unfortunately archiving already has been) defeats the ordering prescribed in WP:TPL. I also am wary of displaying this on every page. It seems to me it would be appropriate on pages that need additional sources or that need continuing updates to remain current. That's not every page. --Bsherr (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bsherr, ((talk header)) isn't quite just describing the functionality of talk pages; the "Article policies" column veers into editing advice. I do agree with the general thrust of your point, though—it would be a shame to, in the course of an effort to declutter talk banners, end up cluttering that template. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 01:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)) - it seems like the most sensible option to me, and would probably help promote using more reliable sources (since more pages use ((Talk header))). Regardless, having four effectively redundant templates for this is just somewhat absurd. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)). The mockup by Sdkb looks really nice, and the links would be a useful addition to any talk page. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The number of deletion discussions has reached comical proportions. We need to start more aggressively limiting them, and this one is a good place to start. As for talk page clutter, we should start by removing all the numerous project templates which are scattered around as if they are categories and which are commonly so broad as to be useless -- biography, United States, &c. ((Friendly search suggestions)) is perhaps the most useful talk page template because it actually helps with development of the article and so it's always my first priority when starting a talk page. I rarely use the ((talk header)) as it seems too busy and this proposal would make matters worse. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)) as a switchable option. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Merging is certainly a good idea no matter what. And I do like the idea of placing this at the bottom of the standard talk header. It certainly looks cleaner, but I also wonder if doing this would be just as good an idea for any other number of banners. It might make sense for one, but maybe not dozens at a time. I don't feel super strongly here, but I just thought I'd mention this for others to think about. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stats It seems telling that the nomination doesn't contain any evidence or statistics. As I just did some of the missing legwork, here's some relevant transclusion counts:
Usage
| template |
transclusions
|
| ((WikiProject Biography)) |
1,882,719
|
| ((Talk header)) |
530,673
|
| ((Friendly search suggestions)) |
20,613
|
| ((Find sources notice)) |
6,430
|
| ((Findnote)) |
1,091
|
| ((Friendly search suggestions for med talk pages)) |
6
|
- It appears from this that the ((friendly search suggestions)) template is dominant amongst that type and so should be the main target if some merger is done. And it's quite amazing that ((WikiProject Biography)) is used on nearly a third of our 6M+ articles. I've never seen that project actually do anything useful on the biographies that I have created. My impression that gnomes place such templates mechanically without regard to their utility – just busywork. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: To suggest a speedy keep is inappropriate here - the discussion does not meet any of the criteria or the snowball clause, and it appears the current consensus is to merge/delete. Similarly, this isn't about WP:OTHERSTUFF like WikiProject templates. And wouldn't it be better to use a more neutral template name, like ((Find sources notice)), since that's a bit more of a predictable template name then "Friendly talk suggestions" (which truly sounds comical)? Also, would you mind consolidating your two comments since both include arguments? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 14:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is. This is a template that is a friendly suggestion and direction to newbie editors of articles (particularly) to find sources if they want to contribute to an article. This aligns with the expressed mission of Wikipedia that it is the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone actually uses these. The number of transclusions is evidence that someone thought they might be useful, not that they actually are. Who goes to a talk page to do research? I find search suggestions on banners marginally useful, because they add
-wikipedia to search terms, but I have never (1) visited an article that needed work; (2) gone to the talk page to see if ((FSS)) was transcluded there; and then (3) used the talk page as a starting point for research. Instead, I just do the search. Not that these are doing any particular harm, but they seem a bit silly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added ((FSS)) to the talk page of an article where I was doing a bit of clean-up. That article gets read about 100 times each day but it's still quite poor and the talk page didn't have any templates. I find them useful and still consider this discussion to be unhelpful and disruptive. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. All of them are useful, usable, and used, and each of them has specific uses. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)). If they are as useful as the keep-voters claim, then put them into the talk header. Plus: Talk header should be displayed by software, not via wikicode. So people can focus on being creative instead of having to care about headers. TerraCyprus (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)). Seems like the most sensible solution here. Right cite (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – If these are to be merged, I would recommend merging all into the ((Friendly search suggestions)) template, in part per the stats provided above by Andrew Davidson. This template also has a layout that is visually appealing, which makes it stand out nicely on talk pages and provides immediate information about what the template is for. Undecided at this time about the potential to merge into the talk page header. North America1000 18:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Find Sources function. Please consider the relative new people who contribute to Wikipedia. I have use the Findnote function and find it helpful. I wasn't aware until this discuss that there was a more useful Template:Friendly_search_suggestions. Please keep the Friendly_search function as it's simple and very useful. Thank you. Nicolet1327 (talk)
- 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).
Template:Trey Edward Shults
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 relisted on 2020 October 12. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).