Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16[edit]

Template:University of Maryland campus[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to template:infobox building or template:infobox telescope or ... Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Corky 01:28, 19 January 2018 (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:Wikidata icon[edit]

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 remove from mainspace. This template is contrary to some of the guidelines set down by Wikipedia (including EGG and MOS:ICONS), and those advocating for keeping it did not address those main points when discussing the issue, other than implying that "it does no harm" or "everyone should know about Wikidata by now", which are borderline ATAs. The one substantial argument – that it provides a link without being unobtrusive – is being discussed at the RFC, and is listed among multiple other "unobtrusive" options such as {{interlanguage link}} that could be used instead. As for the canvassing argument: one could argue that a notification of a TFD at a heated RFC is going to draw participants from both sides of the discussion, and that appears to be the case here.

The existing uses of the template should be replaced with {{interlanguage link}} until such time as the RFC, local consensus, or other discussion determines the "best" way to present the information. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update some valid points have been raised, and thus I am amending my close slightly. The icon does include a popup that says Wikidata, but given the proliferation of mobile users these days the "hidden" nature of the link is still an issue. Additionally, while "everyone knows about Wikidata these days" may not necessarily be a valid argument for readers, the editors who often are in the backend spaces (Talk, WP, etc) will likely know about it. Thus, until such time as a suitable method of linking can be determined, the close will still hold for the article space (remove instances and replace with {{ill}}) but it can still be used elsewhere. There is NPASR if someone really feels these backend uses should be removed as well. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A flag-like icon (that doesn't change color when clicking) is less than suboptimal for a link (an external link no less). See preliminary discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Link to Wikidata in existing tables if they are not getting an article. I don't think this can be remedied by choosing another icon: it would always remain a link with WP:EGG-like issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Are icons supposed to change color? None of the flag icons do, or the military decorations do. It seems like you are trying to preempt the discussion talking place by deleting one of the choices that you do not like. --RAN (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because you expect to be linked to the File: namespace page that shows and explains the image, not to some other website that contains data about what precedes the image. Links used for linking to something else than the image should change color. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not true. See also the very widely used Template:Flagicon — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • from the {{flagicon}} documentation: "The image also has a clickable link to the associated article": that is the article associated with the flag, not an article associated with what precedes the flag, nor a page at another website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the icon will confuse the average reader into thinking that the falg represents a country or organization--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see absolutely no reason to delete this template. Even in the RfC ends up in a ban, everybody is free to cite Wikidata in theor user space (for instance, by maintaining lists by ListeriaBot) in whatever way they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - should remain an option, particularly (for example) in tracking tables created by projects outside of mainspace, if horizontal space is at a premium. For what it's worth, this seems to be the option that Commons has standardised on to indicate courtesy links to Wikidata, with no apparent pushback or confusion. Given that, it would be odd to utterly ban it here. Jheald (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Works fine, is useful, matches the style used elsewhere for similar Wikidata-linking purposes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the exact equivalent of other icons used for sister projects. Also, adding a long online deletion message to a small icon is tantamount disruptive vandalism. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shame on Francis for a very pointy nomination. Snow close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout the nominator per WP:POINT. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and snow close questionable faith nomination. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let this run the full length of time, and consider WP:ANI'ing Fuzheado for blatant WP:AGF violation. No editor should be subjected to such accusations for legitimately using TfD process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is nominating for deletion the subject of an active RFC. It seems like gaming the RFC system when you delete one of the options at an active RFC. Even the presence of deletion tag during an active RFC harms the outcome by disparaging one of the choices. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaming the RFC system", What happened to AGF??? Although related, the result of the RFC is not dependent on the result of this discussion. Also someone has now linked to this discussion at the RFC, making your point moot. If someone feels strongly that this icon needs to exist, they can just click the link and come here.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - ANI? No. In fact it was the charge "It's WP:GAMING the system" that started off the "RfC" in an adversarial way. Might you consider for a second that your comments were not made in good faith? -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that there was anything bad faith about this nomination, or about SMcCandlish defending the nominator from spurious accusations of it. Reyk YO! 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No—let's not 'ANI' Fuzheado. How about finishing both discussions, and then discussing with the proposer here what the intentions were after we know what is going to happen next? –Sb2001 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indistinguishable from a Template:Flagicon instance, and we should never use icons like this inline in prose anyway, per MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uses that choose an image to show (i.e. in an infobox) are better done locally. Uses such as the one in [1] make little sense. Overall, I think that the valid uses of this template seem to duplicate existing functionality, while the other uses don't agree with longstanding practice or with the external links guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • : ( So this is one more element of Wikidata sneaking in the back door; this only is used in 28 articles so far so almost nobody has noticed. I don't really see how this is useful and fear that maintaining this could distract gnomes from more important local-based tasks. We really need all hands on deck for that. Then there are the privacy issues with posting uncited personal data on non-notable living people. How is this not a Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY violation? This TfD may be premature as potentially the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Linking to wikidata could make it moot. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading to readers and not good for accessibility. Regardless of whether we allow inline Wikidata links in some form, this should not be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SMcCandlish, Wbm1058 and David Eppstein have already expanded on the reasoning I would use, so "per them", really. Contrary to MOS:ICONS, misleading and poor for accessibility, potential privacy issues. Overall, problematic in several areas and not useful. -- Begoon 03:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But we need a general, well-developed RfC on Wikidata to lay these things to rest (not the one we are having now at the MOS page, not the one on infoboxes only that a few well-meaning editors are developing for months and months). Fram (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Eppstein, Wbm1058 et al; confusing, linking to data that doesn't really comply with our policies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- firstly, this is quite easy to confuse for a Template:Flagicon. Secondly, the use of Wikidata should be the exception rather than the rule because the content of Wikidata is usually useless and frequently erroneous. We should not be standardising its use with streamlined and official-looking templates. Reyk YO! 07:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or deprecate using the template where space is not limited (or even prevent it from displaying in articles); the Wikidata icon is not recognizable enough without any text, especially at the size used in this template. If the links are to be kept, then use {{Interlanguage link}} with |display=1. Jc86035 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would appear that all the people who are voting 'delete' here are those who are opposed to linking to Wikidata in general (over at the RfC) and also vice versa with those voting 'keep'. (I've not done a scientific study cross-referencing ALL commenters but it's true for most part). It is my strong impression that this TfD debate is being used as a 'proxy war' by those arguing against the use of Wikidata on Wikipedia at all. Most (if not all?) commenters here are also commenters over on that RfC. [note: I am the creator of the template under discussion]. Wittylama 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks enormously for slopping your broad-brushed, poor-faith paint onto me as one of "all the people who are voting 'delete' here". As it happens, I do feel wikidata at present is dangerously unreliable, not subject to our quality control, and vulnerable to abuse that is difficult to detect, curated according to uncertain "rules", and we shouldn't be using it in such a way as to make it seem reliable when it isn't. That's an opinion I've formed over a period, from observation, and also one I've rarely expressed, much less gone to "war" over. I also oppose retention of this template for the other reasons I gave in my vote. I'm part of no faction or "proxy-war" though, and I strongly resent the implication. Sheesh. -- Begoon 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves the purpose of giving readers access to more information about an item within a table without interrupting to the normal link behaviour of Wikipedia: blue-link, red-link, no-link. All of these link options are retained. This template is designed for list articles where not every item in the list is necessarily appropriate for a standalone Wikipedia article [yet?] but THEY ARE ALL applicable for Wikidata items (practical example); or when the infobox is about two separate things described in the same article (practical example).
Votes to 'delete' which refer to the choice of image (with reference to Template:Flagicon etc) are invalid arguments in my opinion. If you don't like the image choice for whatever reason, propose an alternative. That is: Don't delete the functionality of a template because you don't like the graphic that it uses. The questioning of a "flag-like icon" on en.wp is at odds with the way we link to our own sister-sites as standard visual language (see also my comment immediately above). People arguing to delete this template for other reasons (e.g. privacy concerns?!?) are blaming this template for concerns they have with Wikidata in general, and are therefore out of the control of this template and out of the scope of this discussion. [note: I am the creator of the template under discussion]. Wittylama 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if one wishes that wikidata links shouldn't be there due to concerns over wikidata quality, why allow a template for it? Similar stuff for external links are regularly debated - bad external links usually don't have templates for them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this nomination for discussion is ostensibly about the icon/image being used - not about whether there should be links to the equivalent WD items at all. Wittylama 12:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the argument that the wikitext of this template may appear confusing to editors unfamiliar with Wikidata, but frankly, I feel that by now everyone editing Wikipedia should at least know about Commons and Wikidata anyway. I also feel that people creating articles should be responsible for the associated Wikidata item, either creating it or linking it to the existing item. I would go further and claim that all wikipedia lists should include this icon on a line-by-line basis, with the caveat that I do not use the visual editor so I have no idea whether that is feasible using the visual editor. Jane (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not about being confusing to editors, it is about being confusing to readers, most of whom don't know about Wikidata, have no reason to ever visit it, and shouldn't be bothered with it. What editors should or shouldn't do is think about the readers. Fram (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its an absurd and pointy discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing things like "easter egg" and can only wonder what the general public thinks vde means... There is nothing fundamentally special about this template, definitely nothing more special than any of the {{icon}} related ones. If editors would have half as much concern about the usability of the wiki with regard to templates in general, rather than those that happen to touch wikidata, the encyclopaedia would be a lot more usable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something like "v-d-e" is in the corner of a box, not in the middle of the text, next to a name or word, like a flag would be. I'm not saying "v-d-e" is ideal, but having maintenance links on the sides of "boxes" is much less surprising than having one type of external link in the middle of text indicated with an unknown flag-like icon. Fram (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete—there should not be icons in running text, which is how this is being used in at least some cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if we should decide to link to Wikidata, this is a poor way to do it. Thiis not a flag link, but it looks too much like one, and flag links have a different purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least until the RFC is concluded. This discussion is premature and could have the effect of undermining the results of the other discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, DGG, etc and MOS:ICONS. Kanguole 11:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there seem to be no proper and credible examples of where this template has actually caused confusion for readers. This template is being discussed at WT:MOS, so this deletion nomination should not have occurred. I do—however—trust that the nominator acted with good intentions, perhaps not realising the confusion this would cause to the debate already taking place. I would happily see this discussion happen again once the MoS RfC has reached a conclusion. –Sb2001 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, DGG, etc and MOS:ICONS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you hover over it, it says from Wikidata. Thus not seeing it as a significant concern. Maybe could be replaced by a better image if too flag like? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't have to change color, if anything make it so when a user hovers over it. It tells it links to its Wikidata Page. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarkcj12 how does "you have to hover over it to figure out what it means" meet MOS:ACCESSIBILITY "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text."? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Eppstein, like Doc James said when you move your cursor over it it says from Wikidata. Also it does not fail MOS:ACCESSIBILITY as if you have an alt text for users that have screen readers or other text2speech implementation it will/can say from Source is from Wikidata. To make it even more compliant with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:ICONS you can have the flag icon, with in () saying Wikidata, with the link to Wikidata item, which would explain its purpose. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Erm, unless I'm missing something here, tablet/phone users can't "hover" at all, and there are rather a lot of those users. Not very "accessible" for them. Regardless, if you need to click/tap/hover/highlight to find out information then it violates MOS:ACCESSIBILITY, as David Eppstein rightly points out. -- Begoon 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template fails MOS:ICONS. James (talk/contribs) 23:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @James Allison: According to MOS:ICONS "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox" is considered an appropriate use. That probably also extends to lists, by analogy. It might also have uses on talk pages and project pages, which MOS doesn't apply to. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing as it looks like a Flagicon. We don't use icons like this in inline prose as it just leads to confusion. LK (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per SMcCandlish and Lawrencekhoo Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing[edit]

If the above TfD is reopened, the closing admin will need to note that many of the delete comments came after some very partisan canvassing, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Inline flag-like icon for Wikidata, at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "No one should be nominating for deletion something being actively discussed at an RFC." you mean? It would be fair to say that many of the votes came from that discussion, where people from both sides (and many from the middle) of the Wikidata debates are present. Poisoning the well by arguing that many of the delete votes were canvassed is a dirty tactic. Fram (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean - as I'm sure you have the wit to realise - the OP in the section; which was made at 00:36 UTC and was followed by eight delete comments here (within just five hours) and, er, just one keep, the latter being by the template's creator. The "dirty tactic" is that canvassing; that and the implication that any of the keep comments arose from it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A neutrally worded notification at a central loaction is not canvassing. If, in your view, eight delete votes in five hours is proof of canvassing, what is your opinion of seven consecutive keep votes in less than 45 minutes? With a lot of completely unwarranted and inaccurate attacks on the nominator too. Reyk YO! 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A neutrally worded notification at a central loaction [sic] is not canvassing." Indeed so. The post in question (which said in part "The fact that the nominator was blatantly accused of bad faith in even daring to open this template for discussion says a lot about the bloc vote going on over there right now.") fails that test by a country mile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a closure; a procedural early keep (wait until the RfC ends) would've been defensible but not hatting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can we close with Procedural Keep please? Yes, I invented my own "suspend" process, but there's too much cross-talk from the RfC; the signal-to-noise ratio is too weak, no consensus-building is going to happen here, and it's feeding the flame-war at the RfC. Batternut (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the original RfC is not very well done either, but eh, i'd support a procedural keep, which should probably be done by an uninvolved editor/admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hatting by itself was not very helpful as the argument spread to a section outside of the hat; a procedural keep would either shift it to DRV or end the discussion properly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems, alas. Ho hum, live and learn... Batternut (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As someone who frequently closes TfDs, I see no reason to close this short of the requisite seven days. Canvassing will be considered when this TfD is closed. Nihlus 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a just "revenge complaint" (by a user with a long history of personal animosity toward me). I object to: the bloc vote of Wikidata fans and its partisan nature; to the blatant assumptions of bad faith and WP:ASPERSIONS name-calling (both of which are due an administrative warning at the least) against opposers of this template; and to the attempt to close the discussion early while the bloc vote dominates (both calls to do so in this discussion and a rejected request for speedy closure at WP:AN/RFC [2]. So, I notified the place where icons like this are generally discussed – the talk page of the guideline about them – since those who opened the discussion and those in favor of the template did not do so. Now I'm being accused of partisan canvassing (despite having said nothing about which way anyone should !vote, and the venue notified being neither for nor against icons, but only about when/how to use and not use them). I call it opening the discussion to more voices, which is what XfDs, RfCs, etc. are for to begin with (but virtually no one watches TfD other than its regulars). PS: The ongoing RfC isn't about this template, but about linking to Wikidata in lieu of red-linking or not linking, and the issues raised in it are primarily policy concerns; while this template is mentioned in the RfC it is not the subject of it, so the TfD is not redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been an editor here since 2004. Why should my !vote be discounted because you've included me in some arbitrary group of "wikidata fans"? Can I make up a group of "wikidata haters" and discount their !votes? Sorry that people disagree with you, but as an experienced Wikipedia editor you should have plenty of experience dealing with those kinds of disagreements more appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the "keep" !votes here already seem to be based on discounting haters rather than policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @David Eppstein: Unless I've missed something, I haven't yet seen a link here to a policy - just to guidelines/style guides... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • There, I just modified my comment to link to Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY. That's a policy. "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." You know how much outing editors by linking to posts on external websites is frowned upon. Wikidata is external to Wikipedia, or at least I thought it was. Wikidata may publish dates of birth of non-notable people, and this template is designed to link to that private data. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2018 (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:VictorianTouristStations[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced this with standard {{rail line}} templates, so it's no longer needed Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (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:R from ambiguous term[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R from ambiguous term with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation.
I've been looking at these two templates off and on for a few days now, and I'm still not seeing the distinction between the two templates. At the present time, the way which the two templates are worded when transcluded seems too similar to one another; also, an ambiguous term could have incomplete disambiguation, and a title with incomplete disambiguation is also an ambiguous term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging Paine Ellsworth to see if a resolution may occur that could result in me withdrawing this discussion ... as merging is the only resolution I see right now. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, I consider them to be distinct. 2Step is an ambiguous term, but it is not incomplete disambiguation. For Men Only (film) is incomplete disambiguation, but it is not an ambiguous term, just the "For Men Only" part is. The disambiguator technically isn't part of the title. There's probably loads of redirects that have the wrong template, but that's a really low priority job. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Xezbeth. The distinction is whether there is a parenthetical disambiguator or not. I don't think it's accurate to call pages that are categorized in {{R from ambiguous term}} as "incomplete disambiguation" when they don't have a disambiguator. Yeah, I've noticed there are several mistagged pages. I believe a bot task could fix that pretty easily, it should just be a matter of searching for a parenthesis. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Unsynchronized disambiguation talk page redirects is populated by this template, and is cleared daily by Bot1058's task #4. My bot just cleared everything from the category except Fame (movie, TV series, and theme song), which will stay there until its RfD template is removed. Parenthetical disambiguation is just one of several means of disambiguation. Caledonia Township, Michigan is a correctly tagged "comma dab", as there could potentially be a disambiguation at that title with three items on it: * Caledonia Township, Alcona County, Michigan * Caledonia Township, Kent County, Michigan * Caledonia Township, Shiawassee County, Michigan. Peacock butterfly is also correctly tagged, as there are several species listed on that page that could be called Peacock butterfly so there could potentially be a dab at that title. What makes these "incomplete" is that the page they redirect to has items beyond those with the more narrow disambiguation. Caledonia Township, Michigan redirects to Caledonia Township, but could not possibly mean Caledonia Township, Minnesota, although that item is on the target page. Think of {{R from ambiguous term}} as {{R to disambiguation page}} when placed on a redirect that does not have (disambiguation) in its title. But when a title is tagged with {{R from ambiguous term}} every single item on the target is a possible match for the title. Two step is validly tagged because every single item on Two-step is a potential match... the lack of a hyphen in the title didn't change that. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it occurs to me that {{R from ambiguous term}} is not currently populating any unsynchronized talk page redirect category. I could create such a category and then analyze what populates it. We probably shouldn't just dump this new population onto my bot without first understanding the effects of doing that. I'm not sure that there is a significant distinction between these relative to how the bot would process them, but further study is needed to confirm that. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deletion, but I don't completely agree with the analysis of wbm1058 above. I think Peacock butterfly would be more accurately described by R from ambiguous term rather than incomplete disambiguation. There is nothing incomplete about the term "Peacock butterfly" -- it is simply ambiguous. Also, the analogy between {{R from ambiguous term}} and {{R to disambiguation page}} is not completely accurate. The target for R from ambiguous term can be any sort of list or article or disambiguation page that provides the reader with information on following through to the desired target. However, it is true that links to such redirects should be disambiguated and ideally they would also appear on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, or perhaps in a separate listing. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names is the essay on {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The related 2007 discussion Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 25 § Confusion over R to disambiguation page is also relevant. Perhaps {{R from ambiguous term}} was created 2 1⁄2 years later in an attempt to help alleviate this confusion? Pinging longtime admins @JHunterJ and R'n'B: for their perspective on this issue. wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one used to be a particularly gnarly one for me, so I know where Steel1943 is coming from. I decided long ago to treat only those titles with parenthetical qualifiers, as well as the most obvious natural disambiguators as "incomplete disambiguations". If they don't have the parentheses, or their "natural disambiguation" is within a gray area of subtlety or nonexistent, then I sort them to Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. I've often wanted to test this here at Tfd, and I thank the nom for doing so.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dissolve is an R from ambiguous term, but not an incomplete disambiguation. So that's one of the distinctive uses. I'm not sure what use that distinction is to the encyclopedia, but there certainly could be one. OTOH, if there's not, and the two templates are essentially for redirects that (a) point to disambiguation pages and (b) should have any links to them changed to point to an appropriate article, they could be combined with the appropriate genericized language changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also not entirely sure what the encyclopedic value of the distinction is -- but there is some difference -- the target for {{R to disambiguation page}} is (or should) be a disambiguation page while the target for {{R from ambiguous term}} may a list article, a broad concept article or a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see an encyclopedic value in the distinction: ideally, ambiguous terms are proper access points, something that readers might expect to find in a (printed) index, where they won't generally appear next to their targets in the alphabetical order (in this light, I'm surprised that {{R from ambiguous term}} categorises redirects as unprintworthy). Incomplete disambiguations on the other hand are parts of wikipedia's internal workings: something to help with searches and to prevent the creation of duplicate articles, but not a proper access point; they shouldn't be part of a printed index as they would almost always appear right next to their targets. – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Xezbeth: the templates mark different usage, and I think the distinction is useful. Certes (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some statistics: R from ambiguous term has 286 uses with parentheses; 10,183 without. R from incomplete disambiguation has 21,647 uses with parentheses; 1,278 without. Some of the exceptions may be correct, e.g. The Dream Team (TDT) is an ambiguous term and Adamsville, Florida is debatably an incomplete disambiguation. Certes (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the categories may be nested, pages with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} generally don't have {{R from ambiguous term}}. Only 50 redirects such as The Pile and Bad Girls (album) have both templates. Certes (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:DIFFUSE members of {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} probably don't need to also be in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: They do coexist on 50 redirects. Do you think any of those cases are valid, or should we be choosing one or the other? Certes (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I consider them distinct ideas. After having thought this through for a couple of days, I will open a WP:CANOFWORMS. You will hate me for this.
Classic "incomplete"s are parenthetical DABs like (album), (film), (footballer), and (song); and comma-DABs like Springfield, USA. Those work well. None of those are printworthy, which brings me to my point.
"Ambiguous" implies printworthy. I have seen "ambiguous" tags mostly on redirects to {{hndis}} pages. Many of them have no reason tag at all, e.g. Mike Smith. I have never seen one with a sortkey, and there could be 10+K such unsorted links. We should not expect non-native English speakers to know that "Mike" is a short form of "Michael", or, even worse, that "Bill", "Liam" and "Will" are all short forms of "William". Narky Blert (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2018 (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:ARPrelim[edit]

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 2018 January 26. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (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:NYC year nav[edit]

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 2018 January 25. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:23, 25 January 2018 (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:National Uprisings under the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 06:37, 16 January 2018 (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:Districts of the Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia[edit]

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 2018 January 26. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (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:Defiant Championship[edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parent article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship. Nikki♥311 01:32, 16 January 2018 (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:Current U.S. Cabinet[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Current U.S. Cabinet with Template:Trump cabinet.
Not sure which one to be kept {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} was created in 2006 and the earliest revisions seem to be broken. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is really designed to only list the current members of the cabinet (not all who have served in a President's administration) and should be used as presidents come and go. Template:Trump cabinet will only relate to the 4 (or 8) years of the Trump Administration and will list every person who served in his cabinet. For example the Trump template will list both John F. Kelly and Kirstjen Nielsen while the Current U.S. cabinet template will only list Kirstjen Nielsen as of today. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons expressed by JocularJellyfish, whose arguments seem logical to me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – current is updated from Administration to Administration, Trump cabinet is strictly for the Trump cabinet members. Corky 01:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The short template is transcluded without the long template on only two main space pages right now: Cabinet of the United States and Eric Hargan. The Cabinet of the United States article has a section listing the names of each current official, making the short template redundant in that article. The transclusion on the Eric Hargan article is likely to go away soon. The short template is transcluded together with, and redundant with, the long template in every other article. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2018 (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:Major information technology companies[edit]

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 2018 January 25. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:26, 25 January 2018 (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:(((([edit]

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. 190.204.116.229 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Unintuitive and unused. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unused and confusing; it looks more like an extremely sad emoticon than a template. I don't understand what purpose this could possibly serve. Reyk YO! 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the above, and can we throw in its (somewhat happier looking) friend, Template:)))), too? -- Begoon 09:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can be using <nowiki>{{{{</nowiki> and <nowiki>}}}}</nowiki> instead? --111.14.132.134 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, clearly {{((}} makes sense for template/module syntax, and {{(((}} makes sense for template parameters, but why would you ever need four brackets? and if you really need four, then just use {{((}} twice. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16&oldid=822799542"