Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 18



Template:Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) All related articles were deleted at Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle (2nd nomination), including Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor, Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress, and Kansas City Film Critics Circle which gives the award. The navboxes are placed on actors who in all examined cases already have a big bunch of navboxes for more notable awards. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor
 * Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress
 * Delete fails navbox 468.148.186.93 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a NavBox for an award that has no Article of its own. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ArticleOTRS

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. OTRS in-article citations need to be discussed more widely. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC) This was created for use on articles, not article talk pages. When it is being used, this is being used redundantly to Template:ConfirmationOTRS on article talk pages, but it is not adequate to that purpose, as it doesn't include even a parameter for the license. While image OTRS tags do not require a license parameter, text OTRS tags *do*. When I listed this, it was transcluded to 9 pages. I am converting the talk page usages (which are incorrect) to the standard talk template (current transclusion count: 2914), which includes all necessary information. Where it is used in articles, it can and should be replaced by Template:CCBYSASource and Template:Dual. We do not need the OTRS information on the article face itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ArticleOTRS
 * After removing the incorrect uses of this from article talk space (and some of them were very incorrect, as the content had not been licensed at all), there's one page that's using it somewhat correctly - and it's using it in lieue of the talk space notice rather than in addition to, so the agent who used it has in all good faith failed to identify the license anyway. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment do we have a sourcing template to place in the source/references/citations/footnotes section to indicate sourcing like EB1911 or FOLDOC ? It would occur to me, that all articles should have such attributions in the source/refs/etc... section on the article page, since it is the source of the information. The OTRS ticket link itself can be placed on the talk page template, but the source itself needs to be indicated on the article page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do - we have a ton of attribution templates at Category:Attribution templates. In the case of OTRS content, we have Dual and CCBYSASource. These generically indicate the license of the source and providing proper attribution. These should be used in all cases where content is imported from external sites by someone other than the author. We do not have to use them when the person placing the content is the owner of the external site. In that case, citations may be to the sources utilized by the author and the author's attribution is in the edit history, just as any other contributor's would be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This could potentially be used as the equivalent, in Wikiepdia's voice, of the footnote "Personal communication, J. S. Bach, 12 May 2015". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC).


 * OTOH might be better to start from scratch with a new template for that purpose, and a community discussion might be needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC).


 * You're right that a community discussion would have to be had; we don't currently store documentation in OTRS, so nobody is citing personal communication. When people write in to verify facts (say about their biographies), our templates direct them to get it published elsewhere first so that the material is reliable. People's personal testimony or correspondences are rejected as citations. Right now, OTRS serves only to verify license for content previously published elsewhere, and in those cases the citation si the elsewhere rather than to OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete. if we need a way to cite OTRS, we can create a new template for that purpose. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do we do with the two remaining transclusions? Alakzi (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed one, Alakzi - the proper template was already on the talk page. I deleted the other because, true to my concerns, it was misused. The content was not compatibly licensed. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The new sidebar is now completely redundant to the old one, and there's no consensus to split the old one between the two WikiProjects. Simply mention both WPs in the title and be done with it. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Delete: code fork, confusing and no improvement. The template is created as a code copy from the original Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry Recent changes in Chemistry (compare). It is thereby redundant. Edit history shows that the similarity was intented (more below) to evade cooperation. The fact that the content list (a short list of pages) was altered slightly does not deny that. Also, the new name is posing right next to thew original name, thereby adding to the confusion. I note that slight code changes (different list) do not alter the aim of the template. The creation, and the preliminary edits were discussed (see below).
 * Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry
 * Note: I mistyped the name for the original one. I corrected (struck my error). I apologize. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Background and preliminary edits:

1., who created the copy, first changed content to which I opposed. By this, including the editsummary, the editor knew their edit was controversial.

2. Notwithstanding, one hour later, the editor proceeded to move the template to the opposed name.

3. Right with this, the original code was copy/pasted back into the original name (by then a redirect after the Move). So primarily, this was a code forking, secondary, this removed the history/attribution of the original (mostly my edits). I had this undiscussed move reverted, and the editor was explained not to mess with history this way. At this moment, everything should be clean & correct.

4. Next step, the editor created this template with the code copied (I now propose to delete).

As for the confusion by the name, note that first there are two projects WP:CHEMICALS and WP:CHEMISTRY, which are confusing and related (one is a sub topic of the other). This confusion is in the earlier edits. Then the newly created name has "WikiProject" injected, which adds nothing but confusion. I note that the original name fits a series of similar names in. The name pattern nicely allows for automated template creation.

None of these edits, all in the pattern of forking, were preceded by any talk. Instead, the repetitive inroads to have it their way in whatever way shows that the editor is not open for constructive communication. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * comment About the link you link to: Chemicals belongs to WikiProject Chemicals and should in general be discussed there. Therefore, I changed the wiki link, but you reverted it with the reason "[...] won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway)" - its not user space. I moved the template to the right name (chemicals), and used the old name (chemistry) for WikiProject Chemistry articles and with attribution to the other template on the talk page. You say "that the editor is not open for constructive communication" - not correct; I have answered you here, and before that, it didnt take you long time to report it at WP:ANI (where I have explained why; but you didnt comment it with anything but saying "Wikilawyering" and your first statement again; and then you "report" it here - but you didnt comment on WP:ANI first). Btw. your comment about chemistry/chemicals are confusing, its like if I wanted the Rugby and American football projects merged, because its "the same" and confusing Christian75 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have started a talk full stop. Now you reconstruct your replies (that's replies, see: never an original, opening post!) as if you wanted to discuss. But nowhere you did start one and all were closed opinions. Now to save yourself, you blame me for posting at WP:ANI (what was the outcome then?). You even create a loaded argument out of my editsummary me to use against me: that is BF, Christiaan75. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * keep The name has the same prefix as the other recent changes - and it covers all articles in the WikiProject Chemistry as the name of the template tells you. Recent changes in Chemistry has close to zero of the articles in WikiProject Chrmistry. I suggest we rename Recent changes in Chemistry to Recent changes in Chemicals. The chemicals are covered by two WikiProjects, WikiProject Chemicals and for drugs also WikiProject Drugs. Please explain why the two name WP:Chemicals and WP:Chemistry are confusing. Christian75 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * re The name has the same prefix ...: no, the copy template does not follow the existing name pattern. See the category mentioned & explained in the nomination.
 * re as the name of the template tells you: yes, the original name tells so. Here you are admitting you are enforcing a name change again (a Move, this time by forking), not a new template. That is deletable then. I can add, after earlier edits listed (also trying to enforce a name change), this too supports the "enforce without talking" attitude.
 * re it covers... &mdash; so does the original template (Just look at the name. Or read the background. Or a-s-k the creator). In your wrecking edit actions (listed), you have not once asked or proposed a change. Even this post is not constructive by that.
 * And no, I don't feel the need to answer your question you only bring up now, after your editwarring chaos and non-talking (a closed question actually, that is: self-serving). Now that it has arrived on TfD, this is no place or time to invent a sort of "discussion" that should have been at the start.
 * You do not have consensus to "merge" chemicals and chemistry, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. You started an ANI, but do not want to comment :-(. Christian75 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear: nowhere is says is established that the original template is restricted to certain WikiProject exclusions or inclusions. Such a misconception must have been injected by Christiaan75. It could have been established in any early talk. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but you didnt want a link to the correct WikiProject: "[...] yes is wHAT i SAID: CHEMISTRY IS A SUB (AND A CONFUSED ONE). i MAINTAIN THIS NAME, MY CHOICE" Christian75 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - this one is clearly intended for Wikiproject Chemistry, Recent changes in Chemistry should be renamed to Recent changes in WikiProject Chemicals, as that is clearly the sole focus of the articles mentioned there, and it historically been so that chemical compounds are under the Chemicals WikiProject, and the rest of chemistry is under the Chemistry WikiProject. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * re this one is clearly intended for Wikiproject Chemistry: that's the point. It's a functional copy. You can see the intention of the original template by looking at its title, by reading anything on its background (e.g., in this thread for starters), or by asking the creator.
 * re template names mentioned: as written, these are breaking naming pattern. This is not the place to propose name change, and of course name pattern changes can not be enforced from individual issues.
 * re Chemistry vs Chemicals: since, indeed, chemicals are withing chemistry (both in RL and in WP), it is OK to have them together in one list. If someone wants to propose splitting, that should be done elsewhere, not here and not in a TfD. Anyway, such a split is not part of the topic. (It follows that elsewhere I would oppose it, were it properly proposed). -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, see WP:BOLD. And I do not see anything wrong with having a separate one for Chemicals vs. Chemistry, as I suggested.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Claiming BOLD to excuse a one-sided edit war: not for me. After that, you did not address one of my points. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I clearly mistyped the original template name in my nom post (now struck & corrected). The replies do support the intended understanding. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still support my suggestion: Though now, remove the links regarding recent changes in pages with drugboxes and chemboxes and move them to Recent changes in Chemicals, as those are, as the name of that template suggests, recent changes in chemicals, and leave the rest in Recent changes in Chemistry, as that is covered by the WikiProject Chemistry. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I already answered this, see re Chemistry vs Chemicals, and also wrt original name & intention.
 * I can add that this is not what the 'creator' (copypasting editor) intended, both by all battle-attitude edits and by responses, even in this thread (see above). For cleanup and clean start, deletion is needed. I am also not willing to have this series of untalked controversial battle-edits rewarded. -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - So what, we are not a bureaucracy - WP:SOFIXIT is better than deletion, after all we are a collaborative project. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, we are not a bureaucracy. So I keep asking: why did you nor Chris75 ever enter a Talk? -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Below, above, left and right: your fellow "keep" editor friend keeps creating havoc . And does not agree with your outcome.-DePiep (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to first talk, it is only considered good form. You on the other hand implement changes without waiting for discussion, and ignoring concerns.  That is all within WP:BOLD and WP:IAR.  There is no need to discuss when improving (or even making worse) something that another editor has implemented, that editor does not WP:OWN the content, and it can be mercilessly edited to whatever form.  And I think it is an improvement that was implemented.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not a copypast edit. I moved the template (template:Recent changes in Chemistry → template:Recent changes in Chemicals) to the correct name, and created a new one (template:Recent changes in Chemistry) (based on the old one, with contribution on the talk page). All "recent changes" templates are for one wikiproject but Recent changes in Chemistry which are for three. I tried to add WikiProject Chemicals to "Recent changes in Chemistry", but you reverted (again), see . In matter of fact you have merged the two templates before the TfD was closed Christian75 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that solution you boldly implemented, Christian75, is the solution that needs to be re-implemented: Recent changes in Chemistry for the chemistry excluding chemicals, and Recent changes in Chemicals for all chemicals. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not 'boldly', but battling without discussion. Anyway, chemistry includes chemicals, and whatever 180 degree construction you invent, there is no reason to have the copy replace the original. Is what this TfD is about. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion is about that you want the two templates merged (and the projects merged too). Of course its a copy; I didnt have to reinvent the wheel, like Recent changes in Chemistry is a copy of recent changes in Anatomy which is a copy of one of the other recent changes in template. But the content of the templates are changed. I created WikiProject Chemistry/Lists of pages/Chemistry articles which wasnt covered in "your" version of the template. Christian75 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, boldly. You edited something, someone else changed it, tried to improve on it.  You reverted that, you reverted something that certainly was not vandalism or bad faith or utterly wrong, you started reverting to your preferred version, you reverted a bold edit just because you did not want the changes that were implemented.  That is what started the battle.  And that is a pattern that I see with you throughout.  WikiProject Chemicals is about chemicals, WikiProject Chemistry is about all the rest, plus WikiProject Chemicals (though the part that is handled by WikiProject Chemicals is generally 'excluded' from WikiProject Chemicals).  Hence, the better solution is the one that Christian75 tried to set up, Recent changes in Chemicals linking to changes in chemicals, and Recent changes in Chemistry about everything regarding chemistry excluding what is covered by the Recent changes in Chemicals.  The original was called Chemistry, and covered only Chemicals, and moving that one to the correct name was very appropriate, as was making a new copy then of the Chemistry version covering the rest per Christian75's suggestion.  Exactly what you wanted to discuss here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bull shit, Beetstra. You've made it a full noosed circle now: you did not connect to the TfD OP ever, then kept reentering from the "I have an idea" again. You did not invite me to anything new. I still claim: "It's a copy", you could not deny. Btw, excusing Christian75 is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * delete/merge, no need for two templates unless they are for two different projects, in which case one should be renamed. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * comment The whole point of this (long) discussion is, its for two different projects. wp:Wikiproject Chemicals, and WP:Wikiproject Chemistry. (read Dirk Beetstra first keep comment) Christian75 (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Other Names-Mohammed Ashraf

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  07:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) This page doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Other Names-Mohammed Ashraf
 * Subst and delete not a real template, just holding some set text that is much shorter than the template name. (NOTE the article using this is up for deletion, so if it is deleted, this could be deleted as unused) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G6. 2 words does not a template make68.148.186.93 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.