Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 24



Template:Editorial

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Editorial with Template:Essay-like.
 * Editorial
 * Essay-like

Exactly the same. Worse, "editorializing" has a totally different meaning in the Manual of Style that is not reflected in this template. Merge. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, per nom.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge But note that the two templates link to two different polices, so the merge should be accomplished as follows: "reads like an editorial or personal essay", with links to these two policies. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge both into tone. KMF (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I reject that proposal. That template is more general. Editorial has 186 uses, which is also not a small number, but Essay-lke has 3,854, so obviously is unfit for merging. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I, the nominator, also to this proposal because of 's general nature.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose (for now) but clarify. I could perhaps be persuaded to vote for Merge, but I would ask that we not be too hasty (there's no rush, right?) and consider all the angles.  Here's why I can't vote in favor of a merge now:
 * Template Essay-like is reasonably well-defined (although confusingly titled imho, but that's a separate problem) as it specifically calls out that it's about personal feelings and value judgments. (Some word counts: personal:8; feelings:2; emotion:3.) It also points out that it doesn't mean "essay" in the way we normally mean it in English (which is why I feel it's somewhat misnamed) and so doesn't mean it sounds like a research paper, for which the doc recommends using tone instead.  (A good argument for not merging with another template, is when the first template has a When not to use section which says, "Don't use this template, use Template Foo instead, when (these conditions).")  Essay-like also points out in that section when not to use Essay-like, but to use POV instead (namely, when it's biased, but not about personal feelings).  It's interesting that the consensus of doc writers for Essay-like didn't even consider Editorial similar enough to worry about telling you when not to use it.  That for me, is a big red flag against merging, although not a complete bar.  Let's look at the other one, now.
 * Template Editorial is not as well defined, and in fact, the doc is somewhat self-contradictory. The usage doc says that it's for "articles that are written in an informal tone due to editorializing". If that is true, this is a style issue, not a bias one. To make the point clear, the word "editorializing" is linked to WP:EDITORIAL which talks about adverbs like "notably, it should be noted, interestingly, essentially, actually, clearly, of course," which are warning flags for non-NPOV material ahead. This description in fact, does sound more like the one at tone, and if that doc statement is accurate, I would support a merge of Editorial and tone, with Essay-like left separate.  However, that statement in the doc is not quite in line with the second half of the statement in the banner which talks about WP:NOTOPINION which does sound more like Essay-like.  So in the end, it isn't even clear to me exactly when you are supposed to use Editorial, and a When not to use section would have been welcome here.
 * I've had experience before in the aftermath of two templates that were merged in haste, partly due to the fact that one of them was poorly documented, and the template name of one of them was somewhat misleading. It ended up creating a lot of confusion among editors and users of the templates, and finally required an unmerge request, a lot of discussion and careful description, and work by template writers to finally sort out the whole big mess. Hence my request at the top not to be hasty about this merge.  In that case, I blamed the poor documentation (and somewhat also the poorly named template) for creating the mess in the first place.  What I've learned from that case, is that we might be able to have a win-win here, perhaps not by merging, but rather by identifying if there really are two needs here, and if so, simply clarifying the doc so it's crystal clear what they're each for, and how they differ ("when not to...").  If they don't differ, then I will change my vote. We might even decide that there are no new needs here (by that I mean, different from NPOV and tone), and if that's the case, then they both should go away.  I have more thoughts about this, but this is long enough so I'll just leave it here for now, along with the recommendation that we look at how users of Editorial are using it now, and bring some stats about that to bear on this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So what exactly are you in favor of?--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge, per nom.  - Just saw the merge request when templating an article. My interpretation of each template, based on the narrow definitions, is that they are the same. If there is a clear point of view that comes across from the writing, it's an essay and it's editorial.  If the sources substantiate the text, it's neither. Timtempleton (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Two templates that convey (essentially) the same information, just presented differently. Morphdog flames 21:15, 29 April 2017 (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).

Template:Mitsuru Meike

 * 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 (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  11:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Insufficient navigation: only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mitsuru Meike
 * delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2017 (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).

Template:GPnotebook

 * 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 2017 May 5. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GPnotebook
 * 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).