Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 18



Template:Ethiopia call-ups (past 12 months)

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC) This is basically a 'current squad' template for a national team, which 1) doesn't really exist and 2) simply isn't needed. GiantSnowman 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ethiopia call-ups (past 12 months)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete, excessive. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete without subst It is a meaningless template. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2018 (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:Homophone

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Was used only 4 times, I've orphaned it (diffs:). Doesn't seem to be a use case that needs a seperate template; in cases where it needs to be specified as a homophone, custom text with Distinguish2 can be used (as I did here) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Homophone
 * Agreeing that this template isn't helpful. Hatnotes should use the most simple and clear language possible, and text that contains 10-dollar words like "homophone" is a no-no. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2018 (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:Redirect3 and Template:About2

 * 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 as discussed, though obviously while the merger is being performed it should be backwards-compatible with existing usage so as to not break things. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Redirect3 with Template:Redirect and Template:About2 with Template:About.
 * Redirect3
 * Redirect
 * About2
 * About

Implement their ability for custom text as a text= option in the main template that would add custom text to the end. (and which would suppress the automatic "for other uses see foo (disambiguation)" in the case of say )). Then the templates About2 and Redirect3 can be deleted after the instances of use converted. Note: can't tag Redirect or About Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If you would like to add text to existing templates, by all means do, but is there any benefit whatsoever in then deleting the templates that the new functionality will duplicate? I don't see why people should be forced to write instead of . Also, about2 is intuitive as it follows the pattern of other hatnote templates, where the appended "2" is used to distinguish the templates that take free text. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I plan on (proposing) merging all of those appended "2"'s also, eventually. By reducing the number of templates it makes maintenance easier, reduces confusion by not having templates that are superseded by another and are similarly named, and it's clearer what is occurring when a parameter is specified in the wikitext. It's 4 extra characters to type on a function that isn't used all that often (109 transclusions for about, 400 for the other). Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, it isn't really consistent. As you can see here Redirect2 is for two redirects and Redirect3 is the custom text one. distinguish-otheruses2 and other uses2 add a disambiguation suffix instead of being a custom text version. So not really intuitive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking over it, there can be a short form of t Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is your plan, then I think it might be better to start a bigger discussion that covers all cases as these templates work as a system and it's probably not productive to create gaps in it in a piecemeal fashion. There definitely is a case for seeing a t parameter as a better solution than the current system of different template names (although I'm not entirely convinced), but even if the alternative is adopted the old templates had better be retained, possibly converted into wrappers. Either way, the gains in maintainability are slim: the family of templates are already pretty simple to begin with, and are there's rarely, if ever, any need to modify them. At any rate, I don't see deletion as a viable option: I know how frustrating it can be to try improving things in the system once people have become set in their ways, but if the behaviour of these templates is altered, the disruption will be high: the templates are well established and widely known – they have been around since the early days, most of them have hundreds of transclusions, some (like Other uses2 and Distinguish2) have thousands. – Uanfala (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The other ones probably can't be deleted, but they can be deprecated. The other ones are similar but not really exactly like these which is why I haven't added them + they're used a lot more often. The templates really aren't that consistent and I don't see much of a "gap" so to speak. about2 was created two years ago. I don't think eliminating low use templates like these will cause much of a disruption. These templates are really not widely known. (similar stuff was done to redirect4, about3, and about4)Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In forcing people to switch to using something else, deprecating a template will have the same effect as deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * re opposer's is intuitive: quite nonsensical. Which editor can use without checking its documentation? Using text sounds OK; using #2 does not. And while nom may think of moving this forward, that is not relevant here. (So nom, don't get distracted into this off-topic ;-) ) . - DePiep (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm finding that >50% the time that about2 is being used, it is not needed - literally the same text can be produced by about. I think those people may think that all about can produce is "This page is about Use1. For other uses, see About (disambiguation)" and so about2 must be used for anything more than that. Thus I think deleting those templates would help in reducing confusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, more like 80%. Think its causing more confusion than help. One instance I saw admin SlimVirgin use about2 when about would have sufficed..I think forcing people to using about, and perhaps looking at the documentation (i've added a note to about2/doc that in general about should be used and not about2, if text is added I'll similarily warn against using it), could have some benefits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge to simplify use. Migration can easily be accomplished by a quick bot run. No opinion about other templates that could be changed or merged: the case for about2 and redirect3 is well-articulated and straightforward, let's focus on those. — JFG talk 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --★ Yexstorm2001 ★ ( talk ) 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Daask (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Ita140188 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the merge, is it possible to remove the TfD note from about? It shows up *everywhere* and looks awful. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, and for the record, I support the merge for the above reasoning. —  Earwig   talk 03:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support provided all features are preserved. Remember WP:NOTAVOTE by the way. Nuke (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support no need for extra templates. Many editors (including yours truly) have made the mistake of using the wrong hatnote template when it's not necessary. feminist (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support To simplify. The only thing I can remember when hatnoting is that I need to go open up 3-5 template pages and figure out which one to use.  Every.  Single.  Time. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 20:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And how will this change with the merge? About2 is an exception and should be rarely used. From all the support votes it sounds like you just want a way to make your own customized text. Christian75 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Amory means to say this (at least I want to): Two hatnote templates will disappear (being redundant), the other two are left with a single parameter added (parameter works similar in both ways). This is simplifying the documentation.


 * Support. I can add: four years ago I've spend a lot of time on rationalising these hatnotes, similar way. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Customized text should only be used in seldom cases. Adding text= to this template legitimize the use of all kinds of individual phrases. If merged anyway, there should be added a maintenance category for all uses of text= Christian75 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * only be used in seldom cases: could be true (I did not find this), but these merges do not add legitimation. It is an existing option. Then, our main goal is to help the editors out by easifying hatnote usage, not prevent proper usage by complicating things. This also helps writing good hatnote sentences. As for tracking: this tool already does a nice job. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (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:No Limit Forever Records

 * 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 opposition. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Unneeded navbox to simply list the founders of the record company. WP:NENAN. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No Limit Forever Records
 * delete, founders can be connected through simple in-article links, or see-also-section links. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (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).