Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 10: Difference between revisions

Line 53: Line 53:

*::Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a “maintenance complexity” as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

*::: {{ping|Alalch E.}} Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here since [[Template:Authority control]] and the module supports more parameters that aren’t currently documented (but do work) via [[Template:Authority control (arts)]], such as the ‘suppress’ parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn’t currently documented. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

*::::”For a description of other parameters, please read Template:Authority control/doc.” is already present in the documentation of this template, and can be given more prominence if needed. “and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists” would only apply if you needed arts and lighthouse at the same time at the moment… Are there other combinations it doesn’t allow? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

:”’Overturn”’. NACs are allowed because they help. When an NAC causes more trouble, it was not helpful. In hindsight, the close is an obviously BADNAC. The close was a close call. It could have easily been called “no consensus”. The closer should convert their closing rationale to a !vote. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

*”’Endorse”’ This user does close things from time to time, but I would have closed it as replace – the votes to keep were “it’s too much of a pain to change” which isn’t really policy based. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ”<span style=”font-size:small; vertical-align:top;”>[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>”·”<span style=”font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;”>[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>” 22:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Per User_talk:Vanderwaalforces#Template:Authority_control_(arts), there was never really a consensus to merge here. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 22:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate BADNAC No way that shows a clear enough consensus for a NAC–I’d argue it hadn’t reached consensus at all, so either an admin reclose or relist would both be fine. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwaalforces has over 50,000 edits, and has been closing discussion for years. I don’t think it’s fair to argue an incorrect conclusion was reached due to inexperience with editing or closing. Nor do I think someone is better at closing just because they’re an admin. I’m an admin who rarely uses admin tools, and I have much less experience closing discussions. — Beland (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid argument. TFD does not require NACs to operate a certain way. Consensus to reach X is allowed for any non-admin closer. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if I’m not used to nuances of here a NAC, there a NAC. I don’t do TFD at all, but my default assumption is that a non-obvious close needs an admin, and this one clearly appears as such to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a point of education then :^): At TFD, it’s fine to say the close was bad. It’s not fine to say it was because they were not an admin. Izno (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still not sold on the idea that a NAC is fine at one venue, bad in another. That’s special pleading. I do note that my immediately prior edit was a NAC here at DRV… but that’s because there was zero disagreement between established editors and doing so is well within the page precedent. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not special pleading though. TFD is set up to allow anyone to close. That’s ignoring that “BADNAC” is an essay, despite its referrers trying to apply it elsewhere (for any of several possible reasons). Ignoring that, of course, none of the reasons laid out in the actual section on BADNAC apply in this specific instance to the specific NAC: The topic is not contentious, VF has plenty of experience editing Wikipedia, this is TFD where non-admins can do things, and they were uninvolved in the discussion.

WP:NACD does exist: VF indicated they’re not an admin, they don’t appear to have violated ADMINACCT/UNINVOLVED, and it’s TFD as above. And a few other bullets mostly echoing BADNAC’s list.

But from NACD, Close calls […] are better left to admins. which is reasonably relevant. But it’s better left to admins and not verboten for non-admins. Among the criteria, I don’t find this collection of facts strongly an argument for a toss on this dimension. Izno (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I don’t agree that this is a badnac. Some XFDs have to operate in an environment with nacs because there are simply no admins interested in that area who understand it well enough to interpret those arguments. That said it, despite being open two months, I wouldn’t like to have to find a consensus there – but see my previous comment. The argument that we are removing a redundancy has some attraction to me though so I’m firmly in the meh camp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that claim was definitely true of TfD in the past, these days TfD has at least 3 active regular admin closers and most discussions are closed by admins. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 22:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn’t excuse an incorrect suggestion that this was a BADNAC. It may be BAD, but that it was an NAC is irrelevant at TFD. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also true; the issue here isn’t that the closer doesn’t have enough experience to close contentious discussions, it’s just that they made a close which (IMO) doesn’t reflect the consensus the discussion came to. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the outcome, though it would have probably been better to be left to an administrator. Policy-based votes show a rough consensus to replace, considering the main “keep” argument is that it would take a considerable effort to replace the thousands of instances across Wikipedia. The closer correctly gave that argument less weight as there is no deadline to complete this task. Frank Anchor 14:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, or re-open There was never really an explanation of the technical merit of merging. Put the other way, what technical debt or problem is incurred leaving it in place as a shortcut? I wouldn’t readily dismiss the argument that a substantial number of edits are required on a merge either; that’s not determinative, but it’s a relevant consideration. Local Variable (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as I have a history with this topic (as does Pppery). I’ve offered bot support to migrate this over, and I’ve drafted code at [1] – it’s straightforward to implement but it needs to go through a bot request before I can run it, which I’ll start after this discussion closes, if needed. I think that @MSGJ, Fram, Grimes2, Izno, WikiCleanerMan, DavidBrooks, WomenArtistUpdates, Antibabelic, Beland, Frietjes, and Photographer’s Box: should also be aware of this discussion since they participated in the TfD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know exactly how to !vote on this request to vacate a Bad non-administrative closing. Don’t vacate the closing? I do know I want this “Authority control (arts)” wrapper, or template, or whatever the heck it is, to be deleted. The consensus was to delete this, the result languished for months, if not years. I can’t even find the original request for deletion, but nobody uses this template except the template’s creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again. In the words of James Brown “Please, please, please…” —WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see several !votes on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 17#Module:Authority control (arts) requested simultaneous deletion of the module and the template that was created for the module. It seems the deletion of the template fell between the cracks. — Beland (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure deletion of the template follows from deleting the fork of the module. Deleting the forked module is easy, deleting the template in question necessitates a huge number of changes in articles. Local Variable (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the template had been deleted after that discussion, a DRV would have rapidly overturned it. You can’t nominate a no longer used module for deletion, and then hijack that discussion to delete an in-use template which isn’t even tagged for deletion and for which the reasons for deletion of the module don’t apply (and even less so when the people arguing for such stealth deletion are the same ones who argued for its deletion in the previous TfD which ended in keep). Hence my fear that once they get rid of the wrapper, they will then remove the functionality as that wouldn’t require a more public TfD but could just be done with a template talk page discussion among very few people. I still don’t get the reason why those people don’t want this to exist and believe that it is sufficient to have e.g. 18 relevant Authority Control links at Vincent van Gogh, but want instead to show 49 such links, all with the same info but in different languages ([2][3][4]). All of these and many more are available from Wikidata, why all of them need to be visible on an enwiki article is never made clear (apparently “for librarians” as if they can’t and don’t use Wikidata when necessary). Fram (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Except in unusual circumstances which don’t apply here, every deletion discussion requires each page it would apply to do be separately tagged and listed in the header. And if I had seen it at a time when the consensus wasn’t obvious I would also have supported deleting the module – it’s fine, and probably a good idea for the same backend code to be used. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There never was consensus to delete this. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt (where you voted delete) closed as “Keep”.

“the template’s creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again.” I didn’t start this DRV, and didn’t claim that it would be “too much work” to delete.

Can you please stick to the facts? Fram (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I claim it was too much work to delete – if there were a strong reason to delete I would have been fine with it. My !vote there, expanded, is that by doing this you would have run a bot to make 16,000 edits, and what you would be accomplishing by doing that? Nothing but making things look slightly tidier. (I don’t buy Fram’s fear that the entire functionality will be neutered in a later module update). * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me the facts are that this thing was created for no reason except one person found the regular authority control template to be too cluttered on the desktop version. The art specific template serves no useful function, it just satisfies one (1) person’s aesthetics. The template was deployed by a bot making replacements before any meaningful discussion took place. This has now evolved into a years long technical debate that will keep reappearing with someone new asking “why does this even exist?” every once in a while. It doesn’t save any space. It doesn’t make the information any clearer one way of the other. For every Vincent van Gogh example there can be another one produced to show why all the data IS interesting.

I see no compelling practical reason that this be kept. —WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like many things, it was created by one person, but then debated by the wider community at the TfD I linked to above, and that closed as keep. So the “one person” argument no longer applies. Feel free to list your counterexamples though. Fram (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it was never deployed by a bot. That´s the third blatantly incorrect claim you make now. This is disruptive. Fram (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that you manually changed 16,000 entries? —WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you claiming that anybody changed 16,000 entries? —Cryptic 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, misread which part was being claimed to be deployed.[reply]I’ve taken a closer look, with a sample of 20 random articles currently transcluding the template (which is too small, but all I have time to manually look at right now). In none of them was the template put in place by a bot. In one article, Rufino Tamayo, it was placed by Ymblanter; in all 19 others, it was deployed by Fram using AWB (still not a bot!), between 9 February 2021 and 11 June 2021. —Cryptic 17:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, bad close. I have no idea what the “stronger policy-based arguments” are that the close is based on. Which policy? Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find a need to address this comment, especially since it is a question. One of WP:TFD#REASONS is that “the template is redundant to a better-designed template”, I’m sorry but imagine if the creation of this template was done now in 2025, I wonder who would use it instead of just using the normal template with a |show=arts parameter. FWIW, imagine someone creating a template called “Reflist (indent)” when editors could just simply say “Reflist|indent=yes”. So, yeah, I found the argument of 16k bot edits to articles being a problem to be of less weight compared to the argument about complexity and, as I stated on my talk, avoid confusion for editors and ensures that future changes only need to be made in one place. I am sorry if this was a BADNAC, and I stand to be corrected. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“the template is redundant to a better-designed template”: that’s a possible reason why a template may be nominated for deletion, not a policy reason that it has to be deleted. Otherwise why would we even have the discussion? Every wrapper template is redundant, feel free to propose a speedy deletion to get rid of all of them. Here it feels like a supervote. Fram (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a super vote, it is exactly what I avoid when closing discussions. My explanations are branches of my close, not to try to become INVOLVED in the discussion process. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the original TfD you said you had “no objection” to merging these templates if the same functionality is retained. Why have you changed your stance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not about “did the close align with my !vote”, but “did the close correctly summarize the consensus”. Fram (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eyeballing this, I’d put it in no consensus or relist territory. “I don’t want a bot to replace 16k uses” is not a terribly strong rationale at TFD, which does that all the time. “This is extra complexity” isn’t a terribly strong rationale the other direction (for this case at least). Having two separate templates use the same module under the hood means there’s functionally no code duplication. And that’s the entire lot of the set here. There is a good argument for deletion here which is that having the separate template is “redundant to a better-designed template.” (one supports parameters, one does not), but this wasn’t made or weighed explicitly. Izno (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wrapper supports all parameters as far as I know? Are there parameters it should be able to use that don´t work? Fram (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a misread of the point I tried to make that could have been made; instead, it was just “template A works with no parameters, template B works with 1 parameter” to achieve identical functionality, and we typically tend to prefer templates with more functionality per template than less. But as I said, a discussion point for the TFD to have decided (or decide). Izno (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the closer that supporters of deleting the template have the stronger policy-based arguments, despite the number of !votes in the discussion. Editors arguing to keep the template suggested that a change would be cosmetic and there are 16k changes needed. These arguments are usually not strong arguments to make in a deletion discussion. In contrast, editors supporting replacing the template pointed to depreciating redundant wrappers. —Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) – Per WP:NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made the right call, as there was a valid argument for modernization of the template in favor, and some weak arguments against that were countered by the final comment in which assistance with a bot to make the changes was offered, leaving seemingly little downside to modifying the template. Why not allowing a bot to make the changes would be bad to the point of overriding the benefits of modernization of the template was not fully expounded upon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closer said …deprecating redundant wrappers to reduce maintenance complexity. … what maintenance complexity? No one in the discussion made a direct reference to maintenance or maintenance complexity. It isn’t clear what this maintenance complexity might be from the discussion or in general. The template source code is {{#invoke:Authority control | authorityControl | show=arts }}. The template reached a stage where there’s nothing to maintain. The close resembles a supervote. There was not a consensus for the challenged outcome.—Alalch E. 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: My !vote did specifically say ‘it just adds extra complexity that can confuse editors’. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a “maintenance complexity” as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —Alalch E. 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here since Template:Authority control and the module supports more parameters that aren’t currently documented (but do work) via Template:Authority control (arts), such as the ‘suppress’ parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn’t currently documented. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“For a description of other parameters, please read Template:Authority control/doc.” is already present in the documentation of this template, and can be given more prominence if needed. “and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists” would only apply if you needed arts and lighthouse at the same time at the moment… Are there other combinations it doesn’t allow? Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. NACs are allowed because they help. When an NAC causes more trouble, it was not helpful. In hindsight, the close is an obviously BADNAC. The close was a close call. It could have easily been called “no consensus”. The closer should convert their closing rationale to a !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Battle of Vinland (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected to Vinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion. Saga of the greenlanders: “The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away.” This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers. Saga of Erik the Red: “One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders’ bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp.” This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic My proposal is to have the page as an redirect to Vinland#The Vinland Sagas, which is the parent chapter for both of the quotes. Snævar (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done — Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected to Vinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion.

Saga of the greenlanders:
“The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away.”
This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers.

Saga of Erik the Red:
“One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders’ bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp.”
This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic

My proposal is to have the page as an redirect to Vinland#The Vinland Sagas, which is the parent chapter for both of the quotes. Snævar (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply