Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 11: Difference between revisions

Line 192: Line 192:

* ”’Delete”’: it’s redundant to {{t|Talk header}}. <span class=”nowrap”>[[User:Vestrian24Bio|<span style=”font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;”>””’Vestrian24Bio””'</span>]]</span> 04:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

* ”’Delete”’ per nom, it duplicates talkheader adding to banner blindness, [[User:Tpbradbury|Tom B]] ([[User talk:Tpbradbury|talk]]) 10:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

* ”’Delete”’ per nom. Takes up space and doesn’t add up anything to the talk bannerspace. Additionally, messes up the ordering of the banners because editors believe it’s a high-priority template due to its attention-grabbing color coding, and so they put it on top of actually useful banners that actually have something to say.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Unused timeline. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not unused; it was temporarily <!– hidden –> two weeks ago due to a mobile site formatting problem.

Pinging @Peter NYC and @Pigsonthewing: Did you ever figure out how to make it work? Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 75#Template covering content doesn’t look like is was successful, though that might have been a caching problem. Should we ask for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t able to fix it, and it is a Desktop issue as well. == Peter NYC 23:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then is it safe to delete? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 links. Not enough for a navbox. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would 3 be enough? —Reiner Stoppok (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is a template (as the title says), and it is a relatively common English term for them. —Reiner Stoppok (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC) PS: Move it back to Template:Four gLing bzhi or tell us a better English title.[reply]

A mention in two books is not “relatively common”. This navbox fails WP:NAVBOX items 2 and 4, and possibly more. I have no objections to this template being recreated when there is a main article and four or more articles to link from the navbox body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is a Brill publication, and there are only four (alltogether), as expressed in the Tibetan term (bzhi). —Reiner Stoppok (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be bitey about this new navbox, but there is no main article for this navbox and it contains only two links to articles. There is nothing to navigate between here. No prejudice to recreation in the future when there is a main article and at least four or five articles for the navbox body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This new “X English” talk page template was created without any discussion that I can find by a now globally locked editor in August 2025. That editor then spammed the template onto 200+ talk pages, including pages that already had “Use X English” templates on their articles, such as European Court of Justice. This one-person crusade seems to have made a bit of a mess.

Euro English is disputed as a valid variant of English. The article provides no guidance that would help editors use correct spellings that are different from British English spellings. This template should be deleted completely, and each article should be evaluated on its own for appropriate placement of an English variant template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with several former ‘Use X English’ templates, this template is redundant to Use British English. As stated on the template page, it is an instruction to use ‘Sri Lankan English spelling, which, as noted in the article, is the same as British English spelling.’ Dgp4004 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Replace with {{Use British English}} as not usable here on the English Wikipedia. The effort of having articles identified as using British English spelling and word choices should not be lost; do not simply delete transclusions outright.
This “Use X English” family of templates is intended to provide editors with advice about word choice (“truck” v. “lorry”), spelling (“color” v. “colour”), and occasionally grammatical construction (“Since 1960” v. “From 1960”). Other than those differences, writers at the English Wikipedia are supposed to follow MOS:COMMONALITY, writing in standard English that can be understood by the most readers. The article at Sri Lankan English describes pronunciation, which is not relevant for a written encyclopedia. The examples given in the vocabulary and grammar sections are not usable here on the English Wikipedia without glossing, per MOS:COMMONALITY. The article provides no usable guidance about how to write in Sri Lankan English that is different from guidance that would be provided for British English, so this template is not useful or usable (TFD reason 3) on the English Wikipedia. The {{Use British English}} template provides appropriate guidance for editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Sri Lankan English is just about speaking, it has no place on written work. CabinetCavers (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to {{Use British English}} since Sri Lankan English is the same spelling as British English. Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not redirect because the idea is to reduce confusion, not increase it. These are maintenance templates unrelated to nationalism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispybeatle (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no worth in redirecting, it can just be switched out using a bot User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update – I found that a South Asian word for eggplant or aubergine was key in proving Template_talk:Use_Indian_English and Template_talk:Use_Pakistani_English as being distinct formal, written variants of English. However I am not sure if this certainly applies to Sri Lanka too. If there are sources that outright say that “brinjal” is definitively a Sri Lankan English word for eggplant/aubergine, then this is key in me voting keep and imploring deletion admins to reconsider previous responses. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a dozen different words for ‘bread roll’ in different parts of England alone. But that wouldn’t justify ‘Use Lancashire English’, ‘Use Yorkshire English’ etc. So I don’t think the word for aubergine is enough to base an entire language template. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the dozen words for “bread roll” in parts of England would be used in “man on the street” contexts, casual contexts which would not be used in an encyclopedia and aren’t relevant to an encyclopedia. But for brinjal I cited instances in newspapers and in government documents for Indian English. This indicates the word is to be used in formal, written English, the kind Wikipedia is written in. My understanding is that “aubergine” is not used in English in India. The question now, is whether “brinjal” is specifically the word for eggplant used in Sri Lankan English… WhisperToMe (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wars have started over lesser issues than the ‘correct’ term for a sandwich in a bap. That’s just a flippant example on my part. You will find many terms used only in one nation or even part of a nation but without the necessity for its own variety template. In Scotland, for example, a church is typically termed a kirk and a lake is a loch. But despite using just one template, there are no issues of editors changing the Loch Ness Monster to the Lake Ness Monster, nor of Scottish editors changing the Lake District to the Loch District. I am equally confident that no bot is going to be programmed to search out brinjal and replace it with aubergine. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Thank you very much. ~2025-41477-53 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant with {{talk header}}, which already tells editors the talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. This template doesn’t add new information, and having multiple banners increases banner blindness. See also the TFD on {{calm}}. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need to keep this old, redundant, waste-of-space template. CabinetCavers (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous keep !vote makes the delete argument by not noticing the redundancy due to banner blindness. Rolluik (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, merge text per above Oreocooke (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; I don’t see a reason to keep or archive. Jude Halley (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 01:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per 1isall. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – ~~for the record User:Yovt is wrong. The quoted texted is NOT in {{talk header}}, but it should be.~~ My mistake! The text is hidden unless in the proper namespace so doesn’t show up when you look at the Template. Anyway, support deleting per previous comments. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it is on the talk header template ~2025-38594-91 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support merging that information into {{Talk header}}. HurricaneZeta^C 23:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How valuable is that text, really? The talk header links to WP:FORUM, which the template summarizes. The only added value of the template is the link to the reference desk. Anyone curious enough to seek out the reference desk is going to click the link in the talk header anyway. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cfls (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Newslinger talk 01:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ItsMario97 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve always thought this, redundant with talk header, which is far more useful. jolielover♥talk 07:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do not delete this without searching for pages which contain this template without a Talk header. The main redundancy argument is only true on pages with both templates. CapnZapp (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I compiled some lists of talk pages that might help with the renaming/deletion process:
Delete per nom. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 🙂 – OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 22:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A seperate RfC can take place on whether to make the TPH underline NOTFORUM more User:Easternsahara_{review this} 03:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Merge by adding the text to the talk header. Same message is still applied, and there’s one less banner that could lead to banner blindness. – Excited A. It may be a good idea to look at this. 14:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FaviFake (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge, whatever the right term is) so that it produces {{talk header}}. Banner blindness is becoming increasingly bothersome. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the text Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to the improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about {{{1}}} at the Reference desk. can be merged into {{talk header}}, but overall I don’t think this is needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This banner serves a different need than {{talkheader}}. TH is a multi-purpose, multi-message that includes some active UI. This is purely about keeping off-topic discussion out of a talk page. TH gets used everywhere, often near-automatically. This should only be placed on very specific talk pages that, for whatever reason, attract a lot of people (typically newcomers) who think talk pages are a good place to talk about their hobby (or whatever), and need to be alerted about how Wikipedia works. Now, maybe this banner is getting overused/misused on the wrong pages, but that’s not a reason to delete it. —
DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Request: Could the various “delete per nom” commenters please explain how the two templates do not serve different purposes, and why misuse must mean “delete”. So far it seems like most people are just saying this is the same thing as TH, with no further supporting reasoning. Disagreement is fine, but please explain why. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Idea: If the concern is strictly banner blindness, we could simply remove this template from pages where {{talkheader}} is also present. That could be scripted. Presumably also add a note to the docs for {{not a forum}} to not add it on top of TH. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above ~2025-41815-67 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it’s redundant to {{Talk header}}. Vestrian24Bio 04:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it duplicates talkheader adding to banner blindness, Tom B (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Takes up space and doesn’t add up anything to the talk bannerspace. Additionally, messes up the ordering of the banners because editors believe it’s a high-priority template due to its attention-grabbing color coding, and so they put it on top of actually useful banners that actually have something to say.—Alalch E. 16:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply