Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJL (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 20 February 2021 (→‎Template:R from template shortcut: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

Template:Cite rt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Keep per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken nomination by Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) who accidentally nominated the template's talk page in MFD. Their rationale for template deletion was as follows:

It's a template that seems to literally exist for the purposes of citing Rotten Tomatoes, which is already covered by Template: Cite Web. It's redundant and exists to solve a problem that does not exist.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Web does all the things these do, without creating a bunch of templates that will inevitably be deleted in time, requiring replacing with Cite Web. WP:OTHERSTUFF, having other redundant templates does not justify this one. Trust me, I would've been nominating each of these in time. The formatting for these is needlessly obtuse and also defies the guidelines of cite web, meaning a user going around doing mass changes is introducing formatting differences on Featured Articles. Maybe my initial argument was less detailed because I thought this was a no-brainer, but this and the other templates have no reason to exist when we already have pretty substantial and robust templates that do everything they do and more. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:Expert needed

As I posted on the talk page in October:

[D]oes this template ever work? It doesn't seem to have a way of actively notifying WikiProjects or other circles where someone who says "Hey, I know a lot about X, let me help" can actually do so. It just sits there in a category. There is a "reason" field, but I never see that used either. I never see people who use this template bring it up on the talk page. It's just a drive-by tag that's slapped on for no reason because an article is underutilized, and it literally never seems to do any good.

For instance, Music of Arkansas has had an "expert" tag since 2012, but the tagger never said anything on the talk page, nor did anyone else. I sampled a whole bunch of uses of this template, and not a single one had anything in the "reason" field, nor any relevant discussion on the talk page. It also doesn't seem like one has to be an "expert" to improve an article[...]It seems that the mere purpose of this template is redundant; in the Music of Arkansas example, {{tone}} and {{reorganize}} seem to do a better job at explaining the issues in the article.

Is this just my confirmation bias, or is this a valid concern? Is there any proof that its use actually helps in any scenario, or is it just 100% prone to drive-by tagging and superfluous to other maintenance tags? I saw the same thing happen with {{expand}} ages ago for much of the same reasons (excessive drive-by tagging, little to no explanation whenever the tag was used, redundancy to other tags).

In short, Is there a way to fix this template and make its presence more prominent to alert users who might actually be experts in the field, or should it just be deprecated?

Everyone involved in the ensuing discussion seemed to have a similar take to mine: that they've never seen it actually result in an article getting improved, that the template itself is prone to drive-by tagging, and that there are far better ways of notifying relevant editors of an article's need for improvement. Even the addition of a "reason" field does not seem to have helped any, as no one ever seems to fill it out (or worse, as on Alcoholic lung disease -- that one had both {{expert needed}} and {{cleanup}}, whose reason field stated "this article needs an expert").

The 2017 MFD, closed as "keep", had similar discussion points:

  • Whatamidoing:

    I've been watching this template on medicine-related articles for much longer than five years, and its actual effect appears to be: absolutely nothing. Outside experts don't edit it, and usually nobody else does, either. I suspect the tag of discouraging some less-than-supremely-confident editors from even trying to improve these articles. There is often no apparent rhyme or reason why the article was tagged, but there is a small tendency to tag "expert needed" when the problem is "the current version of the article doesn't agree with my POV"[...]or "I didn't understand this article, so I'm asking for an expert, even though subject-matter experts often fill articles with incomprehensible jargon"[...]But my main problem is that they just don't work.

  • Nyttend:

    I've never seen improvements resulting from using this template, and while that can't be extrapolated as far as "improvements have never resulted from using this template", I expect I'd be aware of occasional benefits if they exist. This template is about as useful as {{expand}}[...] it says "It would be nice if this article were better" but doesn't give any details, and in fact it's even less useful, because at least "Please help improve this article by expanding it" specifies how to fix the identified problem. This one doesn't even address what's wrong.

Nyttend had previously nominated the template for deletion in 2013 based off the precedent of {{expand}} being deprecated, but that discussion also closed as "keep".

In both cases, most of the "keep" votes were WP:ITSUSEFUL, or vague support like "I've seen it work before", "it's used on a lot of articles" (so was {[tl|expand!), or "it might be useful to someone" without any evidence of the sort. The 2013 TFD suggested making the "reason" field mandatory, but this does not seem to have been implemented, and people are still using it without filling in the "reason" field at all.

tl;dr: The issues dictated in the previous two MFDs still seem to be valid, and have not changed one iota since 2013. With all of the above in mind, plus the precedent established by the deprecation of {{expand}} way back in 2010, I think that this template should be deprecated. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)|1=Expert needed}}[reply]

  • Comment: Template:Example doesn't seem to be the template you mean. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and create new templates There is, in some cases, a genuine need for an expert eye on articles, but Music of Arkansas is definitely not such a case. Rather, certain topic areas are very technical and complex and a non-expert wouldn't even know where to begin. I would suggest a template series, including things like {{expert math}}, {{expert physics}}, {{expert computer science}}, and since these templates would be specific areas, they could have a mechanism for notifying wikiprojects. That said, the existing template uses should not be deleted in mass, but instead any new uses should generate an error message while old uses remain as is (if this is technically feasible). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete I agree with what's said above. My impression is that it's often not true that the article/section needs an "expert", it just needs someone to do some work on it. For highly technical subjects it could be appropriate (I'm thinking of something like Hungarians#Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins - a meaningless rag-bag of statements), but even then more specific hatnotes would perhaps be better. Not keen on the template series idea above - I just think we need to stop this template being used inappropriately. Maybe some firm wording - and make the person adding the hatnote look for experts. Sometimes I think that adding hatnotes is just laziness. Nigej (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I commented on the talk page when this was first mooted:
    Thinking it might be useful, I've attempted to use it a few times, with a both a reason and discussion on the talk page, but I fear I was wasting my time. One of the instances you deleted earlier today (at Henry Eccles) does have a very good reason posted to the talk page, but it's not been addressed since 2011. At least in its present form I can't see that this template has any utility.
    There have been plenty of suggestions over the years for ways to get the template to actually do something useful, but when the evidence shows that it's failed over a 15 year period it needs to go. I'd also agree with the speculation that it may well be having a negative effect in that it implies to editors that only an expert can deal with whatever problems someone has noticed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make it work Have a bot post announcements on relevant WikiProject talk pages, and put a note on the editor's talk page saying which WikiProject talk pages it put the bot-notice on and whether those WikiProjects are active, semi-active, or inactive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Davidwr: People have been trying to "make it work" since 2013. The last two MFDs had similar suggestions to yours, but no one has wanted to put in the effort to implement any kind of solution that'll raise this template's profile. It's clear from that big a length of time that no one wants to maintain this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider adding a stipulation that it can be removed if no talk page discussion is started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing: As many other people have proven in this and the last two TFDs, that would mean removing literally every single instance. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not "literally". I took a quick look at articles using the template, and there are absolutely instances where reasons are given. And even if 90% were to be removed, what would be the problem? Wouldn't that make the tag more useful by removing instances where it's unhelpful? I think such a stipulation would be a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An aside I work more with categories than templates but I thought I'd add that Wikipedia has dozens of empty categories for articles that need an expert's attention (Category:All expert subject categories). If this template gets deleted, I might see if something should be done about them as well. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate while occasionally useful, Wikipedia does not rely on expert editors - and there aren't really any experts looking at these queues, making this one of the worst "wishful thinking" cleanup templates. Other templates should generally suffice, with appropriate reason parameters. However, this shouldn't be substituted or deleted until all existing transclusions are evaluated and either removed or converted to a more relevant cleanup template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do admit it's often in need of a stated reason, but I would say that about a lot of templates. I don't think that's a very strong reason for deletion. Besides, I still think it calls attention to an important state (one that many articles are in) between "This article is a mess" and "This article is great", somewhere in the range of "This article is okay, but suffers from a range of complex issues". I've often seen it used as "I'm not familiar enough with the topic to be certain, but I'm 90% certain parts of this article are bullshit". In topics like history, it can be very difficult to find out for a layman what 14th century source is or isn't reliable. Same goes for other expert fields. In cases like this, an expert could much more effectively check the quality and reliability of the article. The first problem here is that when you get too specific, an expert will never be found. There are no experts on "Hills in Vermont" on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of experts on Geography. The second problem is that experts aren't typically going to stumble upon these articles, especially since the tag is often added to relatively low profile pages. I'm certain many people add the tag believing this will bring special attention to the page from an expert, and why shouldn't that be made possible? You mention that the template doesn't post to WikiProjects. Why wouldn't this be something that could be done technically? Prinsgezinde (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can agree with the original reason for suggesting deletion, but I think there is still a need for keeping the template. From what I take out of the responses so far, it says just as much about the use (or lack thereof?) of talk pages and WikiProjects. This template serves a dual purpose; along with improving highly technical articles, this is a resource for (re)building articles out of stubs or start-class status. Does Wikipedia have expert editors? On an official basis, no, since all of us can edit (nearly) any article; in practical terms, this is not true, since we have to take into account the resources, knowledge, and interests that each editor brings here. Unless using source-editing to add this tag, the reason parameter is essentially mandatory, which goes a long way in better justifying its use (answering "Why?" for everyone at a glance). Instead of deleting this outright, this template may be in need of some updating to improve its functionality; this is a discussion for its own talk page, of course. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two TFDs have had people suggesting improvements to its functionality. None of these have been implemented except for a "reason" field, which no one ends up using. I have asked for examples of this template providing the intended result and gotten literally zero evidence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would support making the reason field mandatory for new instances between a finite number of possibilities (maybe mapped to wikiprojects?) that add the article to a subject-specific list. That way experts in the field can find them. If there is no mechanism for experts in a particular field to locate articles requiring an expert in their field, then I agree the tag is pretty useless. If there is no technical way to do that or no will, then maybe change them all to {{too technical}} or {{cleanup}}. Jdcooper (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we can more or less agree that the intention of this template—having someone qualified review and/or rework an article—is a valuable one; the issue is whether its execution and implementation as is actually end up solving those issues, and especially whether there are better ways of making that happen with the other tools we already have.
The biggest issue is that {{Expert needed}} has no effective means of contacting those experts. This seems to be because this template occupies a weird non-committal space between your average cleanup template and a proper workflow—it lacks the specificity and urgency that would accompany something like a request for comment, for example. There are a handful of processes that fulfill a lot of what {{Expert needed}} is trying to do; I'll list the ones that come to mind first (and please feel free to correct/add on after me):
  • Flagging attention=yes on an appropriate WikiProject template on the article's talk page. This is slightly more useful than {{Expert needed}} because it at least theoretically notifies that WikiProject (more like putting a request in the mailbox than dumping it in the driveway), but it has the same issue of "passing the buck" and hoping that someone is monitoring the "needs attention" category. Other issues: it doesn't show up in the article itself (though that could be considered an upside, considering that burying it in the talk page leads to slightly less drive-by tagging), and it doesn't allow for naming a reason (although that's (hopefully) subsumed by discussion on the talk page). It also is supposed to be used "sparingly," but then again so is {{Expert needed}}, so that doesn't mean much for our purposes.
  • Adding a request for comment from an appropriate WikiProject. This has the benefit of actually being tracked by Article Alerts, which means that there's a high chance that someone will actually respond to your query. The issue, of course, is that "query" is the operative word—RFCs are for specific questions and their resolutions, not general issues—and this doesn't end up in the article text itself, either.
  • Submitting the article for peer review. This solicits advice, but from a general audience—not experts in the field.
All this is to say that this template is trying to handle quite a few things at once, in subsuming both general verification and RFC-lite, and without any of the multi-step parts that make those less prone to the sort of spamming and stagnation that this one is. You can make the argument that {{Expert needed}} occupies a unique niche amongst these other processes; you can just as easily make the argument that it doesn't—what's most important, though, is that at the very least we know exactly what we're losing.
The main unanswered question, then, is simple: in deprecating this template, what would take its place?
–LogStar100 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I saw this TfD from the template in Linearized gravity. It's been there for 12 years. Clearly it didn't work. Tercer (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template has been placed without clear action to follow. Not working. JohnThorne (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in favor of Template:Disputed and cleanup templates. fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although many of these templates have been on articles for a long time, it does have a good reason, because someone who is an expert on one of the subjects might see it as they are reading a page, and edit the article because of it, when they easily might not notice there is any problem at all if the template isn't there. This isn't really able to be measured, and probably happens a lot. Many other templates also don't have descriptions on the talk pages, so that isn't unique to this one. I don't see a real need to get rid of this now. Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're just restating what the template is supposed to be for but ignoring its inherent flaws. It was on an article for twelve years where nothing happened. I get that there is no deadline, but that doesn't mean that maintenance templates can just sit gathering dust forever like this. I have seen zero evidence of any so-called "experts" coming to rescue an article, and no one has ever been able to come forth with a single instance of this template serving its intended purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. For anyone who's on the fence about this one, I implore you to compare the current set of articles using the template and the historical backlog (WikiBlame to see when the template was removed), because it is painful. Stuff like Arizona Stadium (inexplicably) is the most notable, but most of it is just removal because of how vague and unhelpful it ends up being—let alone the fact that in actuality it means "soft rewrite, but I don't want to do it." I can't think of any circumstances where this template isn't superseded by one of the myriad other better ways of soliciting help. –LogStar100 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the help of an expert is needed, it will be apparent to the expert, almost by definition. So it's not just that it doesn't serve any purpose. But it also cannot serve any purpose. It's had its time in the sun. It's had its chances; people have tried to improve it. Please remove it. Run to the hills! (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the rare occasions where I've encountered this template, my impression has been that a major aspect of its function is to inform readers. Its message is fundamentally "This article treats its subject matter in a superficial way, and it may outright misrepresent it." The implication of this template for editors is that the problems of the article aren't reducible to issues of completeness or sourcing, and that they aren't fixable in a day spent thumbing through textbooks. What other templates are there that convey the same message? – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . I don't think you need to be a expert to edit a article. Second, there are a lot of people trying to improve it. We don't need to be a expert to edit Wikipedia. Larry Z Contact me my edits 22:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. If a article needs expert attention then the expert should go through proper channels like the respective WikiProject or through other templates like Cleanup/Disputed in addition experts will find which articles need their attention in relation to the existing templates regarding quality of articles. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skenderaj

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all people in the main template have no WP article.–Cupper52Discuss! 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Not including the main topic, there are ten articles with blue links in this navigation template, more than enough to justify a navigation template. Plus, all of the redlinks and unlinked items are valid article targets in and of themselves. The navbox meets the five guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, with the fifth maybe more or less applicable for some targets, but it is no less than would be expected in the items on any other navigation template in Category:Country subdivision templates. VanIsaacWScont 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "People"? The most cursory glance at this template demonstrates it's not about people. As Vanisaac says, every redlink in this is a valid article, and having them in this template is an inspiration to create them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid use of redlinks in a navigation template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:ISO 15924/footer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This navbox does not help navigating: just a list of 200 letter codes and no related info with it at all (expected like: linked names or articles). A better navigation place is provided in mainspace(!) and in template backoffice workspace. Interestingly, already in 2006 deletion was proposed by Evertype [1] ;-) DePiep (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK with deletion but I don't feel strongly either way. I am confused by the statement that it doesn't link to articles because it clearly does link to the script articles for each code. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they do link. Maybe I am detailing too much here ;-)  : The issue I see is: the target article/topic is not visible, nor logically present. For simple navigation, I'd expect texts that actually say, like, "code Xabc = topic PQR in article Abd Def" (linked properly of course). And this is what the two alternatives, even one in mainspace article body, already do. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:Nintendo publishees

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this template is not well-defined. At a quick glance, you may think it is a list of Nintendo subsidiaries and affiliated development studios, but no, that's already covered with Template:Nintendo developers. So I'm not sure what the scope of the template is here. It seems to be studios that have had their games published by Nintendo at least once, but that is a weak relationship to build a navigation template around. Navigation templates are supposed to list related articles with that relationship established in reliable sources per WP:NAV. Anything grounded in sources will start to push this template towards being duplicative of the aforementioned Nintendo developers template. So I recommend deletion. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The criteria for this template is practically nonexistent. None of these companies are related to each other outside the fact they worked with Nintendo a handful of times. Some of them, like Treasure, have only worked with them once and then never again, yet they're listed as "publishees" (whatever that means). I don't see this being of value to readers wanting to easily navigate related articles, since this is just a dump of random companies whose only relation is that they maybe worked on a Mario game in the past. Namcokid47 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The word "publishee" is very obscure, not sure I've come across it before - if I buy a book, I'm a publishee (something like that). The main link at the top of the template "Nintendo publishees" actually takes you to List of Nintendo development teams which fails to mention many of the companies in the list. Nigej (talk)
  • Delete weird, niche navigation template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:Citra Award for Best Actor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 and then redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This award navigational template is redundant to an already existing award navigational template, Citra Award for Best Leading Actor, which User:CalliPatra tried to WP:PROD as a "bad duplicate", [2], when the original template was created eight years ago. Aspects (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{Citra Award for Best Leading Actor}} - Yes, we have two templates {{Citra Award for Best Actor}} and {{Citra Award for Best Leading Actor}} when obviously we only need one. The first question is: what is the best name for the template: the Indonesian title includes the word "utama" which seems to mean "leading" in this context. It's confusing that the main article is called Citra Award for Best Actor and not Citra Award for Best Leading Actor (which is a redirect), but it seems to me that {{Citra Award for Best Leading Actor}} is the best name and the other should be a redirect to it. As to the style of the template, that's really a matter that should be discussed on the template talk page, not here. Worth noting too that we also have duplicates for actress category: {{Citra Award for Best Actress}}/{{Citra Award for Best Leading Actress}}. Nigej (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all thanks for discussing this. I understand that the old template was created 8 years ago. The problem with this template is that it uses the wrong category name (Best Leading Actor) where in Indonesia we call it Best Actor (I'm Indonesian). If you check my UserPage, you can see that I've been working on updating Indonesian film pages (one of which is a project expanding articles on the Citra Award, which is the Indonesian equivalent of the Oscars). You can see {{Citra Award for Best Actress}}, {{Citra Award for Best Supporting Actor}}, {{Citra Award for Best Supporting Actress}}, {{Citra Award for Best Picture}}. I'm working my way through my projects list but will continue updating all Citra Award-related pages. There is a similar situation with {{Citra Award for Best Film}} which is an incorrect version of {{Citra Award for Best Picture}} (the one I created). My point is I didn't create these new templates for no reason -- I kept the supporting actor/actress template because it's correct, but created a new one for leading actor/actress/film to reflect the correct category name. Also -- these old templates hadn't been updated in years until I updated the information a few weeks ago. This is all part of a series of articles I plan to create and maintain on the Citra Awards so if this makes sense I'd like you to reconsider my proposal to delete the other templates and kept the ones I created. Thanks. CalliPatra (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • The first point to make is that you should not have created a duplicate. You should have either moved it (if the move was uncontroversial) or followed the procedure at WP:RM if it was possibly controversial (which seems to be the case). You say that "in Indonesia we call it Best Actor", however the official title includes the word "utama" which seems to mean "leading" - this is the sort of issue to be discussed by the WP:RM process. Nigej (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. Thanks for explaining this -- I wasn't aware we can move templates like we do with article. Please proceed with deleting the {{Citra Award for Best Actor}}, {{Citra Award for Best Actress}}, {{Citra Award for Best Film}} and {{Citra Award for Best Picture}} -- all duplicates I created. I'll continue my project on this topic using the original templates {{Citra Award for Best Leading Actor}}, {{Citra Award for Best Leading Actress}}, {and {{Best Film IFF}} and update them to be consistent with the styling and format of other templates. CalliPatra (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
        • Hi, I don't know Indonesian but I think the confusion arises from "utama" translating to both "best" (the meaning I am most familiar with as someone who knows another language with a lot of Sanskrit derived words) and "main/primary/leading". It seems that FFI uses the latter meaning for the most part, as seen here (with "program utama" (I think its "main program", that translation makes more sense than "best program") in the program menu), while using the native word "terbaik" for best. The English Wikipedia page uses "Piala Citra untuk Pemeran Pria Utama" as the Indonesian name, but according to the website it is actually "Peran Utama Pria Terbaik". MSG17 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:R from template shortcut

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. The underlying rcats remain the same, but the templates will be merged. The only opposition to the merger was if it could not be done automatically, but this is not the case with Module:RedirectToNamespace. I've checked, and there is currently no overlap between Category:Redirects from shortcuts and Category:Redirects from template shortcuts. Therefore, nothing needs to be fixed at this moment. I have a list of all pages currently within those categories, and I will follow up to see if there has been any significant changes there. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R from template shortcut with Template:R from shortcut.
I think these templates would work better if merged together. It is pretty pointless to have a separate template just for template redirects, although I am not opposed to keeping the two categories to track all the template shortcuts. In fact, aren't template shortcuts supposed to be from one template code to another template code? Aasim (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:State results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election

The pages are already linked on {{2020 United States elections}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_9&oldid=1007937157"