Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 17

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 keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

I get why we have a version for IP users since their page isn't their page and many people may use the same IP, but no good can come from using this on an established, registered user's page. It is antagonizing and implies that they can't remove this template, when in fact, the user has every right to remove any warning on their talk page. Only declined to unblock requests can't be removed during a block, which isn't a warning. After seeing this come up in ANI, and the user gets (rightfully) upset, I can't help but think this template is past its expiration date and needs to be retired, as there isn't a way to use it without antagonizing an editor. Anyone that would find the information "useful" already knows to check the page history for deleted warnings, so in the end, it serves no purpose other than to create drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dennis, who has very eloquently summarized the situation, and who's summary I wholeheartedly endorse.
  b} 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This template has literally hundreds of thousands of transclusions, almost entirely on IP talk pages. There is no "version for IP users"; the IP warning hat templates are used to hat discussions, not substitute for them. This serves a different purpose – signifying the removal of discussions on IP talk pages altogether to reduce excess link load – and it serves that purpose well. BD2412 T 00:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On further examination, this template currently transcludes to over 555,000 pages. Deleting it will therefore leave over 555,000 broken links on those pages, which are likely to cause more confusion than the template itself causes. BD2412 T 00:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppress on registered user pages instead, per BD2412. E.g. simply make it display nothing when on non-IP user talk pages.
  b} 00:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would still consider it to be valid on the page of a long-abandoned registered account, particularly those where the editor in question engaged in minimal participation and then disappeared. However, I would not object to an instruction prohibiting its use on the talk pages of active registered editors. BD2412 T 00:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination is based on a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of the template. Whether the template should do something special on a registered user's talk page is not within the scope of TfD, although I see it as completely unnecessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And potentially make it a no-op on a registered user's talk page, but that is beyond the scope here. Seeing this on a talk page is very useful when fighting vandalism. Leijurv (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and start a discussion at the policy village pump about what the instructions should say

Keep, because it is so darn useful when cleaning up years-old warnings on a talk page -- IP or registered -- that hasn't been edited in years.

Suggested rules:

• Can be placed on any user talk page
• Can be removed by the user who "owns" the talk page. Should not be restored if this happens.
• Should not be removed by any IP, including the IP that "owns" the talk page.
• Can be removed by any other registered user, with the only restriction being an edit summary explaining why.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • This isn't used on IP pages, which have their own template. This is only used on registered users' pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dennis Brown: That is simply incorrect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Users may be within their rights to remove talk page warnings, and for established users/improper warnings, I can see why we allow it, but I've come across way too many vandals who have survived longer than they should have by removing warnings from their talk page to think that everything's functioning smoothly. Our policies need reform at a higher level, and we should revisit specific templates once we've sorted out the major issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When OP talks about a version for IP users, he is talking about {{
  OW}} encompasses both IP and non IP, while the others are only meant for IP messsages. Techie3 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question. Is the human-function of this template simply to provide an additional link to the Talk page revision history? TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Every user talk page has a history tab. The vast majority of those history tabs lead to either a blank history or a history of what is currently on the user talk page. A small minority of users delete warnings and criticisms from their user talk page -- usually because they have something to hide. The template identifies these editors so the casual reader will know to check the history. Alas, if someone is determined to make it difficult for the casual reader to know that they have a bunch of warnings in their history, they can just delete the template. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone deletes something from their Talk page it is no longer visible in the Talk page "View History?"TheMusicExperimental (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what your point is. Again, the OW template is used to alert the reader that a particular talk page has a bunch of deleted warnings. Wikipedia's preferred (but not required) alternative to deleting comments, notices, and warnings has been explained to you. [1][2] It is at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sincerely trying to understand how the OW template serves readers. Before something is deleted or removed it is better to understand why it was made in the first place. Reading commentary earlier there are reasons to keep the template that are technical (it's already on a bunch of pages and would create a technical problem if it stopped existing), and procedural (it is useful for IP-based pages because multiple people may share the page), but I hadn't yet seen what value it brings to readers of the Wikipedia itself, especially as those readers are presumably reading Articles more than talk pages and/or are capable of clicking on "View History." Policy-wise it seems that the use you outlined can easily be used by editors to harass other editors, so much so that
  WP:HUSH specifically mentions the placing of false or questionable warnings. I guess, in terms of value to the reader, are readers served more by A) keeping, for technical reasons, a template that is duplicative of IP-specific templates, B) keeping a tool that provides some benefit in "warning" readers of the few Talk pages of editors who, you confidently state, "have something to hide" until the page is blanked or the template is changed, or C) removing a template whose non-technical use is going to result in transforming the userspace of registered users into a "wall of shame." Re: what's been explained to me or not, that's being discussed elsewhere [3]; I see no need to migrate that discussion here where the topic is the OW template itself and how it serves readers. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  OW}} removes these pages from the [What links here] page altogether while signaling that the user talk page in question has previously had warnings. BD2412 T 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you @BD2412:, that makes sense to me and I appreciate learning more about how the system-side of things work. If I'm understanding correctly, the OW template serves two purposes: 1) Preventing a bunch of non-active/IP Talk pages from being linked to via What Links Here helps readers avoid non-useful Talk pages and 2) from other discussions here, OW serves as a way for people who feel obligated to identify vandal accounts mark a Talk page (with caveats re template changing & blanking noted by Guy Macon above), this usage helps readers by reducing vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There must be some kind of way anti-vandals can know that a user has committed vandalism, even if there are no warning templates on the page at that time. This purpose is usually fulfilled by the {{
  ow}} template. Opalzukor (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per BD2412. Firestar464 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BD2412, and then begin whatever the next step is to change the wording/use to be specifically about notifying Wikipedia readers that "the page this is posted on is from an old and inactive Talk page that has been blanked for technical reasons, please examine "View History" for past activity" etc. This keeps the technical function and reminds anyone viewing the page to review the history before reinstating after a ban or whatever.TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BD2412. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: I think this template would be useful in case of a removal of warning such that if a user is trying to see the messages before, this template would be useful. Plus, it is used on lots of pages. User3749 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW CLOSE per
  WP:SNOW. Proposed changes to the template instructions should be discussed on the template's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep per BD2412. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 24 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Ghost Rider/Clear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very unnecessary setup. There is no need to add pages using a navbox to any category. If a user wants to know what pages use it they can check what pages transclude it. Very simple. Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:AngCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, having been added to Talk:St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Kansas City, Missouri) in 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:AMCOTWCurrent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/COTW has had no substantive edits since 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:AlienCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Includes the text "The next winner will be selected on May 1, 2009.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of this template, I have no objection to its deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Africa Current collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Collaboration suggests it was last used in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:JCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration has had no substantive edits since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not doing any harm, and could be useful for someone browsing the history of the WikiProject or trying to revive it in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    WP:NOHARM was written for mainspace, where the downsides of keeping around content of marginal utility are clear

    and intrinsic. The situation is different for template space, where the main harm comes from templates that duplicate others or clog up lists/searches/etc. This template doesn't seem to apply to either.

    As for

    WP:USEFUL, which advises being specific about why, I could see someone trying to revive the WikiProject browsing through its history of collaborations and finding this template informative about what they were. That's not a super strong reason to keep, but it's enough for me when weighing it against essentially nothing. As is hopefully clear from my XfD record, I'm a huge fan of template cleanup, but I'm just not seeing why this goes beyond cleanup for the sake of cleanup. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Delete per above. Same goes for all the essentially identical CotM nominations above this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:25, 18 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Valentinian_dynasty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

).

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

).

• Template:Suppressed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )

Propose merging Template:Suppressed with Template:Uw-selfinfo.
Both templates serve the same purpose. I see no reason for them to be separate. Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See the discussion at Template_talk:Suppressed as to why one has a different graphic than the other. I had thought I had a brilliant idea, but I realized that it might not actually work the way I thought it would, and that the "cute" emoji is more likely to catch the eye of a young, naive editor than a blue "i" that they've probably seen fifteen times already. Also, given that both of these templates are always substed, does it really matter that there's two of them to choose from? —Soap— 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There shouldn't be two templates doing the same thing, the oversighters should pick one style of message and use it. The concern about the template being easily findable due to file links presented on the template talk page is inapplicable, since one can (and will always be able) to obtain the same information via the search function. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per Pppery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh, the real ones most of us use are in user space anyway (User:Fluffernutter/c and User:Alison/c.) No real reason to merge. There’s like 4 total and this seems like make work. People can use whatever they want. So oppose, I guess. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If both templates serve a purpose then I do not see how merging them would make less work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (or just delete and redirect Uw-selfinfo) per nom and Pppery. We routinely merge away redundant templates in "Template:" namespace. The fact that people may have some alternatives in userspace is irrelevant, because we're very tolerant of people doing whatever they like (within
  WP:NOT reason) in userspace, and template sandboxing is a common use of that namespace. This is also not ChildrenPedia, and templates about serious matters, like user privacy and deletion of material down to the history level, shouldn't be labelled with childish smileys. The language of Uw-selfinfo also doesn't make much sense, in a) presuming someone is going to be displeased in the first place, and b) presuming they're going to be displeased about their privacy being protected. It's just weird.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Often it is used for someone posting a personal bio or "my page!" or something like that. And folks sometimes don't see it as protecting their privacy, they complain about removal as anyone would a Facebook page (or 15 years ago MySpace or Xanga). The template is trying to be approachable and friendly, and it is good. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I suppose: I'd thought there was more daylight between the two, and would prefer there to be. That is, I'd like both around, so that there can be a greater difference, with an approachable template and a more stern one. Although, as Tony says, we're gonna largely keep using the userspace options. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 22 October 2020 (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

).

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Syria place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replace/Substitute with {{Infobox settlement}} to make place infobox usage in Syria and Arab world consistent.

1. Little usage: Created 15:11, 8 November 2015‎ by PanchoS as a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}} under the name "Infobox Syrian settlement", used on 181 pages in article namespace (list), the first 170 pages all seem to have been created by PanchoS or received *that* infobox through him, page 1 Qamishli had IS directly and got the wrapper July 2016 [4], page 170 Balaban, Syria was created September 2016. Only 11 pages using it were created afterwards.
2. Inconsistent: There are more articles about places in Syria, they all use Infobox settlement directly. All other places in Arab countries use Infobox settlement only directly.
3. Procedural: No /doc until yesterday, and didn't use {{Uses Infobox settlement}}, so not included in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement and maybe that is the reason that it wasn't listed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Place#Country-specific, so former batch merge proposals maybe just missed that it existed. I just found it yesterday either on Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes or Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes.

TerraCyprus (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing special here that isn't already handled by {{Infobox settlement}}. --RL0919 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2020 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Protestant Zionism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a very random collection of names. Either needs a very thorough cleanup by someone knowledgeable, or deletion. But it shouldn't be used in articles as is.

I have, after reading their articles, no idea why e.g. the following are included in this template (and have had this template added to their article, as if it was a main part of their career and notability):

• Edward Whitaker
• Alexandre Dumas
• Gerardus Vossius
• Charles-Joseph, 7th Prince of Ligne
• Charles Frederick Zimpel
• Henry Dunant
• Isaac Newton
• George Eliot

... are all included in this template, but why?

Template is currently a work in progress. The figures laid out in it played a formative role in the creation and advocacy of Protestant Restorationist and Zionist theology, which the article on the topic covers. As laid out in academic articles such as this, this, the books More Desired than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism by Robert O. Smith (2013) and The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury And Evangelical Support For A Jewish Homeland by Donald M. Lewis (2014). Torchist (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates which are still in such a state of construction shouldn't yet be added to countless articles, and even less so during a TfD to discuss the template. Your two sources don't look like

Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

My tuppence worth is that I think the template detracts from, rather than adds to, the articles I've contributed to.Ehdeejay (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

Fram (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

^Tips fedora^. The same information is laid out in "Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour" by

Barbara Tuchman, "History of Zionism, 1600-1918" by Nahum Sokolow and others. The template is largely complete now and funcitoning. As for the cringe-posting regarding Liberty University, given that they are an established university and are themselves Christian Zionists, a source from them explaining the historiography of the individuals involved in that movement and where their theological views originated is useful. Unless you are going to say Harvard University and others are inherently "unreliable" too because it was founded by Puritans or Georgetown University cannot be used as a source because its a Catholic university. This is not to say whether their actual theological views themselves are "true", that is not for us to decide, just to report on them. Torchist (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the same information isnot included in these sources, Tuchman and others won't include e.g. Alexandre Dumas in a Protestant Zionist list. The names, which is what the template (and this discussion) is about, have been taken from the indeed cringe-worthy article by Ice, which isn't science but proselytizing.

Fram (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• See also
  Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per Fram. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2020 (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

).

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 no consensus. The primary arguments for and against merging this template involve how "clear" or otherwise interchangeable the two templates (and their definitions) are to the various participants. With 13 years of use between them, and no "smoking gun" for why either side is "more correct" than the other, I'm going to kick this back to the relevant WikiProject(s); merging the templates without having a wider discussion about the substance behind them creates somewhat of a cart-before-the-horse problem. Clearly, if such a discussion/RFC determines that "former" and "historical" can indeed be used interchangeably, then there is no prejudice against performing this merge. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from historic name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:R to historic name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
  )
• Template:R from former name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:R to former name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Plus the associated categories:

• Category:Redirects from historic names
• Category:Redirects to historic names
• Category:Redirects from former names
• Category:Redirects to former names

Propose merging

I notice that there's also {{R from predecessor company name}}, which is not part of Twinkle and thus has only 200 transclusions, compared to several thousand each for the other two. If there's consensus for this merge, I may nominate that next, so let me know if there's any reason I shouldn't. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No current opinion on this, but if the merge goes through, the title should be "former" as the template is used for more than historic names of places. --Gonnym (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I created the "former name" one, which was made first, and was not aware of the other. While I can think of some clear-cut examples where one of these would apply more than the other, I think most pages are more ambiguous and I don't see the point in policing the distinction. Rigadoun (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into "former", unless someone defines a clear distinction between them and provides a reason for keeping both. Certes (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I've always thought the distinction was crystal clear. "Former name" applies for example to a bus station that underwent a name change. "Historic" applies to those redirects that are like the examples in the template documentation:
  • Calcutta
    CalcuttaKolkata
    – the historic name for the capital of West Bengal in India was "Calcutta"
  • Immaterialism
    ImmaterialismSubjective idealism
    – the historic name George Berkeley gave his metaphysical doctrine was "immaterialism"

Really don't see the problem here. Consider also that

ed. ^put'r there 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge into "former". For me, it's been hard to determine what's "historic" versus merely a former name. Won't all former names have sources pointing to that name? The "historic" template uses printworthiness as a threshold for determining what goes where, but why not just label the relevant redirects as printworthy or unprintworthy? See also
  R to historic name}} into {{R to former name}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose – Uncertainty about when to use a particular template ("Is it former or historic?" 🤔) is not a reason for combining the two; rather it prompts us to better explain the difference and provide clear examples. We work to create this encyclopedia not through lumping things together, instead we use using words to give clarity. Keeping the two templates separate is in line with that principle. Senator2029 “Talk” 18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were just a matter of clarifying the documentation, that probably wouldn't require a merge, but I think there's a more fundamental issue of the line between the categories being extremely fuzzy. To go with the bus station example above, Paine Ellsworth says that'd be a clear use case for "former", but if the Port Authority Bus Terminal were renamed, I think we'd say that'd be a clear example of "historic", and if a mid-sized station with a mediumly-long history were renamed, it'd be clear as mud. No one has come up with a clear way to draw the line, let alone enforce that standard and clean up 13 years of interchangeable use. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe if we looked at this from the view that "former" doesn't always mean "historic", but if a name is historic and is no longer actually used, like Calcutta and Peking, it is always to say the least a "former" name as well. That's why a merge between the two should not happen. Why not show some examples instead of just saying there has been 13 years of interchangeable use? For eleven of those years I've tried to be meticulous about getting redirect categorization right, correct. I've worked long hours on documentation, to include these two rcat templates, in an attempt to ensure that other editors would also be just as meticulous. I must be missing something. How would you make the documentation for these two even more clear than it is now?
  ed. ^put'r there 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Different guy here. My question is the reverse: what sort of former name would not be historic? I can't but feel that the reason why it's hard for me to tell what's what is because all historic names are former names. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Western Pacific is an island called
  ed. ^put'r there 00:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]