-
Template:J (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The new
Template:j was improperly deleted, at 13:56, 24 February 2016, because there had been a former redirect of the same name, but the new Template was new, NOT a recreate of that prior redirect, but a new template to explain the name "{j}" (see:
doc-page) as used by hundreds of editors over 6 years in more than 1,300 pages, but Bot-removed en masse on 5 January 2016 to hide the prior widespread usage. Very frustrating for hundreds of users, so please undelete.
Wikid77 (
talk) 16:16, revised
16:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The deleting admin did not bother to contact me before speedied the new
Template:j (again in use in many more pages), and so there was no indication of any interest in talking about the template nor its use in over one thousand pages for the past 6 years. Should I have taken this deletion to
wp:AN/I, if you think the admin is totally out-of-control or something? -
Wikid77 (
talk)
00:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Not that I object in principle to being haled in front of ANI for my many crimes, but I think 82.14.37.32 is referring to the instruction at the top of deletion review which says the following: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." I didn't nominate the template for deletion (that was
Primefac (
talk ·
contribs)) and I have no particular views on its existence. It was one of many speedy deletions I handled that day.
Mackensen
(talk)
00:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Deleting administrator here. Second deleting administrator, actually, as
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) deleted the original redirect. This re-creation and DRV appear to be an attempt to do an end-around the original discussion. Creating a template in place of a redirect that contains the exact same content as the redirect's target is effectively re-creating the redirect, in addition to being an unnecessary fork. It was removed en masse because it was deprecated and deleted. That's normal; that's how the deletion process works, and it took place several weeks (apparently) after the RfD closed.
Mackensen
(talk)
00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The core issue here is that
Template:j was created as a separate template (no longer a redirect) to solve the problem where some users did not understand what "j" meant, nor the issue of word-joined text, nor why "nowrap" (or " ") was too long for the users of "j" and in fact, one user had to read the page-history of {j} to deduce the original rationale, and so the new Template:j was created to show separate documentation to explain the related questions. Meanwhile Template:j is NOT the recreation of a redirect, but rather a separate template with separate doc-page to explain the name and usage over the past 6 years. Template:j is a separate template, for use where editors do not want to use "{{
nowrap}}". -
Wikid77 (
talk)
07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As part of the TfD crew, I was one of the people in the {{
j}}-is-really-{{
nowrap}} force that replaced the usage properly. As far as being the G4 nominator: I saw that Wikid77 was adding J back to articles (through an unrelated series of events) and noticed it was (again) replicating the nowrap, hence the CSD tags. I concur with Mackensen, as I seem to recall that Wikid77 has done this with various templates in the past (not DRV, but recreation/end-running).
Primefac (
talk)
02:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse given the original discussion didn't result in delete because it was (a) a redirect or (b) wasn't explained on the template page properly, I can't see how the recreation overcomes the consensus reached. --
82.14.37.32 (
talk)
06:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Wait, a careful re-read of the RfD (see:
link) shows users were very confused by limited explanation of the ambiguous name "j" (for "join" text) and were completely unaware of the comparison to using " " or typo "nsbp" between words. In fact, one user considered "j" a type of smiley
emoticon because there was no quick explanation of "
j" until the new template displayed a separate doc-page to note "j" means "join" the text on one line. The whole basis to delete the redirect was because people did not know why "j" was chosen 6 years ago, and a user even suggested using name "nw" instead, which would have been very "northwest" (NW) to many people. Anyway, a new template, with a separate doc page, is NOT a recreate of a redirect, and not a case for speedy-delete. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The comment of the person started "I had to go to the docs to learn that this is "j" as in "join".", the lack of documentation was not an issue. It being a redirect was not an issue. You may believe that it's very clever to split hairs about a redirect vs a standalone template, but if they do the same thing then they are to all intents and purposes the same thing. (Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck). --
82.14.37.32 (
talk)
19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. The nominator doesn't seem interested in following the prescribed process for listing a DRV, so I don't seem interested in changing the result.
Stifle (
talk)
10:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, both per
User:Mackensen's anyalsis above - this seems to be a too-clever-by-half attempt to do an end-run around a prior consensus, and per
User:Stifle's comment.
Lankiveil (
speak to me)
03:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
reply
- Endorse - Consensus was to "deprecate, and eventually delete" at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:J. The recreation in a slightly different manner, but with substantially the same content, was an attempt to circumvent that (by what I can gather from
User:Wikid77/Template:J/doc). Therefore, the deletion per
WP:CSD#G4 was appropriate.—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT)
04:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
reply
|