The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ GKFX with the reason "This subtemplate has been replaced with regex on its parent template and is now unused." FASTILY 22:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Age in years, months and days. It seems to be reformatting the date but this is unnecessary as that template is now also capable of accepting multiple date formats, e.g. {{Age in years, months and days|1998-02-24}} → 26 years, 4 months and 8 days User:GKFX talk 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:ELNO #12 states: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors should not be linked externally. As this given wiki claims to have a whopping 469 articles, I don't see how linking to it would be compliant with ELNO. Thus, we shouldn't have a template for an external link that runs against ELNO #12. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
[...] a substantial number of editors* Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS. Throughout this discussion, several mergers were proposed, some editors suggestted simply deleting the template and substituting its current uses, and some editors suggesting to keep the template. When viewed in light of the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, there is no consensus to support any individual proposal.
The proposal was to initially merge the two templates up for discussion ( Template:He or she and Template:He/she) into Template:They. The proposer argued that the use of these two template, which they argued enforces a gender binary, was inappropriate in light of the existence of the merge target. Some other editors agreed, saying that this the use of the template disrespects non-binary individuals. At least one editor argued for a merge on the basis that the use of "he or she" is poor grammar, while others argued that the use of the two templates are exclusionary. Editors in opposition to the proposed merge argued that Wikipedia is not right great wrongs, that the use of "he or she" is actually perfectly fine grammar, that editors should be given the option as to whether or not to use the singular they as a matter of preference, and that substitution of the templates would lead to a refactoring of past talk page edits. At least one other editor stated that we sould not censor an individual's language choices should they wish to use "he or she" rather than "they", while others argued that doing so would be considered uncivil or that their use would be "blatantly disrespectful" to non-binary individuals or would otherwise constitute a personal attack.
An alternative merge was proposed to move all three templates noted above into Template:Gender and another hybrid alternative merge was proposed to wrap the two templates for discussion to be encompassed by Template:Pronoun, which contains functionality that would enable "he or she" to still be placed if a user would like. Some of the discussion focusing around this was on whether or not a user should be offered a template to use something other than the singular they, while other discussion was technical and focused on consolidation of templates. At least one editor stated that there may be an issue with wrapping the templates up for discussion into more complicated templates inasmuch as it would be less accessbile to editors without a strong command of English grammar. Another editor argued to deprecate the two templates for discussion but to not substitute nor delete them.
There were a few WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments made, which were discounted when ascertaining consensus.
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments on whether to keep and merge seem to be of relatively even quality when taken as a whole (as does the question on, if there is a merge, what merge should be undertaken). As a result, there is no consensus towards any particular outcome, and this discussion ends without a consensus on the question of what to do with the two templates for discussion.
( non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:He or she and
Template:He/she with
Template:They.
Recommending merge since the use of "he or she" solely enforces a false
gender binary, and {{
they}} already exists: as such, fold this template into {{
they}}. I know that the syntax for verbs when used with "they" is different, and as such correcting those as the templates are merged will do. Additionally, if this is successful I'll probably double down (via
WP:BOLD) and merge other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{
him or her}}.
Casspedia (
talk)
10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: The templates discussed are only used in userspace and usertalkspace. These templates are not used in mainspace. Casspedia ( talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
{{they}}
is a good idea.
User:GKFX
talk
21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that.With the same logic, somebody who refers to me with third-person plural pronouns is forcing me, who does not wish to be referred to as "they", to be referred to as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
if this is successful I am considering merging other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{ him or her}}. I can't imagine a scenario in which we'd deprecate {{ he or she}} etc. but not {{ him or her}} etc., or vice versa. Why not nominate all of them now? Nardog ( talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
they are|Male username}}
→ "he is".
User:GKFX
talk
18:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
{{GENDER:Foo|he does|she does|they do}}
, to accommodate any verb (I'm the one who made that template after all). The problem is that to replace "he or she" etc. already used on talk pages with "they" would be misrepresentation of the record proscribed in
WP:TPG. Usage in userboxes and other templates can, of course, simply be replaced with {{they}}.
Nardog (
talk)
06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussionSure, that's it, just because you said so without a single logical reason behind it. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
entirely cosmetic reasons, and so we have yet another tone deaf response. It matters because such a change would necessitate changing these templates, and the entire reason we use templates is to make such changes easier. You're literally saying "don't change something" in something that is literally designed to be changed. — Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
such a change would necessitate changing these templates. You seem to think my point is that we shouldn't change them now because we may have to change them later, which it's not. My entire argument was that we should not change the output of the "he or she" templates in past discussions, because it retroactively changes what those users intended to write without their knowledge or consent. While using "he or she" to refer to a nonbinary person can be malicious, we have a policy of assuming good faith which tells us that if someone used {{ he or she}} to refer to another editor, they were relying on the user having set a software setting which we know is woefully inadequate, absent very good evidence that their comment was intended to misgender (and that does happen, I've blocked editors for it). That is my rationale for not changing past discussions in this case. If we want to bring the templates together so that they're easier to change later, yes, I'm entirely on board with that, but that's only half of what's being proposed here. And if we want to propose adding more options to MediaWiki's gender settings, or completely overhauling that system to be more inclusive, I'll absolutely support that, but this proposal misses that mark by a wide margin - if it succeeds, a transgender editor will still only be able to select "male", "female", or "neither". Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
hand off some text rendering task to someone else, but this hand-off is done with the assumption that the template will produce results which are similar to that which it originally did. If somebody intentionally used {{ He or she}}, that person did so with the intent that it would display "he or she" if the specified user's gender is unset. That intent should be respected. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{ They}}Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.
created (by you)And? Were you going somewhere with the fact that I created it? Please, don't stop there, I'm sure we're all very curious where you wanted to go with that. The rest is a lot of assumptions and perverting templates in a way that is incompatible with people willfully using them without substituting them, as has been explained to you previously. WP:SUBST is, and continues to be, your friend. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{ They}}.It may not have been their intention, and perhaps they would have used {{ They}} instead, had they known it existed, but they did not. I agree that substitution is for when one wants to keep something static. However, it remains that people (probably) used this template with the assumption that it would return the same result in the future (excepting any user gender choices — if somebody later sets his or her gender, the template would update). We even have {{ Non-free use rationale}} and {{ Non-free use rationale 2}}, two different templates that have the same purpose (but are somewhat different), as a clear precedent for having two similar templates that fulfill the same job in a different way. My central point, still, is that {{ He or she}} should definitely produce "he or she". Making it produce "they" would be as confusing as making {{ They}} produce "he or she". Template users made that choice whether they were aware of alternatives or not, and we shouldn't force them to use one or the other. Also: we shouldn't censor language; people (such as I) may want to use "he or she" instead of "they". Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals.And there's more. "He or she" was borderline a decade ago, in this day and age it should be a no-brainer that it's unacceptable. Grammar wonks don't get to use their disdain for singular they as an excuse to marginalize or mistreat people. In article text? Sure, let's discuss it. When communicating respectfully with other editors on talk pages? Absolutely not up for debate. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
not use "their" as an alternative to his or her, but recommends rewriting the sentence to avoid these constructions if possible (which is in line with my view). It's not an
offensive slur, and I consider it perfectly fine to use (though unwieldy). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions"). However, "he or she" is not gender-neutral (as it only includes those who use he/him or she/her pronouns) meaning that {{ he or she}} template does not fufill its purpose ({{ he/she}} has the same issues). In contrast, {{ they}} produces "they" (which is gender-neutral) for this case and can therefore be used instead. GreenComputer ( talk) 05:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a deprecated maintenance template requesting indic script to be added to the lead. Per this 2011 RfC indic script shouldn't be used in this way however. It's been blanked since 2012 and currently does nothing. Should be removed and deleted. -- Trialpears ( talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. But, no objection to recreation any of these if the teams come back. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Minor League Baseball underwent a significant reorganization in 2020-2021. Some teams have suspended operations and will not play in 2021. The rosters are therefore either outdated or contain TBDs that will never be replaced. Therefore they should be deleted. Mustangeagle ( talk) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused template, and seems like it's intended to create price catalogues against WP:NOTCATALOG. User:GKFX talk 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
No need to keep a test like this around as a separate template. Elli ( talk | contribs) 09:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @ GKFX with the reason "This subtemplate has been replaced with regex on its parent template and is now unused." FASTILY 22:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Age in years, months and days. It seems to be reformatting the date but this is unnecessary as that template is now also capable of accepting multiple date formats, e.g. {{Age in years, months and days|1998-02-24}} → 26 years, 4 months and 8 days User:GKFX talk 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:ELNO #12 states: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors should not be linked externally. As this given wiki claims to have a whopping 469 articles, I don't see how linking to it would be compliant with ELNO. Thus, we shouldn't have a template for an external link that runs against ELNO #12. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
[...] a substantial number of editors* Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS. Throughout this discussion, several mergers were proposed, some editors suggestted simply deleting the template and substituting its current uses, and some editors suggesting to keep the template. When viewed in light of the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, there is no consensus to support any individual proposal.
The proposal was to initially merge the two templates up for discussion ( Template:He or she and Template:He/she) into Template:They. The proposer argued that the use of these two template, which they argued enforces a gender binary, was inappropriate in light of the existence of the merge target. Some other editors agreed, saying that this the use of the template disrespects non-binary individuals. At least one editor argued for a merge on the basis that the use of "he or she" is poor grammar, while others argued that the use of the two templates are exclusionary. Editors in opposition to the proposed merge argued that Wikipedia is not right great wrongs, that the use of "he or she" is actually perfectly fine grammar, that editors should be given the option as to whether or not to use the singular they as a matter of preference, and that substitution of the templates would lead to a refactoring of past talk page edits. At least one other editor stated that we sould not censor an individual's language choices should they wish to use "he or she" rather than "they", while others argued that doing so would be considered uncivil or that their use would be "blatantly disrespectful" to non-binary individuals or would otherwise constitute a personal attack.
An alternative merge was proposed to move all three templates noted above into Template:Gender and another hybrid alternative merge was proposed to wrap the two templates for discussion to be encompassed by Template:Pronoun, which contains functionality that would enable "he or she" to still be placed if a user would like. Some of the discussion focusing around this was on whether or not a user should be offered a template to use something other than the singular they, while other discussion was technical and focused on consolidation of templates. At least one editor stated that there may be an issue with wrapping the templates up for discussion into more complicated templates inasmuch as it would be less accessbile to editors without a strong command of English grammar. Another editor argued to deprecate the two templates for discussion but to not substitute nor delete them.
There were a few WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments made, which were discounted when ascertaining consensus.
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments on whether to keep and merge seem to be of relatively even quality when taken as a whole (as does the question on, if there is a merge, what merge should be undertaken). As a result, there is no consensus towards any particular outcome, and this discussion ends without a consensus on the question of what to do with the two templates for discussion.
( non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:He or she and
Template:He/she with
Template:They.
Recommending merge since the use of "he or she" solely enforces a false
gender binary, and {{
they}} already exists: as such, fold this template into {{
they}}. I know that the syntax for verbs when used with "they" is different, and as such correcting those as the templates are merged will do. Additionally, if this is successful I'll probably double down (via
WP:BOLD) and merge other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{
him or her}}.
Casspedia (
talk)
10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: The templates discussed are only used in userspace and usertalkspace. These templates are not used in mainspace. Casspedia ( talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
{{they}}
is a good idea.
User:GKFX
talk
21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
are basically forcing a user, who does not wish to use "he" or "she" to be called by that.With the same logic, somebody who refers to me with third-person plural pronouns is forcing me, who does not wish to be referred to as "they", to be referred to as such. Tol | Talk | Contribs 05:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
if this is successful I am considering merging other similar "gender-binary-enforcing" templates, such as {{ him or her}}. I can't imagine a scenario in which we'd deprecate {{ he or she}} etc. but not {{ him or her}} etc., or vice versa. Why not nominate all of them now? Nardog ( talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
they are|Male username}}
→ "he is".
User:GKFX
talk
18:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
{{GENDER:Foo|he does|she does|they do}}
, to accommodate any verb (I'm the one who made that template after all). The problem is that to replace "he or she" etc. already used on talk pages with "they" would be misrepresentation of the record proscribed in
WP:TPG. Usage in userboxes and other templates can, of course, simply be replaced with {{they}}.
Nardog (
talk)
06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)That "what-if" is entirely irrelevant to this discussionSure, that's it, just because you said so without a single logical reason behind it. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
entirely cosmetic reasons, and so we have yet another tone deaf response. It matters because such a change would necessitate changing these templates, and the entire reason we use templates is to make such changes easier. You're literally saying "don't change something" in something that is literally designed to be changed. — Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
such a change would necessitate changing these templates. You seem to think my point is that we shouldn't change them now because we may have to change them later, which it's not. My entire argument was that we should not change the output of the "he or she" templates in past discussions, because it retroactively changes what those users intended to write without their knowledge or consent. While using "he or she" to refer to a nonbinary person can be malicious, we have a policy of assuming good faith which tells us that if someone used {{ he or she}} to refer to another editor, they were relying on the user having set a software setting which we know is woefully inadequate, absent very good evidence that their comment was intended to misgender (and that does happen, I've blocked editors for it). That is my rationale for not changing past discussions in this case. If we want to bring the templates together so that they're easier to change later, yes, I'm entirely on board with that, but that's only half of what's being proposed here. And if we want to propose adding more options to MediaWiki's gender settings, or completely overhauling that system to be more inclusive, I'll absolutely support that, but this proposal misses that mark by a wide margin - if it succeeds, a transgender editor will still only be able to select "male", "female", or "neither". Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
hand off some text rendering task to someone else, but this hand-off is done with the assumption that the template will produce results which are similar to that which it originally did. If somebody intentionally used {{ He or she}}, that person did so with the intent that it would display "he or she" if the specified user's gender is unset. That intent should be respected. Tol | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
My point here is that the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{ They}}Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.
created (by you)And? Were you going somewhere with the fact that I created it? Please, don't stop there, I'm sure we're all very curious where you wanted to go with that. The rest is a lot of assumptions and perverting templates in a way that is incompatible with people willfully using them without substituting them, as has been explained to you previously. WP:SUBST is, and continues to be, your friend. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
the people who used these templates did so instead of using {{ They}}.It may not have been their intention, and perhaps they would have used {{ They}} instead, had they known it existed, but they did not. I agree that substitution is for when one wants to keep something static. However, it remains that people (probably) used this template with the assumption that it would return the same result in the future (excepting any user gender choices — if somebody later sets his or her gender, the template would update). We even have {{ Non-free use rationale}} and {{ Non-free use rationale 2}}, two different templates that have the same purpose (but are somewhat different), as a clear precedent for having two similar templates that fulfill the same job in a different way. My central point, still, is that {{ He or she}} should definitely produce "he or she". Making it produce "they" would be as confusing as making {{ They}} produce "he or she". Template users made that choice whether they were aware of alternatives or not, and we shouldn't force them to use one or the other. Also: we shouldn't censor language; people (such as I) may want to use "he or she" instead of "they". Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals.And there's more. "He or she" was borderline a decade ago, in this day and age it should be a no-brainer that it's unacceptable. Grammar wonks don't get to use their disdain for singular they as an excuse to marginalize or mistreat people. In article text? Sure, let's discuss it. When communicating respectfully with other editors on talk pages? Absolutely not up for debate. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
not use "their" as an alternative to his or her, but recommends rewriting the sentence to avoid these constructions if possible (which is in line with my view). It's not an
offensive slur, and I consider it perfectly fine to use (though unwieldy). Tol | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions"). However, "he or she" is not gender-neutral (as it only includes those who use he/him or she/her pronouns) meaning that {{ he or she}} template does not fufill its purpose ({{ he/she}} has the same issues). In contrast, {{ they}} produces "they" (which is gender-neutral) for this case and can therefore be used instead. GreenComputer ( talk) 05:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a deprecated maintenance template requesting indic script to be added to the lead. Per this 2011 RfC indic script shouldn't be used in this way however. It's been blanked since 2012 and currently does nothing. Should be removed and deleted. -- Trialpears ( talk) 00:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. But, no objection to recreation any of these if the teams come back. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Minor League Baseball underwent a significant reorganization in 2020-2021. Some teams have suspended operations and will not play in 2021. The rosters are therefore either outdated or contain TBDs that will never be replaced. Therefore they should be deleted. Mustangeagle ( talk) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 June 7. Primefac ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused template, and seems like it's intended to create price catalogues against WP:NOTCATALOG. User:GKFX talk 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
No need to keep a test like this around as a separate template. Elli ( talk | contribs) 09:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)