Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24

[edit]

Template:R protected

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by proposer with unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958Talk 15:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Propose merging Template:R protected with Template:Redirect category shell.
This should only be used by rcatsh. Having a separate template is causing confusion, so let's just subst it into rcatsh.

I don't know why we don't just deprecate these templates, seeing as {{Rcat shell}} automatically detects protection and adds the appropriate rcat
— User:Queen of Hearts 00:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Retargeting to {{r protected}} doesn't make sense either as that rcat automatically determines the protection level, and this implies otherwise.
— User:Eejit43 19:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

174.138.212.166 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply

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

Template:Yash Birla Group

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)reply

Only two links are navigable, the company the template is named for and one of the subsidiaries. CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply

  • Delete As the subsidiary is just a redirect to the main company link, the 'three' functional links (header, two items) in this template all direct to the one (dubious and promo) article. There is no functionality here - it could only be used on this one article, which doesn't satisfy a navbox, and then also isn't able to be added there anyway for reasons similar to MOS:CIRCULAR, surely? Delete with no prejudice to this being re-created if there are 2/3+ appropriate articles created which would make it a functional navbox. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Delete as useless. Only links to one article. --woodensuperman 13:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Aubrey Plaza

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)reply

One of multiple producers so can hardly be considered the "primary creator" for these films per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 15:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per my overturn !vote at the relist discussion, which I'll quote from here: in all cases [of the "Films produced" links] Plaza is producer and main actor and, at least through our articles or a quick search, was the first producer signed on and a primary creative force in the projects being picked up and finished. Two of the film articles also indicate she was directly involved in casting. It's simply unreasonable to suggest Plaza would not be considered a primary creator, and this in addition to the character links, mean it's both a complete and tightly-focused (distinct creator connection throughout all items) navbox. - that is, Plaza produced four films (and one television show, not included at the navbox) and has two significant character articles linked, which is enough to be defining. There are also thematic connections (women's identity, specifically) between all of them, with all of them identified as Plaza projects. A navbox relating to Plaza is not out of place at any of the articles linked, and connecting them as a topic relating to her is appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Also, to counter the nom comment, also quoting from my comment at the relist discussion: FILMNAV ... is not a deletion policy [it is a guideline on content inclusion at templates] - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Per WP:FILMNAV, we only include primary creators in navboxes. It cannot be stated that Plaza was a primary creator, or auteur on a film like Black Bear where she was one of eight producers. It is not like the golden age of Hollywood, when a producer could sometimes be creative visionary. These days a lot of stars get a producer credit. Therefore inclusion of these films in the navbox is inappropriate, and including her navbox on the bottom of the pages for films that she produced, but not navboxes for the other 7 producers is WP:UNDUE when there is no indication that she was any more involved in the actional creation of the film than any of the others. Her acting roles are irrelevant and fall foul of WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 08:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Again, FILMNAV is neither a firm rule, nor an indicator that a navbox should exist or not. You've presented some personal interpretation (i.e. opinion/argument) here, but you're still writing it like it's more than just your opinion. But I can engage with your view and respond to it - first, there's no requirement for someone to be an auteur. That may have been your intention when writing FILMNAV, and how you interpret it, but it's not codified. I acknowledge that a lot of stars get a producer credit, but as I reasoned above (and which I would've preferred you engage with, rather than just state an unexplained disagreement), it is evident from the film articles (or, where short, a quick search) that Plaza was more involved in the actional creation of the film than [other producers]. In instances where you might find this debatable based on pure number of producers alone, my arguement also touches on the actual reader perception - Plaza is not only producer but the literal face of these films (on the posters) as main actor and, in media, the first person named. They are on a same overarching theme, so there is evidently some pseudo-auteurly creative choice re which films she produces. They are generally a director's first film, so her attachment has led to it being made. From this, rather than just counting credits (especially when FILMNAV is about creativity, not numbers) I find it is not undue (would not be unusual to see) for a navbox connecting these to Plaza and no other producers or actors to appear at the articles. Hope that goes into more detail on that part. Second, you now mention PERFNAV. This is another bit of the general writing at the NAVBOX suggestions. I note that the sentence avoids putting undue weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others suggests that one shouldn't nit-pick characters/roles to add to navboxes, however the actual standard in actual practice is to add those that exist; there are many (the third template I looked at, just of ones I know exist, is Template:Johnny Depp - has two notable characters included) templates that follow this and it is common sense that characters are included when they have articles, not chosen to try and emphasise certain performances.
    But at the end of the day, here's some direct quoting from the WP:NAVBOX guidelines: The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, ... is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors ... If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page - this makes it clear that the guideline is not about navboxes existing (nor where they should/n't be added i.e. it can't be leaned on for due-ness (as a concept) - and UNDUE doesn't relate to templates - so this would need expl/arg), and that the guideline is not to be considered authoritative over discussion. So please stop using your interpretation of the text you added to this as a reason for deletion on its own, especially when written like acronym soup to try confer authority. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    There's an argument to include Jack Sparrow at {{Johnny Depp}} because he actually created the character. However, other characters are more than just their actors. It is also worth drawing a parellel with WP:PERFCAT, where he would definitely be proscribed from Category:Johnny Depp. --woodensuperman 09:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    I accept both premises here in general; the two Plaza characters are, in different ways, connected to Plaza at that Sparrow/Depp level. One was created for her after she auditioned, and which she helped the writers develop, and which has been played by nobody else (in comparison, we can say Jack Sparrow and the Mad Hatter were both invented prior to Depp's involvement). The other of Plaza's is an adapted character; the article (which, I thought existed before but was a redirect, and I now have created it, for transparency) is just for her version and, in practice this connects it more to her - media is generally referring to the character's appearance by Plaza's name (perhaps to distinguish, you'd have to ask them). Kingsif (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Regarding this edit (added after my reply, so pretty bad form), WP:UNDUE does relate to navboxes. It can place undue importance on a topic if you see a navbox at the bottom of the page. In this specific instance, take Ingrid Goes West. If {{Aubrey Plaza}} was placed at the bottom, hers would be the only prominent navbox, implying that she is more heavily related to the project than the director, the writer, or the other five producers. --woodensuperman 12:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    I think my edit reason is quite clear and, no - the concept of due-ness, to which I have also referred, is different from DUE. I have made my position on why I think the inclusion of this navbox would be appropriately due/relevant clear above. Now, DUE is about prominence in sources for balancing neutrality in article content. None of that applies to nav boxes - if it did, frankly, I’d be adding it to my argument (Plaza being the most prominent producer). I added it as (another) reminder that users should not throw out nor accept acronyms, mischaracterised, without an argument. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    To discuss the navbox content a bit more since you give an opinion here (thanks) - I disagree that the first perception, for readers and editors, when seeing the navbox at Ingrid Goes West (or any future projects without other navboxes) would be to think ‘WP is telling me Plaza is the most/only relevant person’. My personal thought process when seeing navboxes like this is that the individual is a significant enough person in general to get identified, and that the article subject is related enough to them — I might even more likely question if the work is significant enough within their filmography. I couldn’t say if that broad view is common, but I think the implication you describe is quite an extreme one that, first, is not true in terms of how we create and use nav boxes (the existence and use of any navbox should not be influenced/depend on the non/existence of any other navbox - other producers not having one is irrelevant to this one) and, second, would not be the first or perhaps any thought of an uninformed reader visiting the article.
    Another disagreement I have, too, is to sort of reiterate thoughts I’ve expressed above: yes, Plaza can be considered the most prominent relevant person involved in Ingrid Goes West. If some people do read the implication you suggest, I don’t think they’d have an issue, and nor should we. It’s not wrong, really. Even having gone through the article for this TfD, all I can really tell you about the movie’s production is it stars Plaza and Elizabeth Olsen, and that Plaza produced it. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Look, I’ve written some long paragraphs above going through Plaza’s involvement with the films based on readily-available info and public perception, to explain my opinion (and !vote) that this makes a navbox warranted (including if there are no other navboxes at the links); while I appreciate you’re engaging more, it’s still kinda just ‘but there are other producers for a few of the links’. I’ve countered this with both theoretical views on how navboxes can be used and by the aforementioned analysis of the specific navbox content and utility in this case. It’s feeling circular. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    And considering this same example, why are you not advocating for navboxes for {{Jared Ian Goldman}}, {{Tim White}}, or {{Trevor White}}, each of whom have more extensive production credits than Plaza? --woodensuperman 12:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    As you well know, I came to these three TfDs due to what I see as poor procedure in their deletions. I am not advocating for every potential navbox to immediately exist, but for suitable ones that already exist to not be improperly deleted. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per her production credits and Kingif. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • delete, having producer-centric navboxes where there are multiple producers on a film would lead to an explosion in the number of navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    CRYSTALBALLing isn’t a good reason, nor does this scenario seem likely - just because we don’t delete a few producer-centric navboxes, doesn’t mean every potential producer-centric navbox is going to be created. And keeping this would not set some precedent that could be used as excuse for weaker navboxes, either: when !votes include arguments that also discuss the actual content and utility (not just theory), it can be seen which are of more benefit. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    WP:NOHARM seems more relevant here than WP:CRYSTALBALL. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    My argument for keeping is not based on "it's harmless", but on the merit of having a navbox because connecting [the links] as a topic relating to [Plaza] is appropriate (argued in my initial !vote). Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • @Woodensuperman: Are we calling this canvassing (based on the non-neutrality of your comment trying to guide where people should get their opinion from, by pointing to something with the suggestion it directly relates when we've been over the fact it isn't - "per FILMNAV" means exactly nothing) or would you like to rephrase it? Kingsif (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    No. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. My message is neutrally worded. Just because you want to discount WP:FILMNAV does not mean that it is not the relevant guideline to consider here. --woodensuperman 09:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    I'm not saying and have not said it should be discounted - as I have repeatedly said, it should be interpreted and applied only as appropriate. No, I am saying that your message is not neutrally-worded, it's very clearly telling people they should base their opinions or !votes on that guideline, with the suggestion that this is for a reason (per INAPPNOTE, as you link, that's biased/campaigning). Saying "can people read X and then go to Y and have an opinion about X there" is not neutral. You either should not mention anything but the existence of the TfD, or say e.g. that "things to consider can include X, Y, Z". And once again, you should not be (even though it's not explicit here, so I don't have a problem with it mentioned if done so neutrally) suggesting that FILMNAV is anything more than a guideline subservient to discussion on how one can decide whether to include links at navboxes. Not about their existence or where they go. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Delete per WP:FILMNAV. Egregious WP:POV violation because Plaza was never the sole producer, yet this navbox frames her contributions as such. All of these films had multiple producers, and this inappropriately inflates her importance over others. Even we considered producer navboxes for everyone, that would just be footer bloat. Any reader can click a producer link in the infobox or the article body to learn more about the person's producer work with other producers. Navboxes are for prime and direct credits, like film directors or book authors. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    How does the navbox frame her as sole producer? How does its existence inflate her importance? Why would we need to consider navboxes for everyone? Where does even FILMNAV (suggestions for what to include at navboxes that already exist) say navboxes are only for "prime and direct credits", and who defines these? No, really. Please, present all this as your opinion if you must - and explain if you can - but they're not objective truths and the first two honestly sound spurious to me. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Looking at the navbox alone, it looks like she is the sole producer of all of these films. One of the disadvantages of a navbox is that it may "inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". WP:WEIGHT also says, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including... prominence of placement." Film directors and book authors, in comparison, do not run into these issues. To try to be fair about producers would just mean footer bloat, which "take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related", and "the use of multiple nav templates may take up too much space on one article, which could lead to a POV-tainted choice as to which to include", and "may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important when this would not be controversial". Like Ingrid Goes West has eight producers. Is Plaza a particularly special producer among all of them? Even if she was, the navbox has no room to indicate that. Navboxes need to be simple and focus on full, not partial, crediting.
    And we would not have a navbox for every crew credit, either. Can you imagine a film article with a footer that links to all of that film's editor's works, that film's cinematographer's works, that film's composer's works, that film's distributor's works? And one could argue that each one is likely more important than one producer of a team (and it's rarely ever just one producer, at least nowadays). It's so easy to click on the link for any of them and see their full list of credits. WP:FILMNAV reflects all of the above general language in subject-specific language. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
    Thanks for the reply :) I follow your argument/reasonings, though some (e.g. again, the idea that having one navbox would require/not others) I don't necessarily agree with. One I do generally agree with is Even if she was, the navbox has no room to indicate that. - yes, navboxes are too simple to detail the relationship between topic and link, and this can be detrimental for the information it presents. I feel this is a reason why FILMNAV does advocate for discussing which links to include at a navbox: when we create and edit a navbox, we are curating it, and to me this offers the chance to decide which links' relationship to the topic are appropriate enough for contextless inclusion. In this case, I still think that the topic is cohesive enough to warrant the existence of a navbox, and that there are enough links with strong connection (if Ingrid Goes West and Black Bear are the debatable inclusions) for it to be useful in terms of navigation. Do you have views on this (topic and links)? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
Keep, was initially going to give it a as delete, but the articles seem to clarify her not just a producer as a token credit, but how she has or has not worked as a producer. I don't think every producer (or even director) needs a navbox as the articles don't really warrant their information of their work, but in this case her work as a producer seems to be a relevant point in the articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Michael B. Jordan

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 July 13. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)reply

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

Template:Halle Berry

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)reply

Have removed everything that falls foul of WP:FILMNAV, practically nothing left. --woodensuperman 15:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_24&oldid=1300328969"