Template talk:Support

Replacing support with four other templates?
While here at Wikivoyage, we don't tend to use the support template as much as other wikis like Wikibooks or meta, the template support has got a bit too outdated, and it sort of doesn't work when you add your signature. There's also the fact that when you put the template, it only displays the icon, nothing else. So I've just created four other east to use and remember templates; s for support, ss for strongly support, o for oppose, and finally so for strongly oppose. This would make it a lot easier to visualise and make a consensus, rather than scavenging for the bolded text. So I have two questions here:
 * 1) Why don't we follow some other wiki's and actually use the support template (and some have it as s etc.)
 * 2) would this make it easier to visualise? such as compared to Oppose

Any feedback greatly welcome. Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No acronyms please. "s" could mean "slush", "see article talk" or anything. We use Support because that is unambiguous and easy to add without checking the wikicode of earlier discussions. And if people use the same keywords, they are easy to grasp and don't clutter the view like icons do. –LPfi (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have "strongly support" and "strongly oppose". We try to use (and maintain) the fewest templates possible, and these are not necessary.  I don't think that we need any of these templates at all (we don't get so many people responding that we need to help to speed up vote-counting), but if we're going to have one, let's have one, and not an ever-expanding supply.  "Strong" is likely to lead to someone wanting the counterparts "weak support" and "weak oppose", or "neutral".  This is too much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's no need for these extra templates. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with others. Not sure this is necessary. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never understood the support and oppose templates except on Meta which is multilingual so the images next to the words helps non-English speakers know if a proposal is popular or not. Everyone has at least some proficiency in English here being the English Wikivoyage so I didn't see the value in them. Gizza ( roam ) 03:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To make it clear, almost every other WMF project uses these support templates. I don't see why we don't and when even all the other English language WMF projects are using them. Tbh, we're kinda a bit backwards when it comes to technical things compared to other wikis. (at least 100100 times better than Wikitravel.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. "Almost every other WMF project" does not have these templates; less than half of the Wikipedias have a copy.  It is not true that all the other English-language WMF projects are using them, because the English Wikipedia has repeatedly rejected these templates, most recently by RFC at w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 176#RfC: Should we have Support/Oppose/etc. survey convenience templates? Also, many of the wikis have have a copy of the template but do not use them regularly.
 * We want to be "kinda a bit backwards", because technicall complexity is bad for newcomers. Not using hundreds or thousands of templates is one of the main goals for the Template policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also want the opinion of who's quite experienced with templates. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 03:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is quite strange that support does not work on its own - I recommend changing it to and bold it as that's what every other English or multilingual wiki uses. Using the support template to oppose is weird as well (but at least oppose works). However, the question of whether to have  or its weak equivalent is something that I would leave to the community - us at Wikibooks don't have it and don't tend to miss it either. Leaderboard (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is odd, confusing and visually disturbing if some say support add others say . Thus, introducing the icon would force everybody to start using the template. I see no strong advantage in that, and several disadvantages. Better to make the template just show support, and those who prefer typing over ... – or just are used to doing that – can do so, with comments of both looking the same. –LPfi (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the most recent RFC at enwiki over this, one of the proposals was to have the template but make it show Support without an icon. One reason to do this is that typing ''' is difficult for some contributors who are using smartphones.  They decided against this, but I think it was a valid use case, and I' ve no objection to a simple template that provides bold formatting if someone says they will actually use it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

So is there consensus that the four templates created by SHB2000 (" for support, SS undefined for strongly support, for oppose, and finally  for strongly oppose") should be deleted? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting it, can we just leave it. It truly does no harm and at worst, move it to my userspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no personal preference between deletion and moving to userspace, but if consensus is against the use of these, you shouldn't be using them in mainspace.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you mean project space. No one should be using them in mainspace even if we had a consensus to use them. I agree these are unnecessary and contrary to our template policy. Powers (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do mean that, or "Wikivoyage space" if you like, though that could get confusing...--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(post-sweep comment) Delete them all, both support & the four variants. Typing support is easier than since it is just standard wiki stuff. Pashley (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Instead of deleting them, I'll move it to my userspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want them there, I think nobody should object and there is no reason to delete them in the meantime. –LPfi (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we support the existence of this template and its use on talk pages?
For the record, I'm OK with the template, though I don't consider it essential, but let's discuss. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this include the template? --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that template is discussed in the section above this one. However, I'm OK with that one, too. Neither comment should be considered an affirmative vote of support by me, just a lack of opposition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * s is just a redirect so now same thing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the important thing is that people don't believe they are supposed to use these templates. They should have the mainstream look (support etc.), and their meaning should be obvious as wikitext. Thus, I have nothing against if it prints support, and the same with similar oppose, comment, keep or delete templates. I understood that curly brackets are easier to type than apostrophes in some mobile configurations, so weak support to keep them.


 * There are three problems with & al: they could mean anything, they are easy to type and thus tempting, and there are just 26 letters to use in one-letter templates – why should a significant share of those be reserved for seldom used templates with little support? They should be deprecated and substituted anywhere they are used, although there is no hurry to do anything about it.


 * –LPfi (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to support as long as it remains plain bold text, without any whizzbang symbols or fancy colours.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. I just want to keep the redirect as for those like me on meta, we're too used to using s. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll see the redlinked template and can substitute plain text. Otherwise we risk people used to Meta, Commons and Wikipedia starting to use those templates, and newcomers will not know they are deprecated, and will have a difficult time when they want to say something else than the others, such as oppose. If, on the other hand, they see support, it is much easier to type object or whatever. So if we don't want these templates used, we cannot allow them as a shorthand for you and others to use. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I like where this is heading. Yeah, make the template look like bold plain text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How much support, if you'll pardon the pun, does this template need to be approved? Because no-one has objected in several days, but neither does there seem to be many people actively in favour. I'll put in an RFC to check whether there's simply a lack of interest, but suggest that if no objections are forthcoming by Thursday (a week since this discussion was opened), that the template be approved and added to the Template index.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Would programming a bot that automatically substitute it be worth it, or too much effort needed? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about replacing s with support? I don't know how much work or effort that would involve.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, so if anybody enters, , or , the bot automatically substitutes it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot automatically substitutes it for what? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like . SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. If done, the edit summary needs to be very clear and nothing else done in the same edit. Changes that show up on the watchlist but add nothing to the discussion are frustrating, and edits that need to be checked because they make changes without telling so in the edit summary (possibly hidden with b/m) ruin the system (in sv-wp some users mark all their edits as minor, as suggested by the software, forcing me to check also minor edits). –LPfi (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood. Given that   and   produce exactly the same result - Support -, I think that would be a waste of (your) time. If support gets the community's support, then there's no problem with anyone using it. If the template is rejected and deleted (looking unlikely at the moment), then having Template:Support as the resulting error from typing   will discourage people from trying to use it.
 * BTW, I noticed that o still produced the version with the red symbol, so have redirected it to Oppose, the same as s to Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * o produced that because it was still in my userspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

How is this even a debate? This user spent his own time and made something useful, of-frickin'-course we support its existence and use wherever someone finds that it serves their purpose. Didn't your mothers teach you anything about how to be gracious?!? Naturally you can't promise rapid or widespread adoption, but keeping it available costs you nothing and shows the proper gratitude for one of your fellows having made the effort to share his talents. , I'm sorry it took sixteen levels of indent for this sentiment to be expressed, this should've been a no-brainer. Nice work, and I for one intend to use it often and conspicuously. —The preceding comment was added by RogueScholar (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for heeding the RFC and weighing in. This discussion is not about being grateful or ungrateful, it's about ensuring the procedure as outlined in our template policy is applied fairly and equally. The originator of this template was user:Andree.sk, not SHB2000.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what's the confusion here is that s is different from support. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)