Soyjak Wiki talk:Template question/2

Quality indicator headers

Anyone else feel like a lot of them need to be nvked off the wiki? Most of them are just

>gem/coal but more (for instance, Gemerald, Vantawhite, and Supernova are all just flashier versions of Gem, while Dust, Rust, Brimstone, Vantablack, Antimatter, and Singularity are all just flashier versions of Coal. If we're keeping any of them let's just stick with Gemerald and Brimstone since those cover every concievable usecase.)
>neutral and thus pointless; you don't need to use a template slot to tell people that something is neither gem nor coal (Vantagray, Equinox, YinYang)
>hyper-specific and better off just being replaced with Template:CustomQuality on the pages they used to be on

Exceptions to the first point:

>Savedtheparty and Killedtheparty have real usecases for topics that either provably saved/revitalized or ruined/shutdown the Soysphere, respectively. Their only real problem is when newfags treat them as just flashier reskins of the gem/coal templates. That issue is partially mitigated by the filters preventing nusois from adding high impact templates before they've hopefully lurked enough to know what warrants them.
>Topaz has a purpose for schizophrenic gems though it's not immediately obvious

Tranzanite can also go since it's just an oppositefagged version of Tanzanite and there were already templates for lies (Template:Hoax and Template:Bullshit) that existed for over a year before Tranzanite was made (by a user that apparently did something bad enough to get xhis username hidden from edits) GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 00:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

marge why is everything greentext?

anyways, rust is a coal template that nophono actually uses. vantablack and dust are iron because they add a bit of nuance.

antimatter MIGHT also be needed, but only for real 'p and pedophilia, mayyyyyybe BMT or loli 'p.

vantapurple is funny but idk if it's needed

vantawhite, supernova, singularity? yeah those have very little reason to exist; they're all just needlessly topaz versions of partysaving or partykilling.

thank you for coming to my ted talk Antimatter (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

>marge why is everything greentext?

greentext lists are imageboard culture doebeit. as for vantapurple, i don't think it counts as a quality template as it's mainly used for completely wack pages but at the same time it'd be a little weird having it as the only vantacolor template left. it'd likely work with a rebrand if vantawhite/gray/black get axed. GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 03:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

..Short

I'll rename all of these ...Short templates to ...Topic later, but it'll brap up the recent changes queue Cobblestone (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

>but it'll brap up the recent changes queue ev&doe you flood the recent changes log every few days with mass text replacement anyways

Archive deleted templates here?

I was thinking it would be a good addition for the gemerald article this will be, but it takes some effort and I don't know exactly how much the utility is

Add this to the sitenotice at the top of the page

We had this for the previous template question. Since this one is picking up traction from both several editors and the wiki owner I think this deserves to be up there. GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 03:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Singularity

I don't think I'll delete singularity/supernova because:

• They're now used in soyspeak, sometimes
• They have a usecase, killedtheparty is for stuff that actually happened and singularity is for hypotheticals like the shutdown of the sharty.
• They're restricted to approvers and above. Cobblestone (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

So should they be moved to iron? Antimatter (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Cobblestone (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

hi

Creator of Chaotic Equinox here, I'll admit the template is pretty useless. I didn't even think of using the controversial template, which is genius. Also i didnt even make the template page. i suggested it on cobblestone's talk page, xhe denied it, and some slf made it anyway. have a good day. Perpetualchange (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Some of my thoughts rn

1. Iron is iron. It's the third most ingrained rating in soy culture next to only coal and gem. Vantagray and chaos equiunox never needed to exist, but iron, as THE neutral rating, is 100% necessary.

2. The page is not a talk page. There was a lot of discussion on Gemerald that should have been put here.

bonus: i forgot equinox so someone should add that in Antimatter (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

1. You seem to have terminal reading issues. The iron template has a bad usecase because its sole purpose is trying to say that something isn't a gem or coal, which doesn't need a template for people to know. If it's not iron then there's going to be a different, actually useful quality template there. Also the Manual of Style has explicitly mentioned not to add quality templates if the page isn't significantly gemmy or coally enough to need them.

2. You also did not read the main Template Question hub article.

>Template questions are periodically held discussions

There is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining why a given template is good or bad IN THE REASONING SECTION OF A TEMPLATE'S TABLE ROW. It's literally the entire fucking point of having a reasoning field! God forbid someone use it for its intended purpose. GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 04:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

gemerald template clittyleaking containment center

Moved to the bottom because of a SLF breaking reddiquette and making a section at the top of a talk page and not the bottom

>gemerald isn't a necessary rating. every time it's used it's just because someone wants to claim something is a gem but apparently better by some subjective metric
>Really there's no reason to have gemerald templates as separate since their only real difference from gem is their color, they're otherwise completely redundant

- GapeNewell on revision comments

>If gemerald is unnecessary, then every rating besides coal or gem is unnecessary. The difference between gem and party-saving deserves at least one step, just like the difference between coal and party-killing requires the existence of brimstone as a category

- Me (Antimatter) on revision comments

>More prone to overuse due to being a "<quality> but more" template - Very similar usecase to Gem; there isn't a clear line as to which one specifically should be used and coming up with one will be nigh impossible since every subject/article will be different and thus objective quality standards wouldn't be universally applicable enough to be useful, assuming the wiki can even agree upon where to draw the dividing line in the first place, and this problem applies to "<thing> but more <adjective>" templates in general. As it currently stands it's just Gem but green and a bit longer. Someone said that it should be kept because "The difference between gem and party-saving deserves at least one step", but that's not a spectrum anmywhere near as much as it is an objective yes/no question as to whether or not something saved the Sharty.

- GauntletThrown in the article itself

> The reason I considered gemerald unnecessary is that it really doesn't do anything that Gem doesn't already do, and needs a better usecase so I'm throwing it under Iron in the meantime. Also party-saving is a yes/no thing, not a quality level on its own.

- GauntletThrown on revision comments

> + Small
> + Totally ingrained in culture so can't be removed
> - More prone to overuse due to being a "<quality> but more" template
> - Similar usecase to Gem; as it currently stands, some say it acts simply as "Gem but green and a bit longer".

- Me (Antimatter) in the article itself

>Just because it's soykulchur doesn't mean it absolutely has to be a separate template, and if that's seriously your only justification for not axing an obviously redundant template then stop trying. Also these pages are meant to have discussion by default, read the main template question page you DOUBLE NUSOI if you're even biologically capable of reading sentences and paragraphs geg

- GapeNewell on revision comments

Okay, now for a civilized discussion happening in one, dedicated place.

1. These pages are obviously meant for discussion, but that does not necessarily mean putting a complete wall of text on its reasoning. 2. "muh soykulchur" is not the only reason I think the Gemerald template is a gem or at least iron. Looking at the main template question page, we can see Vantawhite rated at the iron tier, whose reasoning seems to admit inferiority to the "much older and prettier Gemerald template". Of course, this template question does not have to be exactly copied from the last, but it's at the very least unreasonable to put it at Coal.

I could settle for Iron anyways, because this point is kind of weak, but somebody else needs to weigh in so this isn't just a one-on-one banter.

Antimatter (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The gemerald template is for articles that are more gemmy than gems. There's no chance in hell it's getting deleted. North (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I get what you're actually saying, and looking at the category page, all of Gem's subcategories combined aren't as common as the base. However, I'm going to leak over your wording before Gauntlet gets the chance to. Gemeralds are more gemmy than the average gem. It doesn't make much sense to say vantawhite is whiter than white. Antimatter (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

"Gemeralds are more gemmy than the average gem" is an entirely useless statement without an actual definition of "gemmier than gem". The entire fucking point of the Template Question is to clean out the template list of templates that don't serve distinct, relevant purposes. I should not have to repeat this, but the only actual difference Gem and Gemerald ever had is that the latter is green and slightly more prone to SLF newfags putting it on their first articles just because they made them. The usecase is effectively the same otherwise; a template to mark good articles.
The only feasible way to meaningfully differentiate them is to rework Gemerald into being for articles that got featured in some way (lots of other wikis have special templates for articles that were featured at some point) as that's the only inarguable measure of quality that'd work for separating gemeralds from regular gems. Otherwise the usecase venn diagram might as well be a single circle, which is what the Template Questions are meant to prevent. Unless you can find another objective way to draw a dividing line that gives both templates reasons to exist, there's nothing left to discuss. GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 03:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Holy clitty leakage but I get what you mean North (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)