Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 93 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.
How to use this page
[edit]What not to propose for discussion here
[edit]The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
- Stub templates
- Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
- Userboxes
- Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
- Speedy deletion candidates
- If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
- Policy or guideline templates
- Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
- Template redirects
- List at Redirects for discussion.
- Moving and renaming
- Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Reasons to delete a template
[edit]- The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
- The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
- The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
- The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
Listing a template
[edit]To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
Step | Instructions |
---|---|
I: Tag the template. | Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
Note:
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
|
II: List the template at TfD. | Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.
Add this text to the top of the list:
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add Use an edit summary such as Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}} You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the {{subst:Catfd2|category name}} |
III: Notify users. | Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases. |
Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
[edit]While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
Notifying related WikiProjects
[edit]WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this.
Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
Notifying substantial contributors to the template
[edit]While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle
[edit]Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Discussion
[edit]Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Closing discussion
[edit]Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Current discussions
[edit]- Template:No pun intended (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used only in one editor's sandbox. Created in 2018. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Wisconsin International University system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no main article and just two blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just two blue links in the body. One of the blue links goes to an unreferenced article that should probably be merged with the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just two blue links in the body. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with zero blue links to articles in the body. All links in the body go to the main article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just one blue link to a just-barely-out-of-draft article. Not useful for navigation. No objections to recreation if enough season articles are created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Xavier Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with no main article and just three blue links in the body. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Permanent dead link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Dead link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Permanent dead link with Template:Dead link.
This is a well intentioned convenience template that is structurally flawed and little used. 149 instances in 4 years. The separation of flagging permanent dead links into multiple templates adds unneeded complications for bots other tools to support. The complications are not worth the minor convenience, arguably hardly none. 99.999% of the instances of permanent dead links {{Dead link|fix-attempted=yes}}
are added by InternetArchiveBot. The existence of this flag does not literally mean "permanent" dead, archives become available by providers that were previously blacked out for policy or technical reasons; and IABot can not check Archive.today where frequently archives can be found. The whole notion of "permanent" dead was an IABot internal flag specific to that bot. For example my bot WaybackMedic on a regular basis processes all so-called "permanent" dead links and finds archives for about 20% of them because it's better at finding archives then IABot. Overall this concept of a "permanent" dead link is flawed, from any perspective but IABot's internal logic. GreenC 18:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom's structural flaw argument. Sdkb talk 21:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by creator: Damn, I wish I was told about this over at VP before I went ahead with the creation of this template. Anyways, if this were to be merged into Template:Dead link, will the functionality where it says "permanent" if Template:Permanent dead link is transcluded, be kept? — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Family Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The overwhelming number of links are merely redirects to the network's article, making the navbox violate WP:EXISTING, and making it hinder rather than help a reader's attempts at navigating Wikipedia. There is already a category for Family Radio stations, that provides easier navigation, as the redirects are italicized. The radio stations whose call signs redirect to the network's article are not independently notable and should not become articles. Tdl1060 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WPBL teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with just two blue links in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with just one blue link in the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Basically empty, unused, and out of date team roster navbox. The current roster is maintained at Santeros de Aguada. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Sons of Butcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with just one blue link in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Silver Apples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with just two blue links to articles in the body. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
A navbox created as an example in a 2007 conversation. It can be substed into that page and deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Team roster template for a team that never played. The team has no article. No blue links for players. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There are articles on only two member parties (sections) of this organization. A template is unnecessary. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Leaders of capital cities of ASEAN member states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Some mayors do not have a definite source regarding their mandate from when, whether they are still in office or have already been in office. So for me please delete it because there are some mayors who don't have valid sources regarding this. – Whatsup236 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Mantric (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with only two blue links in the body. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Liquid Liquid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with only two links in the body. Created in 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with only two links in the body. No edits since 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Laki Mera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with just three blue links in the body. No edits since 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:ABC Midwest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The state templates are enough, thank you Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It also fails accessibility and navbox guidelines with the little grey squares. - X201 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Convert to a list in a normal article. With all the notes, it is not suitable for a template. The Banner talk 09:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- So much noise in that template that it makes it harder to even understand. Even if kept, the linked templates should be removed - templates are not content and should not be linked to from content pages. They are also WP:EGG links as they don't link to the location. The slash usage is also unclear and violates MOS:SLASH. The usage of notes in a navigation template is also a sign that something is wrong there. A navigation template should be clear right away what it does and how. If you need to explain it, then it shouldn't be a navigation template (and probably also requires a citation). Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mvcg66b3r @X201 @TheBanner @Gonnym I want to keep it but... No matter what I do or say... You're going to delete things anyways... I can't keep anything on here no matter how much time and effort I put into it... It's not the first time I add something, and somebody already (on impulse) wants to delete it... It's not at all like I'm making things up... It's just another shortcut to some pages... What's wrong with that!?!? It's just not fair!!! I could just modify it by removing the numbers and put translators and satellites in (parenthesis)... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 15:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have requested to move template to a subpage instead... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have requested to move template to a subpage instead... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mvcg66b3r @X201 @TheBanner @Gonnym I want to keep it but... No matter what I do or say... You're going to delete things anyways... I can't keep anything on here no matter how much time and effort I put into it... It's not the first time I add something, and somebody already (on impulse) wants to delete it... It's not at all like I'm making things up... It's just another shortcut to some pages... What's wrong with that!?!? It's just not fair!!! I could just modify it by removing the numbers and put translators and satellites in (parenthesis)... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 15:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as the type of template made superfluous by better, more focused navboxes. There is no reason for this to exist. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. Doesn't appear to be needed anymore because Troms og Finnmark was split back into Finnmark ({{Finnmark-geo-stub}}) and Troms ({{Troms-geo-stub}}) in January. C F A 💬 02:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1874 Canadian federal election/Shelburne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to verify this information. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1980 Canadian federal election/Restigouche (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to verify this information. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no main article and only one blue link in the body. Created in 2010. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one related link so not used for navigation. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Faouzia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with only two links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Bdd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I'm not necessarily going to say this template is pointless, but it is nearly so. We have moved away from templates providing categorisation, and the rest can just as easily be typed out long-form without needing to get into the weeds on what comes first (month/day/year).
I will note I replaced all three uses prior to this nomination. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Templates should not add content categories, and this appears to be redundant to much better start/end date templates like {{Birth date and age}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:BND (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Purely decorative (though in my honest opinion, ugly as hell) template that really shouldn't be used in the article space (though I will note I did subst its only use in Special:Diff/1242752338 just before nomination). Based on that singular use I guess it's meant to indicate a cash-only lane on a toll road? However that is not very clear and also has not been used in that situation but the once. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Used only on one page and even there the usage is unclear (and was used next to an incorrect template, so the whole thing is questionable). Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:BPL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template appears to be designed to conveniently put in a reference for the Budapest lexikon, but in the 14 years since its creation is only used on three pages, indicating that the lexikon does not necessarily need a convenience template for adequate referencing/linking. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete. Citation templates should be created for those citations which are used in large amounts. This isn't it. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Matthew 16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There are already forward/backward navigational links in the infobox on Matthew 16, and the handful of other articles linked from this template are linked from appropriate places in that article. There apparently used to be a large number of articles on the verses of this chapter, but these are now redirects, so I think this template is no longer needed. -- Beland (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say merge Template:Matthew 1 to Template:Matthew 28 and remove all links to places and people. This clearly shows that the navigation template links to (a lot of) articles which do not use it (and should not use it), which fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The smaller, merged navbox will offer better navigation than the manual sequence usage at Matthew 16#External links. I'd also support deleting {{Gospel of Matthew Chapters}} as redundant. Bottom navigation templates are better than side navigations in my opinion (and per MOS:DONTHIDE, and the fact that it was auto collapsed, shows that editors don't want to look at it). Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Brandon Routh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Randomly selected list of links somewhat related to this actor, although the temp is not used at the majority of articles, failing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Many of these entires are only some of the creative works the actor appeared in, coupled with characters he portrayed. Some entries are redirects and others (such as Dylan Dog) are not directly connected to the subject. Leaning on WP:Not everything needs a navbox here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:PERFNAV. Gonnym (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
All links are to a single users' subpages. Template should be moved to userspace. WOSlinker (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group D table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group E table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group F table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group G table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Youth League Group H table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group D table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group E table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group F table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group G table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Youth League Group H table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group D table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group E table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group F table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group G table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Youth League Group H table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2018–19 UEFA Youth League group tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 5 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 6 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 7 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015–16 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 8 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 5 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 6 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 7 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 8 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 9 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League qualifying round 2nd place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 3 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 4 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 5 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 6 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 7 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 8 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 9 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League Group 10 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 Group D table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup group table mbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per previous discussions such as this and this. We do not need dedicated templates for the standings of a youth competition. Templates should be substituted and then deleted. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete as above. GiantSnowman 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Assessment row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used only by Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics, which is at MfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support, as the project statistics page only needs to transclude the related WP 1.0 bot table instead. – Fayenatic London 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead with that transclusion in order to update links between category pages, so the nominated template is no longer used. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
After removing redirects this template only has 2 entries, with 1 of them up for deletion. There is not much point having a navbox for 2 entries, which might end up being 1. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The subject, the band Restore the Broken, is apparently not notable, failed WP:BAND, and its article was deleted. The only blue links in this navbox are Christian standard covers and the related link to Christian music. DB1729talk 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The template makes no sense if it doesn't have an article to go in. None of the linked songs are known because this band covered them; they're not mentioned under any of the links, nor do any of them lead to singers the template indicates are/were in the band. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Not based on anything. Sahaib (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no idea what the inclusion criteria actually is, and a huge percentage of the contents are groups/bands not musicians against what is implied by the title. Not to mention they're categorised by decade, but there are people who were active prior to those decades included in different ones (for instance Twin Atlantic is in the 2010s to present, but started in 2007. And Susan Boyle also in 2010s, but her moment of fame was in 2008/9.) Canterbury Tail talk 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. The inclusion criteria is musicians of Scotland. Titus Gold (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Inclusion criteria is too broad. See Category:Scottish musicians. --DB1729talk 22:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Too broad of a list. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, presumably this was modelled on Template:Welsh musicians, but I've never come across a navbox that includes inclusion criteria - it's normally self-evident but open to discussion. "Scottish popular musicians" implies notable Scottish pop musicians, per Category:Scottish pop musicians and Category:Scottish pop music groups (it's rare for a member of a music group not to be a musician). Yes, there a quite a lot of musicians that could be included here (and maybe even the name of the template could be changed) but I wouldn't say the nominator has made a reasonable case for deletion. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Veertien Mie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Not a useful navbox. Mostly red links while the few blue links merely point back to the subject article or in one case, the eponymous category, itself not particularly useful. DB1729talk 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Pakistan has switches for provincial wiki project banners. This template is not needed, no other Pakistani provincial WP has a separate banner template, if we take an example of WP India, same is true there as well. This is a prematurely created template and should be deleted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a standlone project it's valid for it to have a project banner. I'd personally send Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to MfD as a dead project with zero activity instead of merging anything. If it really needs to exist, then it should still be sent to MfD to convert it to a task force (but with no activity, there is really no point). Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Stratovolcanoes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This navbox does not have clear inclusion criteria. According to a petscan search that goes just two levels deep from Category:Stratovolcanoes, more than 1,000 articles could justifiably be listed here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. Navbox with no links in the body after all of the linked articles in it were deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen symbol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Image with no transclusions or documentation. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as this is basically just an icon. The image is still available for whatever usages. Gonnym (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions, template documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in early 2024. There are about thirty of these unused maps. They should either be used or deleted. If this discussion is closed as delete, I'll be happy to nominate the others, but I'd rather not bother Spesh531 with thirty nominations yet. See this discussion on the creator's talk page for some background. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- So when these were made, I initially added them to all the MLB season pages. Due to how the standings tables were formatted at the time, there were large empty gaps in the page due to the maps. Given the updated standings table format, adding maps does not involve adding large empty gaps... so I've re-added the maps via WP:BOLD. I get the feeling some (or all) the map templates will be removed, but in the meantime, all thirty or so unused maps are now being used (again). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as it is now used, again. However, if this or others from this set are removed once again, I'd be extremely opposed to it being re-added again to any article to save it from deletion. If the community does not want it, then it does not want it. Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Unpaid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template was created by a now-blocked editor and is only being used on their User page. It's a nice sentiment but I don't see it being widely adopted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- This looks like a userbox that should be discussed through a different process, no? --Bsherr (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, a user box uses {{user box}} or even attempts to look remotely similar. This one does not do either. Izno (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This does not seem necessary or heavily sought after. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Fails the major criteria of WP:NAVBOX; there is no main article about the subject (it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heydar Latifiyan last year) and most of the articles linked only mention his name in passing (Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Battle of Robat Karim includes some detail but no sources). Belbury (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sounds justified for the reasons stated. Cheers! Johnson524 18:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It has been 18 months since graphs have been made unavailable, with no solution in sight. At present, this template is merely talk page clutter that provides little benefit to readers or editors.
An important thing to remember: talk pages receive a fraction of views as the article page. Take Abraham Lincoln, who has ~400k views the past 30 days. His talk page has ~500 views. That is just 0.125% Based on our general knowledge of Wikipedia, it is safe to assume that most, if not all of those are editors, who likely have a grasp of the other tools that can be utilized to easily link to pageviews.wmcloud.org on every page on Wikipedia.
If consensus does not form to delete, I ask anyone participating in the discussion to comment on whether they support wrapping the template in noinclude
tags indefinitely until a solution is found. This would be a compromise that would hide the template from talk pages until a solution is developed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can this template be made to just not render at all, pending someone figuring out how to fix it? I feel like deleting it, creating a big red "this template does not exist" eyesore, and then having bots rush around trying to hastily remove it everywhere would be more disruptive than just making the template invisible. –jacobolus (t) 17:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jacobolus, I tried that, but was reverted. Note the last part of my nom mentions a desire to at least hide the template from rendering in the event of a keep. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear what benefit Mathglot thinks we get from showing everyone a permanently broken template all over the place. Is the goal just to tease talk page viewers? –jacobolus (t) 20:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support this solution. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jacobolus, I tried that, but was reverted. Note the last part of my nom mentions a desire to at least hide the template from rendering in the event of a keep. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There is clear benefit to this template, in that it provides a working link to the page views graph without even having to expand the template. There is no other solution available right now that I am aware of that gives one-click access to a page views graph from an article Talk page, other than this template, and imho it would be a very strong disservice to the community to delete it. I am guessing that either no one is aware of the working page views link that is there now, or that the objection is mostly due to the language inside the expanded message. If the desire to delete the template based on the wording, "A graph should have been displayed here, but ..." then I get that. I see no problem deleting or changing that verbiage to something else. (For a concrete example, please see the Discussion below.) But deleting the template entirely based on poor wording, makes no sense to me at all without a much wider consensus from the community at large, for a working tool which has no easy replacement. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this banner is never intended to be anything more than a link to pageviews.wmcloud.org, it should just be deleted. Such a link is already provided in the "External tools" section of the "Page information" for every article, and people didn't add this banner for the sake of such a link. If you think it is important to make such links easier to access, that should be done universally rather than on arbitrary particular articles; perhaps a direct link could be added directly to the "tools" sidebar/menu.
- If this banner continues to display as it currently does, I will continue my current practice of deleting it from every talk page where I come across it organically. –jacobolus (t) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Xtools gadget is readily available to editors, it way more powerful and useful. That was point, we are catering to such a small number of people with this template, people who are way more likely to be editors (not just readers) who have access to the pageviews Xtool. The wording isn't the problem. Its just a template with no use. I mean heck, just added a link in {{talk header}} if that's all that people want. An extra template at this point serves no purpose without the graph. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The template is not "extra", it is the way you get a page views graph. If there is consensus to include the link to the {{Talk header}} (that would require consensus there as well), that would be better than nothing, as at least there would be a way for some users to use it there, but that would not include the people who now use it at Talk:Veganism, for example, which has the graphs template but not the Talk header template, so even if you place a link in the {{Talk header}} template, it won't do them any good. There are another 28,232 pages articles that have the graph template but not the Talk header template on their Talk page. What happens with those? Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The user interface already includes menu links to page view statistics (as discussed below). A template with the sole purpose of linking to the same is redundant. If there is a solution in the future that allows the display of the actual statistics in the template, a new template can easily be created. --Bsherr (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or noinclude per redundancy. Like others, I always use "Page information"'s wmcloud link.
- This is hogging space like uncollapsed WikiProject banners. It's hidable in {{talk header}} per Mathglot for a few editors needing it (who should just use m:MoreMenu). Yes, it failed if
no one is aware of the working page views link
. The community did fine without the graphs, and would've fixed the code already, had it valued this feature. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC) - Delete. Graphs have been gone for such a long time and by how fast Wikimedia works, they are probably never coming back. This is currently just a giant banner bloat. If the link is needed, then it should be added to the talk header template. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but noinclude. This is clearly a useful template, especially in terms of election articles or other high traffic or current event articles, yet is currently useless. There is no need to fully delete it, only to then have to remake it when the new graph extension is complete (BTW, the template will have to be rewritten as its using a completely new graph system from the ground up) MarkiPoli (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and noinclude per above.—Alalch E. 10:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but noinclude No need to have a banner with no use cluttering up talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but noinclude as per above. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
- Keep, with no preference on noinclude, per above. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst views of talk pages may be low compared to article pages, I suspect that use of the "Page information" tool is even lower. Therefore there will be more users getting to pageviews.wmcloud.org from this template on talk pages than through "Page information". If a solution is ever found to re-instate the graph facility then we will have to re-insert a new template in talk pages from scratch.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This template in its prior form is not coming back: the new graph extension is not expected to support data the way this template did. There exists the multiple alternatives identified above (gadget and separate link per Bsherr). And so it is at this point simply talk page clutter. Izno (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I am aware, there has not been any announcement of WMF permanently giving up on fixing graphs; on the contrary, a replacement appears to (finally!) be in development and is apparently planned to be
ready to use by editors by the end of September 2024
.[1] As (kind of) mentioned by Jacobolus above, removing the template from all pages via a bot would, once graphs are usable again, likely result in a request to add it back, ending up with more than 107 000 pointless edits for zero actual change in the end.
- While the "noinclude" option is preferable to deleting it outright, the template being visible helps users discover the workaround of going to the external pageviews site (and probably it even being possible to view the pageviews in the first place) a lot better than expecting them to randomly open the "Page information" link, scroll past a bunch of technical data and notice the "Page view statistics" link near the bottom. 2A00:807:B1:1166:BD0D:66A2:45C1:FC4E (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- Keep but noinclude per all above. The Kip (contribs) 09:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Like Izno correctly states, WMF’s new graph solution is predicated on hosting data files in Commons, so it won’t work with this. And even if they add a way to use page statistics instead, this graph does not belong on talk pages IMO. Talk pages, as the name suggests, are for talking. The addition of stuff like this is highly unintuitive for new users and makes the discussion harder to get to for experienced ones.
- And anecdotally, when I was a new user, I found the statistics on the link in Page information, not the talk page header. Note that as well as the link at the bottom, there’s also a link in the “Basic information” section at the top, so the user doesn’t have to scroll very far. Not the most intuitive, but the solution is giving (this very handy, in fact) page a UI spruce-up, not keeping more visual noise on the Talk page. ― novov (t c) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Page views are not very useful to have for a talk page imo, and adds another banner to what can be a very long list of reading material. There are alternatives to navigate to the pageviews tool: there is a link on the edit history page; there is a link on the page's Page information, below the image; and what I recommend: m:More Menu's
Page > Analysis > Traffic report
. I just don't think it's necessary as a banner. Izno says that the new graph tool won't work the same way, meaning that, to have accessible graphs on any given page, Commons will have to mirror this data for every single page. SWinxy (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC) - Keep but noinclude per above. --ZZZ'S 00:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or noinclude per 142.113.140.146. Useless clutter. C F A 💬 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but noinclude per above. AKK700 01:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as useless clutter. If a given talk page has consistently high traffic, a banner to that effect like "Caution: this article is one of Wikipedia's most-visited" would be not only clearer but easier to interpret at a glance. Even if the template worked, a graph of pageviews lacks that important context and just serves as clutter. Dan • ✉ 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (annual readership)
[edit]Here is a sandboxed example using modified language in the expanded template message. The example is for the article World War I:
![]() | Daily pageviews of World War I
Please click here for an interactive graph showing page views for World War I, extending from one year ago through yesterday. Once you get there, you will be able to change to line graph or other formats, display page views logarithmically if desired, change the date range on the x-axis to shorter or longer periods, add the names of other Wikipedia pages to compare to, and many other options. You can find complete documentation for the Pageviews graph tool here. |
Obviously, we can choose any alternative wording that makes sense. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- This misses the point. The wording isn't the issue, its the lack of the graph, which is the entire purpose of the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you click the link? The graph works. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- This template used to produce a graph within the template box. Past arguments focused on the fact that this was quicker, more accessible and simpler than other tools. Without the actual graph, this template is a massive, glorified link that is more easily accessed through other means. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the more easily accessed method? Easier than one click off the Talk page? If you scroll up a bit to the brown box and click 'Daily pageviews', you get a graph. If you've got something easier, please tell me. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- From "Tools", "Page information", then "Page view statistics". Same two clicks, no? --Bsherr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. If you scroll up to a bit and click 'Daily pageviews', it is easy to find, and the result is an immediate page view graph that is one click away, after a very short (1-second?) search. Following your instructions makes you search three times: first for "Tools", then for "Page information" (I wouldn't have realized to search for "Page information" in order to get Daily pageviews, I only knew because you told me), and then assuming you do click that, there is quite a bit of searching to find page views on that page, near the bottom, as it turns out. (That's two clicks, three searches.) How long will that typically take a user, assuming they even try? Do you truly think the template and your method are equivalent? I find the latter method far more difficult, and takes far longer, assuming I keep searching long enough to find the right link. Other users who don't have the benefit of your prior advice, won't know that the link even exists, so how long do they keep searching for something that might not exist, before they give up? It will certainly be harder for them, and I suspect most will just give up, and do without. That would be unhelpful to readers and editors, imho, and therefore I think the template still provides a valuable service. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- From "Tools", "Page information", then "Page view statistics". Same two clicks, no? --Bsherr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the more easily accessed method? Easier than one click off the Talk page? If you scroll up a bit to the brown box and click 'Daily pageviews', you get a graph. If you've got something easier, please tell me. Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This template used to produce a graph within the template box. Past arguments focused on the fact that this was quicker, more accessible and simpler than other tools. Without the actual graph, this template is a massive, glorified link that is more easily accessed through other means. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here is another alternative:
- Did you click the link? The graph works. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Daily pageviews of World War I on Toolforge
Please click here for an interactive graph showing page views for World War I, extending from one year ago through yesterday. Once you get there, you will be able to change to line graph or other formats, display page views logarithmically if desired, change the date range on the x-axis to shorter or longer periods, add the names of other Wikipedia pages to compare to, and many other options. You can find complete documentation for the Pageviews graph tool here. |
- The hidden content wording isn't the issue, but can the header wording compensate to make people click? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Washington Metro station platform templates
[edit]- Template:WMATA BS east platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA BS east platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Green platform layout/island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Green platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Green platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA OBS platform layout/island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA OBS platform layout/side (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA OBS platform layout/surface (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Orange platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Orange platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Platform Layout L'Enfant Plaza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Red platform layout/island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Red platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Red platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Silver west platform layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Silver west platform layout/next (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WMATA Silver west platform layout/previous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Washington Metro station platform templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous consensus to deprecate these tabular diagrams: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all: Consensus is clear to depreciate these old platform layouts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and repeated previous consensuses regarding similar templates. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:2024–25 UEFA Champions League league phase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template is unneeded as the code removed in this edit did the same job. Several previous discussions have resulted in consensus against having separate single-table sports templates and have favoured transclusion instead. Originally discussed here and further information available here. No indication this consensus has changed and no reason this competition should be treated differently. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Substitute and delete per discussions on the use of singular tables. However, I imagine having this table in the same article with all the match results will cause a number of edit conflicts (which is why the template namespace is useful). But this seems to be the consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Subst and delete as above. GiantSnowman 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Angel (1999 TV series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer with Template:Angel (1999 TV series).
The two television series are part of the same franchise. There is a major overlap between the two templates. See Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/sandbox for how it would look like after a merge. Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a standalone series and not only one of the premier television series of its era but of all-time. Wikipedia's Buffy collection does not include Angel, a related cross-over spinoff. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, what? They are part of the same franchise, that's just a fact. See Buffyverse. --Mika1h (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same character-related "franchise" but two different television series, with Angel being a spin-off. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is considered one of the greatest television series of all-time. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Angel is a spinoff of Buffy, I know that. What is your oppose rationale here, I still don't understand it. --Mika1h (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- That Buffy, because of the series' prominence in television history, should continue to have its own standalone navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Angel is a spinoff of Buffy, I know that. What is your oppose rationale here, I still don't understand it. --Mika1h (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same character-related "franchise" but two different television series, with Angel being a spin-off. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is considered one of the greatest television series of all-time. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, what? They are part of the same franchise, that's just a fact. See Buffyverse. --Mika1h (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. There is a very large overlap with linked articles, with mostly the first group ("series") section being the unique links. The way the current templates are constructed, there is no reason to keep them separated. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. Randy Kryn's mention of the importance of Buffy being much greater than Angel credits the assertion that Angel really is a subordinate topic and that navigation between these topics would be aided by combining them. I think there is only one character included that is unique to Angel, yes? --Bsherr (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. They are part of the same franchise, and the mockup combines the two effectively. Flabshoe1 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Candidate lists in elections in the Netherlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections with Template:Candidate lists in elections in the Netherlands.
The current template mostly links to sections instead of the pages, which is a bit much. Given that there are now also lists for general elections, I believe it is better to have one template that shows all (notable) candidate lists, without linking to the specific sections. Dajasj (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Would you not get a very big template then? The Banner talk 11:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mwah, in the short term Template:Candidate lists in elections in the Netherlands won't get bigger than this (it's not easy to get the information from the source). And there are no more EP elections other than I've already included in the template. If you compare the height of the target template with Template:Dutch candidate lists for European Parliament elections, it's a big simplification and a smaller template. Dajasj (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Per nomination, not necessary to link all separate party lists, since they are all on the same page. (and for those interested in EP party lists across years for a particular party, these exists already) Without link for all individual parties, there is no need for a separate template for European Parliament elections. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
After trying to rewrite this template to remove the need for passing the year as a parameter in favor of simply using {{title year}}, I have come to the conclusion that this template is like a Self-Operating Napkin: Too fancy for its own good. It does zero computations based on its input (besides the basic "don't use this functionality if not given the necessary parameters").
Compare these two versions of Category:1862 in the American Civil War: without using this template and with using this template. I think the without version is much easier to understand and therefore more sustainable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The countries should be replaced with {{Year in country category}} (which at some point should really be updated to get the country name automatically). The europe one should be replaced with {{Year in continent category}}. The baseball one does not seem to have a generic category template (only {{YYYY Major League Baseball season category header}}). Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This individual page edit notice has the same content as group notice Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Contentious topics. This causes duplicate banner to appear when . Note that Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Contentious topics/alert, as an example, has completely different content to the group notice ( ). —andrybak (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine to delete or just blank. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking will leave the link with the text "Page notice" linking to the blank page. These links are on the right, just above the top right corner of the banner on desktop. This might be confusing. —andrybak (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons stated. Cheers! Johnson524 18:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons stated. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Liberal Democrats London mayoral selection, 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Hardly a useful navbox, with only two of six items linked to existing articles. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Dogs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
WP:NENAN, just two links (plus the backlink) The Banner talk 23:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The navbox only has three entries. Very few navboxes should exist with only three entries. Plus, the musical topic is certainly not the primary topic for a navbox named 'Dogs'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have not been able to verify this information. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1874 Canadian federal election/Guysborough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't verify this information. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 null. I'm actually going to speedy close this as a null request; there is already an active WP:TFDH and previous consensus established for this template. Izno (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Mop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distractionbecause the usernames are no longer left-aligned. Only 3 other projectspace transclusions and none needed a wrapper as much as Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, so subst those with
{{icon|mop}}
. Perhaps this will fix the WP:PEIS problems on that page. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no issue with the icon, because it does serve a purpose (to indicate that the person is, or was, an admin). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- MOS is not usually relevant for templates the main use of which is outside the main space. Izno (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Old discussions
[edit]
I couldn't verify the information here. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, source (Library of Parliament database of historical election results) added. RA0808 talkcontribs 05:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The template previously linked four articles, making it more useful, but two of the sub-articles got merged, and I don't think there's a need for a template for only two articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Newyorkerize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template violates accessibility guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, as screen readers will vocalize the diaereses, rendering the words unintelligible. I can confirm this is the case, as I tested the template by installing a text-to-speech web browser extension. Amendment: I may have incorrectly filed this, as my nomination was not for deletion but for discussion, as this is a templates for discussion. The issue isn't the mere use of the diaereses but its non-standard application of them, which would be vocalized by text readers. Svampesky (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not invent the diæresis. It's been part of the English language for at least a century; if there is an accessibility issue with people using uncommon orthography, this is something which needs to be resolved either by the embedding of metadata (e.g. setting a non-printing tag with correct pronunciation) or the improvement of screen-reading software. In either case, I posit it would be better to better handle this case through a coöperative endeavour, rather than immediate deletion of any template which (within five hours of its creation) does not emit perfectly compliant accessibility-supporting output to all software ever written. jp×g🗯️ 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not commenting on the issue, just this text:
or the improvement of screen-reading software
. That isn't something that can happen in a Wiki discussion. If there is an issue with screen readers and something we do (even if it is correct), we should stop doing it until the issue on their end is resolved. Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Off the top of my head -- we once had a user named ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ; we currently have a user named ජපස (his name is not even written like that irl, he just uses the letters). We have user signatures featuring stuff like "×", "🗯️", "☏", "¢", "😼", and the utterly cursed "𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇" -- we have people who use diacritics and diæresis on Latin characters in articles, talk page discussions and their own names. If it is in any way incumbent on us to avoid ever using characters outside of the standard ASCII set, this comes as extremely significant news to me. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is backwards. The burden is on screen-reading software to parse text as it exists correctly out in the world, not on us to change otherwise correct content to make it screen reader compatible. Sdkb talk 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not commenting on the issue, just this text:
- Keep. There's almost certainly better ways to go about this than immediately flagging something for deletion without so much as trying to consult the person that made the template first or even just creating a discussion about it on the talk page. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep on principle. Nominating a potentially useful, and decently documented, template seven hours after its creation is too bitey (link for explanation of WP jargon; I know that JPxG is not a newcomer). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not find the accessibility argument the nominator made persuasive. However, I'm struggling a bit to see the utility of this template, as we don't really use the New Yorker style. Why did you create it, JPxG? I'm inclined to keep it if there's any valid reason, even if just for humor (templates are fairly cheap), although I'd consider adding
{{subst only}}
to the doc. Sdkb talk 15:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC) - Delete. I honestly can't see a realistic purpose for this template. It's not going to be used in mainspace (points in the general direction of WP:MOS), and anyone who wants to go the length of doing something like this elsewhere will know what to do anyway. Izno (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to a title that makes sense. I could see someone wanting to add diaeresis to their prose and lacking the appropriate keyboard shortcuts / editing interface copypasta, but how on earth would anyone know to look for this template to accomplish that task? I take it from context that the New Yorker includes this in their house style, but I personally associate it with Tolkien, and to a lesser extent with Tamzin. When I saw the template title I thought it had to do with wrapping an IPA pronunciation to add a New York accent to it. Clearly doesn't violate accessibility guidelines. Folly Mox (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think
I could see someone wanting to add diaeresis to their prose
would fail to uphold the expectations in MOS:COMMONALITY. Diareses have gone the way of the dodo in English (specifically ignoring the New Yorker, hence the name). This is not a template that should be used in main space. Izno (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- Userfy Unused.
- However, the other deletion arguments are weak. Which
text-to-speech web browser extension
? Google TalkBack pronounces "coöperatively" fine. iOS/Windows probably do too. We can't let just anyone write their badly-coded ersatz screen reader and demand Wikipedia accommodate them. - Diacritics don't impair understanding so they aren't the main target of MOS:COMMONALITY. Wikipedia should coöperate and not stylistically impose a diaresis-lacking WP:ENGVAR. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are more suggestions above. Any ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Hamas history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template also has a poorly defined function per WP:TG. Contrary to its name of "Hamas history," it seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information about "Hamas members," including their positions and years and places of birth and death. For some reason there is also an assassination-like map attached to the template. It is also unsourced and fails four of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. It should be deleted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was intending to change the template page name to "Hamas members", I had already changed the displayed title, but I assume moving it during the deletion discussion would cause trouble?
- Which four WP:NAVBOX guidelines does it fail and how? the only one I can see a major problem with is "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" but that could be solved fairly easily by either renaming it {{Hamas sidebar}} or creating
List of Hamas membersa new page. - The sources are all in the linked pages. I have only once seen a source in a navbox, so I presumed they were against the style guide? but I can add them if they are allowed?
- It doesn't show assassinations, the map shows birthplaces and family origins (most of them died in Gaza, or outside the range of the map, a map wouldn't show much).
- FourPi (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- On second thoughts a list seems inappropriate, it at least needs another name? "List of members" has the "assassination map" feel to it? And I think the template already matches well enough other pages like List of Hamas leaders or Hamas history? We already have a lot of pages about Hamas, we need to sort and link what we have already. Currently {{Hamas sidebar}} seems most fitting, a lot of topics have a comprehensive footer and a summary sidebar? FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – I think there's no more issue regarding this sidebar. For the sidebar, no need to put the references as per WP:NAVBOX. However, we have to create new page based on this. I totally agree that we maybe can create the List of Hamas members page to fulfilled the guidelines.
- – Thegreatrebellion (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Would you support changing it into a horizontal template? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why would horizontal be better? FourPi (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we already have that, Template:Hamas. I think we better just don't change it to the horizontal one and change the content of it.
- – Thegreatrebellion (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, can you rephrase it? FourPi (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: is arguing for the merge of the two into the horizontal template, which I would definitely support. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think they are suggesting we improve it and keep it separate? FourPi (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: is arguing for the merge of the two into the horizontal template, which I would definitely support. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thegreatrebellion: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, can you rephrase it? FourPi (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly because based on how its used in the Mohammed Deif it serves no real purpose. It would only be marginally helpful to someone who's trying to learn about Hamas's history through its members, and it slightly assists in navigation for that one purpose. It would be more elegant to have a list of important Hamas members linked in the Hamas template. TimeEngineer (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TimeEngineer Can you explain what you mean by "how its used in the Mohammed Deif" page? if there are still two very similar sidebars there, then I agree we don't need both, but the lack of other images etc. meant it didn't seem urgent to decide which. FourPi (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Ronald Reagan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Barack Obama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Bill Clinton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Gerald Ford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of George H. W. Bush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of George W. Bush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Presidency of Joe Biden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Precedent from my nomination of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox. All links here are featured on the main navbox. I can understand the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. All of these templates must go and don't add much for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Strongly Oppose Discussion of presidency templates vs. president biography templates remains ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so
this nominationthese nominations and the prior deletion of the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox are now arguably without merit. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- That discussion did not result in consensus. You are ignoring long community standard of having a clear consensus on any major changes to any style of formatting in regards to these templates. If a discussion is ongoing, then a nomination for deletion is not without merit. More templates are not a solution here and not every article deserves its own template. There had been no issue with the main president navbox having articles of their presidency included. You are editwarring across these templates even to go far to restore the Jimmy Carter navbox after it had been redirected following the Tfd for its own discussion. This is a violation of policy to edit war after Tfd consensus. And in several of your edits, you cite consensus was gained, but no such thing as happened. You are subverting discussion protocol and you can be reported to the ANI discussion board for this. So, please stop and let other users here add their views. You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is.
It would not be necessary to repeat what I've said in furtherance of enforcing existing content policies that reflect already-existing community consensus per WP:NOTBUREAU if other editors didn't engage in the type of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has engaged, namely false accusations and mischaracterizations as well as ownership behavior. The previous discussion continued without my knowledge and on a false premise due to Randy Kryn's reversions. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion did not result in consensus. You are ignoring long community standard of having a clear consensus on any major changes to any style of formatting in regards to these templates. If a discussion is ongoing, then a nomination for deletion is not without merit. More templates are not a solution here and not every article deserves its own template. There had been no issue with the main president navbox having articles of their presidency included. You are editwarring across these templates even to go far to restore the Jimmy Carter navbox after it had been redirected following the Tfd for its own discussion. This is a violation of policy to edit war after Tfd consensus. And in several of your edits, you cite consensus was gained, but no such thing as happened. You are subverting discussion protocol and you can be reported to the ANI discussion board for this. So, please stop and let other users here add their views. You are Bludgioning this discussion well beyond what has been tolerable for users to see what your argument is. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- All duplication between the president biography and presidency templates has been removed per expressed preference of editors for smaller biography templates at the discussion, so
- Strong Support per the Presidency of Jimmy Carter deletion. CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes. Per Jimmy Carter. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Edit war in progress, which I'll try to avoid, presidential entries are now being removed from individual navboxes where they have been present since their inception. I reverted a couple but am not going to keep playing whack-a-navbox. Please stop edit warring. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
CommonKnowledgeCreator, you missed the point there and here. Removing the presidency topics from these individuals overall navboxes separates access to massive portions of their lives from readers of the linked articles. As only one example of many, family is missing - and all of these individuals had family living with them in the White House. Books about their presidency, campaigns which brought them to the presidency, etc., should not be divided among two navboxes when one has been adequate for the entire existence of their navboxes.
You have missed the point there and here. As I noted at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion, other editors there have expressed a preference for the shortened version of the biography templates as I have modified them, and you have consistently been dismissive of the concerns that I have raised with your assertions about how the templates should be organized. Other editors that I have had discussions with at Talk:Presidential Succession Act explicitly stated that legislation should generally not be included in biography templates, while per WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE, editors are not permitted to create criteria for inclusion in a template that suggests certain topics related to a broader topic are of grater importance than others. Since that's the case, then none of them should be included in the biography templates and a separate presidency should be created instead because it so broad of a topic that it requires a separate map from the biography. A president's family is not related to their presidency; they had family members before and after their presidencies and having family members is not part of a president's official duties or powers.- Unless something like a family wedding happens at the White House during the presidency as an official ceremony, it is unrelated. Books about their presidency are not typically written by administration officials, and as such are not directly related to their presidency. Some campaigns happen before individuals are President, and such campaigns are not part of their presidencies, while being President-elect is an official government position under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, one-term presidents are under no constitutional or legal obligation to seek a second term, and as such, it is not an official duty or power of the presidency and is thus unrelated to the presidency. By contrast, signing bills into law, issuing executive orders, Supreme Court decisions over the decisions and directives, are related their presidency because those do involve official duties and responsibilities. This is not an edit war; you are an editor acting as though you own this project (WP:OWN) since only you really
youseem to have a problem with it. WikiCleanerMan's comments are about duplication, which there would not be if you would stop reverting my edits. You also clearly have little or no understanding of how the U.S. system of government works or about the Presidency of the United States, and as such, should not be editing about these topics. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)- There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Wikipedia collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CON, if consensus is not reached by editing, then consensus is reached by discussion using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and not by voting on resolutions. Editors in the discussion have expressed a preference for smaller biography templates, opposition to duplicative templates, and support for separating presidency templates from biography templates, while other editors created the Presidency of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Barack Obama, Presidency of Donald Trump, and Presidency of Joe Biden templates—which means that there would be a consensus by editing in favor of separate presidency templates if you would stop reverting the biography templates so that there is duplication to justify deleting the separate presidency templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Likewise, after reviewing the relist discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox (which I was not notified of), the consistent concern expressed by editors has been mainly about duplication rather than your preference for including a selection of the topics related to a presidency in the biography template of the president—which I would reiterate is inconsistent with the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus in the discussion you link. Very large presidential sections on president navboxes can be placed in a collapsible section without readers losing access to the complete Wikipedia collection (Trump, Biden included). Much information-loss occurs when long-time entries are removed from the principal navboxes, which you have done at the navboxes under this discussion, citing a non-existent consensus, and then have edit warred over when that information was returned. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Why would you get rid of them? The presidencies of these presidents are an extremely important tool for documenting the history of the country and the world. Not just for the policies, but also the many events under their watch and decisions they made. We need to add even more to them. Significantly more. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the navbox being larger.
I would add, as I noted in the deletion discussion for the Presidency of Jimmy Carter template and at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, not every law that they have signed during their terms in office is being included and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. Like I've noted here, in the previous deletion discussion, and at the talk page discussion, to do otherwise would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX—specifically the part of the latter policy that states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template 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". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency.I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms.- I'd also add that WP:NAVBOX also explicitly states: "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency.
I agree insofar as you are referring to the Presidencies of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield since Criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX states "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." However, the templates you have nominated for deletion satisfy Criterion 1 ("All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject") and entries can easily be changed to satisfy Criterion 2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article"), which means at least 3 of the 5 criteria that WP:NAVBOX recommends for good navigation templates would be satisfied for them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)- Vinnylospo, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair, but I think either one should be way way larger. Including major events, disasters, deaths, etc Vinnylospo (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Vinnylospo. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah but what about for major political deaths that they presided over like P. Nixon, R. Nixon and Foster for Clinton or Reagan, Ford, Rehnquist and Lady Bird for Bush? Vinnylospo (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Vinnylospo. Major events, deaths, etc. should only be included on navboxes if they have something to do with the navbox topic. A person's presidency covers the actions that they were involved in, not everything going on in the world. Things like that are covered by other navboxes and articles. Somebody dying during a presidential term is very tangential to that term of office unless, like the Osama bin Laden killing by Obama, they were directly involved. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair, but I think either one should be way way larger. Including major events, disasters, deaths, etc Vinnylospo (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates, these navboxes duplicate the entries already present at the president's navbox. Separating the person from the presidency also separates their other life achievements from reader access while having them in one place - which has always been done and for the same reasoning. Nothing is lost by deleting these duplicate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well yeah I wouldn’t make one for those three either. Vinnylospo (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think of you delete all of those, you have to delete the one for Trump too. It’s only fair. Vinnylospo (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his {{Donald Trump}} navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
...if you can work your way through CKC's walls of text and extreme edit warring at the templates... Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
...and if too large for easy viewing [as] they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. ...Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo(talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, let me be very clear because you have mischaracterized what I have explicitly said in these discussions: I do not oppose using collapsable sections with these navigation templates. Actually, I'll go further: I do not oppose merging the biography and presidency templates with collapsable sections. However, other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page this past February argued that legislation should generally not be included in a biography template. However, the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy requires that there be no additional criteria leading to a selection of related topics for inclusion in a navigation template due to the core WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, and if laws are not sufficiently related to the biography of a president even
ifthough they are directly related to their presidency (since the president signs them into law), then other topics related to their presidency are not sufficiently related to their biography either. - Additionally, WP:NAVBOX expresses a preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then they probably should be, and other editors at the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page expressed a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them and have since expressed a preference for excluding articles related to the president's biography (i.e. the family members, books about the presidencies, and elections). I have no problem with large navigation templates with collapsable sections, but other editors in these discussions do not appear to agree with what you are proposing for these templates and would appear prefer the splits. I am trying to keep the templates consistent with the explicit letter and rationale behind the content policies and the expressed preferences of most of the other editors I have interacted with throughout these discussions—of which you are only one, and would be unreasonable for your preferences to dictate outcomes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty condense it all into one. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here.
Yes, it does, and no, I didn’t. The WP:NAVBOX policy states: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." It is not from any explanatory essay. The criterion that Iproposedadded from the WP:ATC essay for the WP:NAVBOX policy has nothing to do with the length of navigation templates but with overlapping entries.AllWhat I have proposed to the WP:NAVBOX policy with respect to template length is additional language that recommends but does not require splitting large navigation templates into smaller templates where the smaller templates would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates.- I would add that WP:NOTBUREAU notes that existing content policies document an already-existing community consensus about a topic, so the explicit preference for smaller templates in the WP:NAVBOX policy that I've explicitly quoted in this comment reflects an existing community consensus about navigation templates while your preferences do not. Additionally, per WP:CON, multiple editors in the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page discussion have stated an explicit preference for smaller templates (as well as WikiCleanerMan in their original post for the deletion nomination), for the biography templates as I had modified them, and for the presidency templates that I created. The Presidential Succession Acts are laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so the talk page discussion I had with the editors there in February is not "out-of-the-way".
- As I have said multiple times in these discussions, this is not an edit war and you are engaging in ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) with respect to
thisthe biography templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't, that's from an essay that you just tried to sandwich into the guideline criteria. As for the discussion you mention just above, that was a local discussion at an out-of-the-way talk page, and would not apply here. Collapsed sections on navboxes are useful, common, and solve all of your concerns. These "presidential" navboxes are not needed and, if presidential items are removed from existing navboxes, do serious damage to site navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my previous comment. WP:NAVBOX has an explicit preference for smaller templates such that if a larger template can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates then that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think doing it like Template:Iraq War would be ideal as you can have a tab for each one. And include the Template:Presidency of Donald Trump, you can take those as well as the ones for his family, media, businesses as well. It’s weird how Trump has multiple bag boxes when you can in all honesty condense it all into one. Vinnylospo (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I don’t get why we don’t just merge them all into one. Like for instance, look at how the Iraq war is done, there’s sub nav boxes within that nav box. I think that would be great. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vinnylospo, yes, agreed, but the entries for Trump's presidential term(s) should be included on his {{Donald Trump}} navbox, and if too large for easy viewing they can be, as I've mentioned, put into an enlargable section which would be collapsed when viewing the navbox. This solution is the obvious solution to the larger navboxes, and has been used on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes. Thanks for staying with the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- To briefly sum up: CommonKnowledgeCreator split entries from long-term navboxes and defends this action, although the similar navbox for Jimmy Carter's presidency had been deleted. I'm saying that the existing navboxes are fine and nothing is broken, although two, three, or so may need to include a collapsible section for the person's presidency. Providing the full Wikipedia map to the individual's life in one place, including the important links related to their presidency, is the strength of such navboxes. If they are separated then the readers of each of the individual's articles would lose access to over half of Wikipedia pathways to other notable topics related to person's life. I think including a collapsible section for the longer navboxes is a reasonable compromise which should satisfy everyone. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
To brief sum up...
To brief sum up: User:Randy Kryn has engaged in ownership behavior with respect to the biography templates and has repeatedly mischaracterized my comments and editing. The entries were split into separate templates for presidencies that already had Wikipedia articles separate from the biography articles per WP:NAVBOX Criterion 3 for good navigation templates, only included entries that already had Wikipedia articles and to keep the templates shorter per WP:NAV-WITHIN and the WP:NAVBOX explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, and to have templates with objective criteria for article inclusion per WP:NAVBOX, WP:ATC, and WP:UNDUE—as including only a selection of articles related to a presidency in a biography template gave undue weight to the arbitrarily selected topics. I don't disagree with the proposal for collapsable sections, but per WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:NAVBOX's explicit preference for smaller navigation templates, where navigation templates can be split into smaller templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates that should probably be done. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)- I feel honestly, if we aren't going to have the navboxes be collapseable and have all of these events, I don't see the point. You might as well get rid of Trump's too if you are going to get rid of these ones. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The larger ones can be collapsed, that's the entire point of this long discussion which has gone off-track many times with personal attacks on my intentions. I'm a bit surprised I'm still treating CKC with some respect, and pat myself on the back for doing so. CKC seems to be saying that they wish to divide any and all navboxes which are large enough to have collapsible sections, and to get rid of that common feature. Many of Wikipedia's best navboxes are sectioned, that's just how they've always worked. CKC's emphasis on essays confuses the issue, and understanding the difference between essays and guidelines/policy is essential in working through the acceptance of long-term elements of navboxes, such as the popular and common collapsible section option. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose These navboxes are useful and meet criteria 1 of WP:NAVBOX. Length is not a reason to delete. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Overcolored (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Overcoloured (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Overcolored with Template:Overcoloured.
Previous TfDs for this template: |
Use {{engvar}}'s autodetect. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing to merge, as they are already merged - it occurred over twelve years ago: since then,
{{overcolored}}
has been a wrapper for{{overcoloured}}
with|US=y
forced, as I pointed out almost nine years ago at Template talk:Overcoloured#Redirect. Whilst it was a WP:BOLD merge by Thumperward (talk · contribs), for which I cannot find any discussion or other relevant notices at either Template talk:Overcoloured or Template talk:Overcolored, it was never reverted and has stood the test of time. There is also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 18#Template:Overcoloured. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- The autodetect is new in 2024. By "merge", I would like to revert the wrapper into a redirect after adding {{engvar}} to {{overcoloured}}.
- Compare what I added to {{Cleanup colors}} in [1]. It almost works and is waiting on my TPER.
- I think this cleaner solution is better. I am at TfD precisely because it
has stood the test of time
. I would like to either:- Remove
|US=
(and rely on autodetect) if nobody needs it - Remove
|US=
and add|engvar=
if someone wants customization - Keep
|US=
and add|engvar=
if backwards compatibility is a concern - Keep
|US=
and not add|engvar=
(but still keep autodetect) if people feel it's too cluttered
- Remove
- 142.113.140.146 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I boldly merged this in [2] using the 1st option (no manual override), now that {{engvar}} is fixed and I enabled autodetect in [3]. A side effect is that it changed many articles, but among them were many fixes like 2000 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I reverted you. When a page is under discussion at WP:XFD, you should not pre-empt the outcome of that discussion; and if it's a page that you took to XFD, you most definitely must leave it for somebody else to close, which should be no earlier than 06:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, I mistook
There is nothing to merge, as they are already merged
as a go-ahead. So there seems to be "something to merge." WP:NACIP already bars me from closing. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, I mistook
- And I reverted you. When a page is under discussion at WP:XFD, you should not pre-empt the outcome of that discussion; and if it's a page that you took to XFD, you most definitely must leave it for somebody else to close, which should be no earlier than 06:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Oh god, this is one of the silliest examples of engvar I've seen. It's a banner (not actual content), what does it matter if it says "color" or "colour". Even without the op's autodetect I would have supported deletion. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redrose64, apologies for being obtuse, but am I reading your objections above mainly to be procedural? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly; the demonstration of how it could be done should not have been by editing the live template, but by means of the template's sandbox and testcases, per WP:TESTCASES. But I am always wary of any template that uses the Lua
getContent()
function in order to obtain a simple value (in this case the English language variant): it causes the page to transclude itself, which is potentially expensive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)- IPs can't create
the sandbox and testcases
. Low-transclusion unprotected templates aren't high-risk. - No, a msgnw-like
transclude
is nowherepotentially expensive
(verify). Don't worry about performance unless a specific page needs it. I sawgetContent()
only now, but you can discuss it with the author. - If you create
the sandbox and testcases
, I'm open to editing them beforehand when requested. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- IPs can't create
- Partly; the demonstration of how it could be done should not have been by editing the live template, but by means of the template's sandbox and testcases, per WP:TESTCASES. But I am always wary of any template that uses the Lua
- Template:Empty-warn-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Similarly to {{Empty-warn}} (see RfD) the name is confusing. "Empty" is understood to mean either A3 or C1 but not A1 which does not apply to empty pages. This template was kept at a previous TfD because it was used by PageCuration but this no longer applies as it has been removed from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Deletion is my preferred outcome since the template is unused butI wouldn't oppose moving it to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF which would be a reasonable title and would match the pattern in Wikipedia:Page Curation/Templates. Nickps (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Keep. Still used by mw:PageTriage. See deletionTags.json line 22. There are plans to convert PageTriage to use standard rather than custom (-NPF) templates in phab:T362477, but we're not there yet. These -NPF templates should stay in the meantime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (
The redirect might cause confusion
). Besides being a standard practice to leave these redirects (which is why the software automatically does it), it alleviates confusion rather than causing confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that a {{R from page move}} falls under WP:R#D2 (
- Well in this case the redirect falls under WP:R#D2 since, as I've said above "empty" is not really associated with A1 but since the deletion isn't uncontroversial anymore, I'll take it to RfD when the time comes. Nickps (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't G6 the redirect. Redirects from page moves are supposed to exist forever, to help people track down pages that have moved. They cost nothing for us to keep :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I picture it going. First the TfD closes as move so the template is moved to the new title and the redirect at the old title makes it so PageTriage won't get broken. Then I open the task to update deletionTags.json and finally when the update is made, I tag the redirect for WP:G6. Is that fine? Nickps (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should probably wait for the TfD to close. For all I know someone may object. I'll do it right after that. Nickps (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps Can you file a task to update deletionTags.json Sohom (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I feel strongly enough about to bring it here. Let's make it happen. Nickps (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not ideal. Cam we at least move the page to Template:Nocontext-warn-NPF? The redirect left behind will make it so nothing gets broken and we can delete it as soon as deletionTags.json gets updated. Nickps (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer Please ping me when the TfD is closed so I don't forget to file the task. That is, unless you want to do it yourself. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Resize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Midsize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Resize with Template:Midsize.
{{resize}}
reduces text to 90%. {{midsize}}
reduces text to 92%. As seen in the lorem ipsum samples at the bottom of {{Font size templates}}
, they are all but indistinguishable. In the interest of eliminating unnecessary complexity, I suggest merging midsize with resize, making them "aliases" a la small and smaller. Uses of midsize would be further reduced from 92% to 90%. What are the odds that those uses will be adversely impacted? Exceedingly low, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I somehow botched it using Twinkle. This should be a proposal to merge midsize into resize. No clue how to fix it since it affects a lot more pages than this one. (One would think Twinkle would be smart enough to catch this error. One would be wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- the Earth page is completely broken due to a message going "‹ The template below (Resize) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›".
- this should be fixed i think TerrariaTree3852 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to fix this; see my contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that 92% or 90% does not make any difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have an opinion about this template, but this nomination has broken the heavily used template:XfD relist. See today's RfD for example. Please can you unbreak it quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed (disabled the banner at transclusions). SilverLocust 💬 09:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tentative merge: {{midsize}} accepts
|size=
, which can translate to|1=
in {{resize}} (if|2=
is present, AFAICT). {{midsize}} also accepts|height=
for line-height. Would we add that parameter to {{resize}}, or get rid of it? Someone will need to make a detailed plan for this merge to be successful. A sandbox version of the merged template would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Someone will need to make a detailed plan
- Someone knowledgeable and eminently competent like you, I suggest. You could manage the "project" and delegate to worker bees like me. I could handle anything but template code changes, such as template doc changes etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I have removed {{midsize}} from a number of templates in which it was violating MOS:SMALLFONT. Also, this proposed merge would presumably also affect {{midsizediv}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another usage is using it in a unlinked note. This should be replaced with actual note templates like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep commenting. I have found that the majority of uses of {{midsize}} are inside of navbox, infobox, and other templates in which the size of text is already reduced; I am working on removing those MOS:SMALLFONT violations rather than doing a template merge and then later having to remove it. This work should not affect the TFD outcome; I just don't want people to be surprised or suspicious when the initial 2,400 transclusions is drastically reduced during the course of this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Qwerfjkl and I have reduced {{midsize}}'s transclusions from about 2,400 to under 240 in article space by removing instances that conflicted with MOS:SMALLFONT. There are likely a few more that should be removed to comply with the guideline, but they are getting more difficult to find among the MOS-valid usages. If this discussion is closed as "merge", this trimming should make replacement easier. Also, I found only two instances of
|height=
being used among 2,000+ removals, so that parameter is probably safe to ignore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC) - I don't know what to think about this. Resize is a shit name for a template that defaults to 90% but also actually resizes things. {{font}} exists if a use actually needs an arbitrary number. So perhaps that's one to throw in the mix being considered here. I don't think it makes sense to merge the two nominated templates for what they're doing and how they're named. If I had any thought, it would be to change resize's default to 100% and then shift midsize's down to 90% from 92%. Either that or up to 95% (which would make it a valid use in infoboxes; 95% x 90% > 85%) and actually make it reasonably "mid"... size. So in that case it may have been premature to remove midsize from where it is used... Izno (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the
|div=
option. And Midsize does allow for arbitrary font size with the|size=
option. I tried to explain all of this above, but it looks like I failed. Again, if the target name is a problem, we should start another merge or rename discussion, not bail out entirely on a valid merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for
we should start another merge or rename discussion
, you are empowered to do so. That's why I said "find another target". The alternative is to make it clear how these are different templates, which would be removing the arbitrary font selection in midsize. As for {{midsizediv}}, that's not part of this template despite your framing it as a question of options that would be in this template (it's not). Anyway, we're into circles territory at this point, so I suggest you disengage. Izno (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- You did not fail, I disagree with your characterization of similarity. But even if that weren't the case, I'm arguing that the names are sufficiently bad that the merge itself is bad and should be rejected. "Again". As for
- They are pretty much identical. Midsize does allow a block content option, using {{midsizediv}}, mentioned above. It can be switched to {{resize}} with the
- These aren't really all that identical though, if we're operating in the space of "templates that change sizes". Resize allows a block display and arbitrary font size. Midsize doesn't. And we shouldn't merge a template with a shit name into a template with... a half decent name. I think I'll make a bold comment now, oppose merge. Izno (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not entirely off topic: For another shit name, one with more adverse impact, see
|upright=
when used for image scaling. Been that way for many years and the shit name argument has failed in extended discussion(s). Seems we're inured to shit names. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in principle, but a suboptimal name at the (widely used) target shouldn't stop us from merging two essentially identical templates. If someone wants to propose that {{resize}} be renamed or split, that's a separate discussion. As for removing {{midsize}} from infoboxes and navboxes, text in those boxes is at 88% already, so 97% is the most that internal text can be reduced to, which is a pointless change for readers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I basically can't see any difference between what is produced by the two templates with default settings (permalink to a demonstration). (The difference in line height feels like it should be more impactful than the 1.8% difference in font size, but I can't tell the difference by looking at the template output despite trying in three different browsers.) If one template supports more functionality than the other, or if they support slightly different subsets of functionality, that's an argument in favour of merging rather than an argument against – it means that people don't need to look through a range of templates until they find the exact template (if any) that has the particular subset of functionality they need (and {{Font size templates}} doesn't really do a good job of explaining the differences) – ensuring that there's just one template that supports all the functionality of both will mean that the first template people find will be the one they need. There are sometimes reasons not to merge (e.g. merging into {{font}} may be a mistake – it supports a range of options that aren't supposed to be used in articles, such as absolute sizing, and thus increases the risk that it'll be used incorrectly), but {{resize}} and {{midsize}} are similar enough that any functionality that's useful with one will be useful with the other. --ais523 16:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Drummers by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging All of the above together.
These category templates basically set three parameters:
|Occupation=
|JobPortal=
|ParentOccupation=
Where the last two are the same value between the templates.
|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using {{last word|
, thus eliminating the need for endlessly creating these template for every single item, and using code to handle things more efficiently. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{PAGENAME}}
}}
Leanopposefor now. Hey there (as the template creators); I don't think that "|Occupation=
can be easily retrieved by using{{last word|{{PAGENAME<nowiki>}}}"
this actually applies. There are several nationalities that follow the structure of FOOians from COUNTRY, such as the Russian Empire and Georgia, and Northern Ireland. So it would not always grab the template. I do think that this could be generalized to a broader range of musical instruments, but not how you have described it. Part of the advantage of making the template specific to a given occupation is to keep flexibility if the parents change or another parent category is added. Each of the nominated templates have different parent categories.
- accordionists is parented by Aerophone players and Keyboardists
- pianists is parented by Category:Keyboardists,
- violinists is parented by Category:Bowed-string musicians,
- guitarists is parented by Category:String musicians,
- drummers is parented by Category:Percussionists
At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. But merging them, as you have suggested, would eliminate that possibility down the line. I could see creating another layer on top that called a specific subtemplate based on the presence of a specific occupation, similar ot how Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header current works using |"{{#if:{{in string|source={{PAGENAME}}|target=FOO INSTRUMENT|plain=true|nomatch=}}"
. But I really would be reluctant to overgeneralize it. Mason (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Overgeneralizing this system is much more better than having hundreds of similar templates like this. The maintenance burden in continuing with your current system is just insane. Regarding countries that won't work in the proposal, if you show a current category that it fails with it, I'm sure we can get it to work. Also, if the templates aren't complete then please stop creating more uncomplete templates and finish the ones that you've created. Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [4]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I think that a couple of questions and a suggestion on my talk page would have been more constructive than using ableist language to better understand the the purpose of the templates. Mason (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is "insane" to have templates that are specific to a given occupation. Right now there are 5 in your nomination, not hundreds. These templates are designed to be flexible so that changes in the category nesting can be easily applied, and ease the present burden on handling parent and child categories for a given occupation. I see this is much less burdensome than having to go through each nationality. As I already said, "At the present, I have not coded those in because those categories aren't sliced up by century at the moment. ". What I mean what there is no need right now, because the parent categories don't exist at the intersection of century and nationality. I've added in an example for accordionists [4]. I thought it wasn't a good use for resources to go through multiple if checks for categories that don't presently exist. It isn't that the templates are incomplete, its that there is the potential that these categories might eventually differ. Mason (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- FYI. The templates are no longer identical, and have not been since a few days of the original nom. Mason (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Administrator note I originally closed this as merge, but the decision was contested so I have reevaluated the discussion along with the additional information from the contest.
- On the one hand, I agree with Gonnym that having this level of granularity is probably excessive, and the type of musician could easily be added as a parameter or potentially hard-coded into the template logic itself. On the other hand, there are over 150 of these templates; merging five of them is not necessarily going to change the ethos of the system i.e. there are other category groups that are three/four/five levels down from the original template. To be honest, it was starting to feel like a "no consensus" close, but I then felt like this opinion was getting into supervote territory; I suppose I'll just re-open this and opine instead. I am very weakly advocating for a merge (not going to bold it though) and I feel like a broader discussion about this template family should be had (regardless of how this discussion closes) if there are concerns about getting too into the weeds about "Type A of type B of type C of subtype D found in E" templates. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Completed discussions
[edit]A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.