Wikipedia:Templates for discussion
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 90 | 95 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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: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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Did you click the link? The graph works. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Delete for the reasons stated. Cheers! Johnson524 18:01, 25 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 musical topic is certainly not the primary topic for a navbox named 'Dogs'. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 25 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)
- Template:Mop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
Abused against MOS:ICON. Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_22#Political_party_icon_templates and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_29#Taiwan_political_party_templates. Specifically, these go against MOS:DECORATION and it already says "former admin" at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. These worsen that page per one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction
because 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)
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:Cc-by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Same rationale as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 16#Template:Cc-by-sa – transclusionless template which causes an error only fixable by the person who placed the template (because other editors cannot divine what license the uploaded meant to use). Therefore, a dab is worse than useless. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Would a Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested solution prevent the
error only fixable by the person who placed the template
? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)- I would loathe to set up an edit filter – which runs on every single edit – to stop the use of one template. Much easier to delete it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, Delete per nom and the other TfD. I'm worried newbies may now randomly pick a specific CC license, but let's just see what happens. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would loathe to set up an edit filter – which runs on every single edit – to stop the use of one template. Much easier to delete it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Sticky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Draft or beta state according to doc. Last modified in May 2014, so possibly abandoned. Used on one user and sandbox page, and seems unlikely to be completed or used by others. "See also" section lists more complete and used alternatives. Jroberson108 (talk) 06:07, 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)
Indian T20 leagues
[edit]- Template:Bengal Pro T20 League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bihar Cricket League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Rajasthan Premier League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Delhi Premier League T20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Madhya Pradesh League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Maharashtra Premier League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:T20 Mumbai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:UP T20 League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Spate of templates for recently created local/state cricket tournaments that don't have enough blue links to warrant templates. The blue linked season articles are questionable whether they pass WP:GNG for lots of these event, but even without that, there aren't enough blue links left on any of these templates. And most of the red links e.g. for teams, should not be created, as they won't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have added all of these templates that I found with 3 or fewer blue links. I have left any templates with 4+ blue links for now, these could be discussed separately. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302 can these be merged into a Indian domestic cricket navbox with only the blue links? Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gonnym All of the parents articles e.g. Bengal Pro T20 League, Bihar Cricket League, already exist in {{Cricket in India}} (in the regional tournaments section). I wouldn't support putting season articles into that template, or creating a separate template just to include 1 or 2 season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302 can these be merged into a Indian domestic cricket navbox with only the blue links? Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Political party icon templates
[edit]- Template:FXM party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MC party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MRN party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PAN party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PASD party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PES party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PESol party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PH party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PNA party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PRD party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PRI party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PRM party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PSD party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PT party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PVEM party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:RSP party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Islamic Movement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Alliance Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Barisan Sosialis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Citizens' Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Democratic Party (Singapore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Democratic Progressive Party (Singapore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Katong United Residents' Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Labour Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Labour Party (Singapore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Liberal Socialist Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:National Party of Singapore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:National Solidarity Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People's Action Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People's Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Persatuan Melayu Singapura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Progressive Party (Singapore) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People's Power Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Progress Singapore Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Parti Rakyat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:People's Republican Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Reform Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Chinese Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Democratic Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Democratic Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Socialist Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Peoples Voice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singaporeans First (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Red Dot United (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Indian Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore Justice Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Malay Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore National Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore People's Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore People's Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Singapore United Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United Malays National Organisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United National Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United People's Front (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United People's Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United Singapore Democrats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Workers' Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The above are the remianing political party templates that use an icon and a name. A recent discussion deleted the Taiwan templates (see here). The party names (if missing) should be added to Module:Political party. The icons should be removed per MOS:ICON. If at any point we decide we want party icons, Module:Political party would still be the palce to add them back. --Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete after replacing with simple wikilinks per MOS:ICON. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:The Drugs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The navigation box regarding a musical group consists solely of redirects to the group. Geschichte (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete, provides no navigation between articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/sandbox/styles.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Obsolete and redundant to the better-designed Template:Sticky table start. Previously used on the templated covid tables. Not used anymore and unlikely to be used again. Note, its parent Template:COVID-19 pandemic data is still used. Jroberson108 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Single use template for a train The Banner talk 23:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:NENAT#Exceptions. Why does this keep coming up again and again? This issue has been discussed and resolved in favor of KEEP multiple times. Useddenim (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a railway line but a train. The Banner talk 16:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep please stop deleting rail route templates, especially this one presents some quality form of navigation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_everything_needs_a_template#Exceptions
- Zackrules90 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete after merging with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Project was deleted here. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete, project was deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Not enough blue links to warrant a template. All the red links are not notable articles (we do not require separate team articles for this low coverage tournament) and 2 of the blue links are at AFD too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:04, 22 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)
No transclusions. Possibly superseded by some other template (or by Module:Good Articles). Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions. Possibly superseded by some other template. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no main article and no transclusions. Redundant to {{Labour Party UK MPs}}. Created in 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no links to articles in the body. Created in 2021. Not usable for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete'. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no links to articles in the body. Created in 2021. Not usable for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete'. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Dead name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Constitutionally recognised languages in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sidebar with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in 2022. Appears to be redundant to {{Languages of India}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Chess Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Map template with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Auslib (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sidebar with no transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:AREint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2023. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:1874 Canadian federal election/York East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I couldn't find sources to confirm the information in this template is accurate. Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- keep, I used google for you and added a source. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, sourced to Library of Parliament historic election results page. RA0808 talkcontribs 04:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:East Wind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single use template. Info can be transcluded in the article about the line. The Banner talk 10:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't most rail lines single use templates? Zackrules90 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have restored the TfD-notice that you removed. And no, railway line templates are used more often. But this is not a railway line but a train. The Banner talk 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no difference between having an RDT for a railway line, and one for a named train. They both should be in a separate template - even if they are only used in a single article - for the reasons I listed below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have restored the TfD-notice that you removed. And no, railway line templates are used more often. But this is not a railway line but a train. The Banner talk 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete after merging with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep due to this note as this template presents present some quality form of navigation or information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_everything_needs_a_template#Exceptions
- Zackrules90 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: RDTs for all the various uses - railway lines, named trains, walking paths, waterways, etc - have been kept in separate templates for decades, and for good reason. They use completely different syntax than wikitext; it is very easy for a careless search-and-replace or a Visual Editor bug to mangle that. It's easier to modify an RDT as a separate page rather than embedded in an article, and it's easier to edit an article without the RDT code. Substing RDTs into an article solves absolutely nothing and makes things more difficult for everyone. In-use RDTs have consistently been kept at TfD over the years - why are you still trying to push the issue? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:45, 26 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)
- Template:Minute Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Single use template. Info can by included in the article about the line. The Banner talk 20:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the railroad destination templates are single use due to the unique stops they serve(d). Listing each stop within the article would be cumbersome which is why a unique template is ideal for this use. Zackrules90 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Route diagram templates are kept as separate templates for ease of editing and to keep easily-mangled code out of the article wikitext. That's been the standard for many years. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that this is about a named train, not a route. The Banner talk 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete after merging with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Whether the {{Routemap}} template is used in the article or not is an editorial question and not something TfD can consider. Pace Frietjes (talk · contribs), the template cannot be deleted without dealing with the attribution of the content. Normally this would be done with a redirect but see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Substing the {{Routemap}} template and associated content into the article is a reasonable outcome assuming a good approach on attribution; keep otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I do not see a rationale reason for not keeping it, especially since it has been the standard for many years. Zackrules90 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the discussion above
I couldn't find sources to verify this information, to show it is correct or notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- keep, google says [4] this is a reliable source. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Barack Obama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:WikiProject Barack Obama with Template:WikiProject United States.
As per this TFD, this should be merged into {{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes}}
The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This appears to have been done without discussion, so it might be worth actually sending it to MfD first. On the actual merit (and if this redirect holds), support replacement, not a merge. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama wasn't merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents but redirected to it. Note that also Wikipedia:WikiProject Bush family (Template:WikiProject Bush family) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gerald Ford (Template:WikiProject Gerald Ford) were also redirected by the same editor. Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:The Inspector (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Other than one film, all other entries redirect to the main article, so useless for navigation --woodensuperman 15:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Back to You (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only two episodes with articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Donald Trump invitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton invitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton were redirected after this MfD. Nothing left to invite to. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete, invite not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary template that has only been used for a very small subset of List of sea captains from a specific region, and all for articles created by a single (now banned) user. Melcous (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This template is essentially a navel-gazing exercise within a single now-banned editor's walled garden. It's inappropriately scoped for (and not integrated into) the greater encyclopedia, and most of the articles from the original set are of dubious notability and have since been deleted/redirected or inevitably will be soon. Left guide (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This template is only used to reinforce a WP:WALLEDGARDEN dug and weeded by an editor under a community ban 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see the benefit of this template. The Banner talk 23:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Christian Democratic National Peasants' Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conservative Party (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Democratic Liberal Party (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Greater Romania Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:National Liberal Party (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:New Generation Party (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Social Democratic Party (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The above are links to political party names. We've migrated over to use Module:Political party as a database for these. Add these if they are missing to the module, and replace usages with the relevant template. Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete, easier to type the link. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Deltarune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Completely overlaps with Template:Undertale, which Deltarune is in the same franchise in and houses no unique content on its own. It is nearly an exact duplicate of the Undertale navbox, with the only differences being some content getting moved around. And when you take out the content that is only related to Undertale / originates from it, you are left with two articles, that being Deltarune and its soundtrack, which are linked to eachother consistently. Additionally, all pages related to Deltarune already have the Undertale navbox. Basically, this template is useless. λ NegativeMP1 00:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe change the Undertale one to "Undertale and Deltarune" then? Benpiano800 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That would be the best result honestly. I would have suggested just keeping the whole thing under Toby Fox's template but I digress.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is the best solution, especially as the two works are very intentionally connected by the author, so it’s unlikely that they will diverge that much more (if anything, the recent UT character articles will likely be intermingled with Deltarune more). ― novov (t c) 01:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a fair solution. Are template merges possible? λ NegativeMP1 02:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, just basically copy everything over and redirect the Deltarune template to the Undertale one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete both and use {{Toby Fox}} instead. --woodensuperman 06:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Old discussions
[edit]
- Template:Move topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions except in one editor's sandbox. Proposed in 2020, apparently, but not used anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify on the "proposed in 2020" bit, here's the history as best as I can reconstruct it. In April 2020 Sdkb noted that the RM banner is relatively disruptive from a UX perspective and proposed a change to the banner. Generally there are three main issues with the RM banner which still apply in 2024 which I'll give in order of increasing severity.
- Unlike banner issues such as NPOV or inadequate sourcing, page titling is an editorial concern irrelevant to most readers. It contributes to banner blindness, and it immediately distracts the reader from trying to find the information they came to the page for.
- It brings a lot of noise to move discussions on highly trafficked pages. Our page titling criteria (e.g. COMMONNAME) and consensus based decision making (i.e. NOTAVOTE) are not well understood by the general public. Having closed a lot of requested moves including the 2020 Kyiv rename, closing becomes harder when you have a high volume of "ILIKEIT" comments and exceptionally so when it is on an active, high-profile, or geopolitical topic. This slows down the RM process and leads to the banner being up even longer which amplifies the first problem.
- The current RM banner and process are an effective vector for political campaigns to influence public opinion without actually needing to move the page. As a case study, take the inciting incident for this template which concerned the title of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which had 4 RMs in 1 month. Biden supporters wanted to focus on the allegation by Tara Reade and pushed for leaving Biden's name out of the title and using the singular rather than the plural; Biden opponents wanted to highlight Biden and other less substantiated allegations by including his name and using the plural. Ultimately I think we got the call right, but the problem wasn't making the right call: for over a week while this RM was active we advertised in Wikipedia's voice, without citation, that a major candidate for public office may have engaged in multiple sexual assaults. I think that's a bad outcome, but it's remarkably easy to pull off: just start a "good-faith" move discussion and you get free advertising for your unverified POV on any page you like no matter how high traffic for 7 days (or longer if it attracts enough noise to make finding a closer difficult).
- With all this as background, Netoholic suggested converting the RM notification from a page banner to what MediaWiki calls page status indicators and {{Move topicon}} was my attempt at implementing it. There was a technical problem with the template which caused it to stall out after a request to modify common.css, and given the pandemic at the time and other priorities I think it fell off everyones' radar. For the reasons above, I think it's still a viable initiative and worth keeping around in case someone wants to pick it up. — Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Wugapodes that it should be kept given the ongoing need to reform the way RMs are advertised. If anyone would like to help out with the common.css issue, I'd love to pick up the initiative again. Sdkb talk 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice subject to the consensus-establishing exercise that actually moves RM to using a template like this. "We might use it" isn't good enough. Izno (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's rather hard to develop any new feature if you're required to get the feature approved before you're allowed to create a demo. Sdkb talk 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly not being used as a demo, having been created 4 years ago. And I said "subject to the exercise" anyway, which at a gracious review might be interpreted as "whenever you get around to actually working on it again". Which can also be done in a user space sandbox anyway. Izno (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ready to work on it again now. We need help picking up from someone more familiar with CSS here. Sdkb talk 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- As discussed there, that specific request won't be implemented. RexxS appears to have provided a reasonable way to deal with this problem.
- That said, I think the very fact that discussion existed says to me that your cake (that you want to diminish the importance of a move banner) is not the cake you want (we want to prioritize where this is located in a part of the screen that isn't presently displayed to mobile users and which even desktop users are likely to miss). Those goals are at odds in their core motivation. Izno (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I picked this up
and fixed the CSS in [5]. I found a much simpler non-CSS solution in [6]. Sandbox. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ready to work on it again now. We need help picking up from someone more familiar with CSS here. Sdkb talk 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly not being used as a demo, having been created 4 years ago. And I said "subject to the exercise" anyway, which at a gracious review might be interpreted as "whenever you get around to actually working on it again". Which can also be done in a user space sandbox anyway. Izno (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's rather hard to develop any new feature if you're required to get the feature approved before you're allowed to create a demo. Sdkb talk 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Wugs and Sdkb. Valid problem statement re the current RM signalling, and I don't understand why "we might use it" isn't a good enough reason not to delete a template we might use.Apart from the culture at this venue, which does a lot of good work cleaning out genuinely non-useful / abandoned templates, is there anything in guidance or policy that's so strict about untranscluded templates? I'm genuinely curious if this is something that is recommended to contributors, or if people here are just trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations. Second choice userfy to User:Sdkb/Move topicon. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
isn't a good enough reason not to delete a template we might use.
The refrain is common in the sense that WP:OSE is a common refrain at a content discussion (such as AFD). We get people every day claiming a template will be used, despite the usual evidence to the contrary, sometimes decades in the making, that no, that template has not been used.if people here are just trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations.
No, it's a point here because people should be able to find the template they want, and not templates they don't want or which have little use. Izno (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)- That reasoning is a pretty strong argument I hadn't previously considered. Thanks, Izno. Folly Mox (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox, the more time I spend at TfD, the more I am coming to the view that, although they won't say it out loud (or perhaps even acknowledge it to themselves),
trying to keep the relevant database reports at low populations
is precisely the point for some participants. If confusion with other templates was the actual goal, I would expect discussion to focus on factors like whether the name is confusing or whether it has clear documentation. As always, people gravitate rigidly to easy-to-measure metrics to the exclusion of the broader picture. That explains why the "it ought to be used" argument — which would be persuasive under any common-sense consideration, as well as WP:TFD#REASONS'and has no likelihood of being used
condition — here just gets a "well it's not" retort. Sdkb talk 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Folly Mox, the more time I spend at TfD, the more I am coming to the view that, although they won't say it out loud (or perhaps even acknowledge it to themselves),
- That reasoning is a pretty strong argument I hadn't previously considered. Thanks, Izno. Folly Mox (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TG requires 2 uses:
orphaned or used on only one page
. Wait I submitted an ER to enable this template, Keep if accepted before this TfD closes. Otherwise draftify then delete after 6 months of WP:G13.142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would have been nice if someone had troubled themselves to drop a courtesy notice on the bot operator's talk before this had been relisted twice. There is a fundamental problem here, which should have been brought up in earlier discussions. Template:Top icon is a metatemplate used to help build top icons, the little (usually 20x20 pixels) icons in the top-right area of a page. Template:Move topicon is way bigger than 20×20 which can really cause problems with compatibility with other top icons. As the name implies, it should be an icon with no room for messages such as "A requested change to this page's title is under discussion." In other words, just this –
– by itself, with an embedded clickable link – would be a suitable top icon for announcing requested moves in a much less intrusive manner. I've been around long enough to remember the years when the three rationales listed at the top of this section held sway, and for those reasons we did not announce RMs in mainspace. Only after considerable concerns were expressed that RMs were not having adequate participation, did I implement these notices by popular demand. Now consensus seems to be trending the other way, as too many drive-by opinions are causing RM to become a dumpster fire. I'm open to the idea of scaling back to announcing them in mainspace with a top icon, but it should be a legitimate top icon which complies with guidelines. Please rewrite this template to make it compliant. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There. I put a compliant RM top icon on Shangri-La City. Click on it and it takes you to the talk page section hosting the discussion. If you want to replace the current notice template with that, start an RfC at WT:RM to get a consensus, and then I'll make it happen. I see that topicons aren't shown on mobile. I'm not familiar with standards for mobile or what the solution for that might be. Maybe mobile readers don't need to be participating in RM discussions. I don't hardly ever do Wikipedia on mobile, just desk and laptops. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
legitimate top icon which complies with guidelines. Please rewrite this template to make it compliant
Done. Sandbox|compliant=1
.no room for messages
but everyone else in Review_of_consensus liked the mbox. Rewrite proponents should start an RfC.aren't shown on mobile
I just left the mbox showing on mobile. Based on [7], I will also show the mbox on the desktop new design. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- Essentially I'm hearing you saying that neither the Mbox metatemplate (used in system messages, and on approximately 3,370,000 pages, or roughly 5% of all pages) nor the Top icon metatemplate (used on approximately 74,000 pages) are acceptable solutions. The Mbox yells too loudly, and the top icon whispers too quietly, so you want to design a new in-between system that talks in a more normal tone of voice. {{coord}} is another well-established "indicator" which has proven compatible with the others. I'm uncomfortable with such a new system being "boldly designed" by some unknown IP rather than an admin or template editor with an established track record. I'm concerned about compatibility with other established page-layout elements. The need for and introduction of a new hybrid meta-template should be given a wider review and obtain a broader consensus at the Village Pump before we boldly introduce it at requested moves, in my view. This new element should not be called a "top icon", because it's not that. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Wbm1058:
"boldly designed" by some unknown IP
What did Iboldlydesign at all? All I did was fix the code of User:Wugapodes's design. The most was fixing mobile and merging the mbox ER. - It's not me
saying that neither ... Top icon metatemplate ... acceptable solutions
. I had already changed it to your design at {{Requested move notice/sandbox}} on 20 August. I'm personally fine with it, but as aunknown IP rather than an admin or template editor with an established track record
, I can't join you in overruling the consensus of a discussion of 14 editors (mostly supporting). Btw, I reopened the ER, which has been using your design since August 20. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, OK, so you're a co-designer. And the one who's pushing this at the moment. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- As you rejected the compromise (which is your design except mobile fixes), I will leave you to push the 100%-your-code solution at {{Move topicon/sandbox}}
- Userfy or delete. Work can continue at {{Requested move notice/sandbox}} 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, OK, so you're a co-designer. And the one who's pushing this at the moment. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Wbm1058:
- Essentially I'm hearing you saying that neither the Mbox metatemplate (used in system messages, and on approximately 3,370,000 pages, or roughly 5% of all pages) nor the Top icon metatemplate (used on approximately 74,000 pages) are acceptable solutions. The Mbox yells too loudly, and the top icon whispers too quietly, so you want to design a new in-between system that talks in a more normal tone of voice. {{coord}} is another well-established "indicator" which has proven compatible with the others. I'm uncomfortable with such a new system being "boldly designed" by some unknown IP rather than an admin or template editor with an established track record. I'm concerned about compatibility with other established page-layout elements. The need for and introduction of a new hybrid meta-template should be given a wider review and obtain a broader consensus at the Village Pump before we boldly introduce it at requested moves, in my view. This new element should not be called a "top icon", because it's not that. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- There. I put a compliant RM top icon on Shangri-La City. Click on it and it takes you to the talk page section hosting the discussion. If you want to replace the current notice template with that, start an RfC at WT:RM to get a consensus, and then I'll make it happen. I see that topicons aren't shown on mobile. I'm not familiar with standards for mobile or what the solution for that might be. Maybe mobile readers don't need to be participating in RM discussions. I don't hardly ever do Wikipedia on mobile, just desk and laptops. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy. At the least, it should be renamed as it's not an icon. It's wider than a dozen top icons in a row, isn't it? Has the potential of crowding article titles on smaller windows. If we want to use an actual icon to announce requested moves in mainspace, we don't need a new template for that. It can be done by changing the existing template. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Had made a suggestion for improvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 33#Chinese elections, but no changes have come forth. Moving towards deletion as the template does not deliver on what its title promises, it merely lists sessions of the National People's Congress which is just a rehash of certain heads of {{National People's Congress}}, and does not serve as a navigable aid to articles about the actual process of delegate selection to the NPC (compare with {{Chinese elections (1912–1949)}}). Neither are NPC elections the sole form of elections in China. This template needs a complete overhaul and as of now is very apt for a WP:TNT. Gotitbro (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While the articles included do not have 'election' in their titles, they do include details of the respective elections. For example, 1st National People's Congress includes details of the election to the Congress and the Congress' election of the chairman and vice chairman. In future, you would likely get more engagement by raising the matter either on the template talk page or WT:E&R, where there are more likely to be editors interested in the specific topic. Cheers, Number 57 23:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are only two articles when digging through the main category that are not the entries in the navbox. However, none of the links in the navbox are of election articles even if it is mentioned in these articles, but they make up a part of it and are not the central focus of it. There isn't still enough with this navbox worth keeping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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 [8]. 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 [8]. 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.