Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 2
April 4 >

April 3

edit

Template:Uncertain

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template has existed for two years, no documentation, no explanation of what it is to be used for, no activity. FeralOink (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep; this template is being used in two articles, which are currently broken by the TFD nomination. Lack of documentation is not a valid deletion reason. FeralOink, please withdraw this nomination to unbreak the articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw, but please tell me which two articles first.--FeralOink (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Uncertain. Keep as a perfectly standard member of its family despite the low use. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:International Challenge Cup

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these seasons are stand-alone articles and simply redirect to International Challenge Cup. No need for a template in this case. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Burrows Wheeler 1994

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

The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:TG, this template should be deleted because it is redundant when compared to more-generalized citation templates. Also, it is seldom used (two transclusions currently with its creation date circa 2013), and given that the article referenced in the template is important but not seminal, I don't see this template's usage increasing. The template's creator is a well-established editor, so I'm open to hearing objections. Pngdeity (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Historical American Documents

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

The result of the discussion was splitkeep . There is strong consensus to split the template, however it is yet unclear how the template should be split, discussion is open at Template talk:Historical American Documents#Split. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Overturned to split per WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 30 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the course of this TFD there was a majority opinion that this template is potentially too large and should be split (not only for size reasons but to avoid duplication with templates such as {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}). This is a procedural nomination to see if there is a formal consensus to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split per discussion you mention above where there was significant support for this. {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} also already exist, so there is already substantial duplication, not only between these navboxes, but also within this nominated navbox. For example Samuel Adams is present 3-4 times, so if navigating, which occurrence are you even navigating from? --woodensuperman 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this navbox is not placed on the pages of the individual signers, which is taken care of by the alphabetical signers navboxes. The names are linked for the convenience of the readers, and unlinking them would be the "solution" and that seems kind of an unneeded and almost over-the-top technical nuance (so let's leave the links per commonsense). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the more reason to split and make sure that navbox transclusion is correctly implemented without redundancy. --woodensuperman 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no redundancy, the individuals listed on each section of the navbox are part of the history of the specific document. All that would change would be unlinking the names, which seems kind of an unwarrented round-about exercise in denying readers access. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the navbox should be transcluded. You seem to be advocating a two tier system of navboxes, split into component parts and transcluded, and merged but not transcluded. This is not how navboxes are supposed to work. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --woodensuperman 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are names of the individual signers of the documents. Are you saying that the navbox, or the four navboxes if split, should be added to each of the individual signers when there are already an adequate navbox for the signers of each document? You are simply advocating removing the links to the names, which seems like a head-scratcher of needless adherence to a guideline. For this one, to keep the names linked on the HADocuments navbox, the policy WP:IAR would adequately apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not once have I suggested we remove any links. --woodensuperman 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what are you suggesting? That the single navbox or the four split navboxes all be added to the pages of each of the signers? That's fine with me but seems undue since the alphabetical navboxes for the signers of each document exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting the navbox is split so that there isn't the duplication, redundancy and seemingly two-tier system we have now. --woodensuperman 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep as to the discussion listed, please note that there was no alert given at the navbox for deleting this navbox, no alert given at the topics in would affect, and no alert given, well, anywhere. Such an established and respected navbox should not, of course, be deleted as an aside at a totally different discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as to this nomination. This is the best map of the American founding documents of the United States on the internet, and is a full map to Wikipedia's collection on the founding documents. There is no duplication as to individual signers, the navboxes listing the signers are in alphabetical order which this full template lists the signers by states. It doesn't have to link the names, but it would be kind of foolish not to, and many topics have various navboxes which link to the pages and many others have sections which are combined as a full topic, as this one does. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Randy. Any duplication that may occur exists withing the context of its own section. Many reference manuals make the same general statement, but in different context. e.g. Did you know that in most reference manuals about the American Revolution they mention several times that George Washington was the first president?  Indeed.. but always in a different context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and let's notify major editors of this template, Drdpw and Paine Ellsworth. This is not a standard just-another-day beanbag navbox, this is the major template outlining, as a specific group, the four founding documents of America just as we are in the midst of the nation's 250th birthday celebrations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split of unnecessarily long template as consensus on the merits at the individual discussions. I do agree discussion of such a highly visible template should get appropriate notice, but necessary housekeeping does not invalidate the need for such discussion. The creation of this discussion to confirm the apparent outcome of earlier discussions demonstrates OP's efforts in this regard. The individual discussions linked demonstrate a general consensus to split these (not delete them) so they make more compact forms. IMHO, there's nothing policy-based in User:Randy Kryn's very bolded "strong keep". Nobody is advocating deletion of any kind. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four together form a notable topic, and probably hundreds if not thousands of templates are presented in navigatable individual sections. This seems a good navbox for such a typical combination, and has been since its creation (with no objections by anyone until now) in 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, your opinions have been made clear. You are bludgeoning these discussions but not gaining support for your positions. It won't be necessary for you to comment on each disagreeing assertion in this discussion. On the merits, notable topics have their own individual articles and templates. In my opinion, this template is unnecessarily massive. BusterD (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No bludgeoning is taking place, simply comments and replies to aspects of this unusual nomination to clarify. As for not gaining support, this discussion has just been put up, so any support would come later and not during the initial clarifying discussions which often occur at such noms. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your replies are in response to the multiple statements made by another editor. The only "bludgeoning" I see around here is coming from an editor making accusations, which only compounds and frustrates the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • split, as mentioned above {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} exist, splitting would help with this duplication in navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —There's lot's of talk about splitting, but not much about what will be moved. The template is well organized and laid out in separate sections -- easy to navigate. It would seem we need more than the opinion that it's "too long". It's like complaining that a dictionary or a a reference manual is too big. That could be the case if the dictionary wasn't alphabetized, or the manual didn't have a Table of Contents, and/or an index.i.e. Organized. Our template is well organized, and all on one easy to navigate, sectioned, chart. Any "duplication" only occurs in the context of a different section on the chart. i.e. Consistency.  Splitting will involve further debate, for who knows how long, not to mention the potential for disruption among those editors who actually use this template to help their writing and referencing. Unless we have more than an opinion that the template is "too long", there seems to be no pressing reason to try and fix what isn't broke in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per previous discussion. Izno (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. While, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm voting to "split" since it would avoid duplications. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split: I do not understand why there is such an argument. We can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. Why not just split {{Historical American Documents}} into a bunch of sub/child navboxes (where {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} could potentially represent the Continental Association section although I might be alright with a different navbox with duplication here if it was adequately called for). Each of the subnavboxes just needs a their border parameters controlled with something like: |border={{{border}}} and then {{Historical American Documents}} can just call them each with |border=subgroup in much the same way it already calls each section {{#invoke:navbox|navbox|child|...}}} but convert each to {{NavboxTemplateName|border=subgroup}}. The only real difference would be more V • T • E navbar links (unless |navbar=plain is used) and smaller lists of things to maintain on each subnavbox. —Uzume (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no meaningful reason to perform a split like that. It's literally not a win over either the status quo or the suggested (full) split of the template. Izno (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to split this to discrete navboxes for each topic, not overcomplicate or overthink this. --woodensuperman 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we're going to split, let's keep it simple. For example...
  • The Constitution section', with its subsections, should remain as is.
  • The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association sections should go together in a two-section nav-box, as these documents were like the prototypes of, and were the precursor to, the Constitution..
  • The Declaration of Independence section should get its own nav-box, as it ties into almost everything else.
Each of these nav-boxes of course should have bold links to the others, perhaps at the top of a given nav-box for easy access. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, three or four discrete navboxes as you suggest. However, we should not be linking away to template space from navboxes. Links in navboxes should only really link to article space. --woodensuperman 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to reduce duplication as suggested above. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nav-box in question, when collapsed, reduces down to a hidden stack of sub-navboxes, very neat and orderly. This is the way it occurs in all the articles that include this navbox at the bottom. IOW, our navbox is already split into sub navboxes. This so called "duplication" only exists among separate navboxes. It's as if we're making an issue over the idea that a given fact occurs more than once, in a different context, in a particular article, which is common place here at WP, and in most historical texts. While there has been generic mention of "duplication", no one has bothered to explain how this poses some kind of problem. Bear in mind that if we split as suggested above, the navboxes in question will simply be stacked one above the other, in the same way they already occur in our navbox here, and the way all the navboxes are listed here and here, and in many other articles. Splitting will mean the stack of navboxes in these articles will only get taller. As indicated, I can go along with splitting, as this is the overwhelming consensus, but I fail to see what we will accomplish other than to make the stack of navboxes in the given articles taller. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: cutting across the grain here, but a split wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for insistence on retaining these space-intensive (and duplicative) links to each and every signer, no matter how minor the historical figure. As an alternative to splitting, I could propose we replace each of these list of biographies with a link to "list of signers of Foo" pagespace. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I voted, I'm not for a split...but linking to a list? ...I dunno. The whole purpose of a navbox is for guick reference and easy navigation. Again, the duplication is under different headings, or contexts. e.g.Roger Sherman occurs under the Constitution and Continental Association and Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections.  John Hancock occurs under the Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. If a reader wants to find out which person signed what document this can be quickly and easily accomplished in one navbox. If a reader has to jump to a list to ascertain these things in every instance it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a navbox. Moreover, if one has to jump to separate navboxes to accomplish this it again undermines the whole purpose of a navbox. All the sections of this navbox are collapsed into one heading bar, so article space isn't an issue. IOW, are we all here to fix what isn't broke, and in the process making it more difficult for an editor to go about what should be a simple task? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware of several things,
1) This navbox is not expanded but collapsed, so it amounts to one line at every article it is presented at, so Wikipedia space is not an issue.
2) There is no need to add the navboxes to each signers page, this is accomplished by the concise and alphabetical signer's navboxes. The links to the signers is for readers ease when reading the navbox.
3) Some of the confusions here for splitting editors is that the navbox covers too much when, if fact, it condenses and joins the Founding documents of the United States, a valid topic.
4) Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of sectioned navboxes. Splits like this are not uncommon, are useful for topic recognition and in this case very useful for full mapping of the topic 'Founding documents of the United States'. If split then many articles will have to have two, three, or even four navboxes in its place, which will do the opposite of the concerns here.
Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Azali Assoumani sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FC Energetik-BGU Minsk squad

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant football squad template. Almost no blue-linked players left after club's relegation from top division. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Archean graphical timeline

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline template. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Alentejo Line stations

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with only 2 blue links. Gonnym (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_3&oldid=1223379388"