Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7

Template:Wikify

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 no consensus. Lack of consensus from less than 3 months ago doesn't appear to have changed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was deprecated years ago, and can safely be deleted. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 23:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more to rational: Templates should never be kept in the codebase for anything but actual use. This isn't an article which has some significance, but just a code used for a while for a specific purpose. If this is notable enough, create an article WP:Wikify which describes what it does, but I somehow have a suspicion that would be speedy deleted for being non-notable. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pages like this really ought not to be in the template namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the prior nomination that was just over two months ago (which resulted in no consensus). This has historical significance, and is a term that editors may not be familiar with when going through old revisions of articles. I would recommend Fully protecting it though and making it so it doesn't transclude anything if someone attempts to use it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Locke Cole. Especially because it was nominated just two months ago, and got a lot of attention. Christian75 (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you both want to invoke the previous discussion then the "no consensus" numbers were actually 5 supporting delete and 3 opposing, so while closer calls it a "no consensus", it is clear that majority of the people involved are in favor of deleting it and it was kept on a technicality. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Expand

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was deprecated years ago. We can kill the disambig and redirect it to {{stub}} or {{expand section}}. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why not redirect it to {{Expand list}}, {{Missing information}}, {{Stub}}, {{Expand section}}, {{Empty section}} or {{Lead too short}} and for foreign languages to {{Expand language}}. Christian75 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting will be problematic because of the history of the template. None of the possibilities really match the original purpose of the template, which is why it wasn't redirected in the first place. I think no redirect is best. --Bsherr (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and for historical purposes. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Infobox NFL Draft

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted on 2018 December 15. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_NFL_Draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox_sports_draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Lep and Template:Lept

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lept (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates are possible WP:G8 candidates. The "Education Program" and "Education Program talk" namespaces no longer exist. (I was considering WP:CSD-ing these per WP:G7 as I am their creator, but since I created these a few years ago, I decided to bring them here instead.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Seem to be unused so shouldn't be even a problem. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Cross

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 merge to Template:Cross. Can be done with a redirect. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages); renders asN (code: [[File:X mark.svg|20px|link=|alt=☒]]<span style="display:none">N</span>) - 18598 transclusions
Template:Xmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages); renders as N (code: {{cross|18}}) - 419 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Cross with Template:Xmark.

Redundant. Xmark is just Cross with its default size and color output. However, Xmark is the better name (X is not the shape that usually comes to mind for the word "cross"; try: +, ↑, and †). The code to keep is at Template:Cross (with features not present in what is presently Template:Xmark). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Xmark, after substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge in other direction), whether "Xmark" is a "better name" or not it's clear that "Cross" is the one widely known and used, with almost 98% of transclusions. I don't see a need to make over 18000 edits with little benefit. –xeno^talk 16:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the other way around: "Cross" is both older in creation (2006 as opposed to 2008) and overwhelmingly more used and known (18,000+ to 400+). I don't see any benefit in a merge within "Xmark"; further, the name choice looks like a matter of preference, and it looks like, for years, "cross" has been the one most preferred in use. Impru20^talk 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect I totally agree that there is no reason for 2 templates doing the same thing, but lets keep the second around as a redirect. Whichever is decided as the "better name" just redirect the other. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The TFM template is messing up the documentation of all the "image and comment" templates. Why isn't it noincluded? This messes up almost everywhere that templates that transclude these icons are used. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 23:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and merge to "cross", which to me is a more logical name. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Xmark we should keep Cross becasue of the higher transclusion count. Whether Xmark is redirected or deleted doesn't matter to me. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 05:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment: So, all references now to the Cross template include the link "‹See TfM›", which may be destroying the layouts of some pages. Will this be the case until the template is merged/deleted/other? Personally, I don't see the point of the merge, as "cross" (being the opposite of "tick") makes more sense as a name here... --Philk84 08:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The name issue is orthogonal to the merge proposal, since whichever is kept, the other will redirect to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Infobox film festival

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted on 2018 December 15. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_film_festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox_theatre_festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Infobox flash series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 relisted on 2018 December 15. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_flash_series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Demi Lovato songs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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 merge to Template:Demi Lovato. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demi Lovato songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Demi Lovato (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Demi Lovato songs with Template:Demi Lovato.
No need for multiple navboxes. Could easily be dealt with by one, especially considering the small size of {{Demi Lovato}}. --wooden superman 13:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose please be reasonable; the main navbox isn't so small and you know it. Merging them would overfill the main navbox for no good reason when there's many more song articles than other pages for her. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Demi Lovato}} is tiny. All can easily be handled in one navbox - have a look at THIS version. See, no problem. --wooden superman 16:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there IS a problem; that version is bloated for no good reason. I'm not going to pretend otherwise even if you do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even remotely bloated!!! Also, don't forget that navigation works a lot better if all articles can be accessed from a single navbox. --wooden superman 09:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie about it not being bloated, and navigation doesn't work better in that linked diff at all, though you evidently don't care about overcrowding navboxes. It's easier to find specific tracks as they are in their own navbox. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to watch the way you phrase things and assume good faith. You have blatantly accused me of lying and pretending. STOP THIS NOW. The navbox is neither bloated nor crowded, and smaller than hundreds of similar navboxes. A navbox serves its purpose far better if all links are in one place, not unnecessarily split into two. Your argument is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is not just for you. --wooden superman 14:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a precedent to merge navboxes like this. See the many different related merge discussions... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24#Template:Lionel Richie singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Template:The_Cure_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_18#Template:Jamiroquai_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Template:A_Day_to_Remember_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Template:Pink_Floyd_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_5#Template:R.E.M._singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16#Template:Avicii_songs, etc, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT? That's absurd as I mentioned it would be easier to find specific tracks as they are in their own navbox. You cannot reasonably assert otherwise. The assertion that the navbox "serves its purpose far better if all links are in one place, not unnecessarily split into" is also oversimplified and you made navigation harder by stuffing most of them into one line. There's more nuance to splitting navboxes than your "we only need one" stance suggests. Furthermore, calling merging a "precedent" is exaggerating when not every song navbox receives consensus to be merged. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox should only be split if it gets too big. The default position should not be two navboxes. And with these musician templates all two often the second "song" navbox has the singles chronology broken, splitting the songs instead by album, which causes its own navigational issues. But I see we're just repeating the same arguments as we did at Adele and probably countless others, so I don't see a lot of point to this exchange, especially considering your attitude. --wooden superman 14:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this: they do in many cases become too big as one box, more often than you seem to think. Even if they were to be merged, singles chronology would only have merit for a navbox specifically dedicated to one's singles and no other tracks. That's not the case with many of the songs navboxes. One shouldn't try to be so single-centric when not every song in such navboxes or their main act navboxes is a single. It just places undue emphasis on single release (or lack thereof) when that's not supposed to be a singles discography or the focus of any navbox other than singles-only navboxes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about using nested navboxes? Then some of it can be collapsed? --Bsherr (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how one can nest them. Please do tell. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Template:Navbox with collapsible groups. You can choose the default state of each collapsible group (collapsed or expanded) on each page, so, for example, on song articles, only a songs group will be expanded and the others collapsed. --Bsherr (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's way too small to warrant this. This is barely even a medium sized navbox. Take a look here. --wooden superman 09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barely medium? Surely you jest. That diff also makes it harder to navigate for specific tracks, not easier at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relatively small navbox, when you compare it to something like {{George Washington}} or {{Dracula}}. No it doesn't make it harder to navigate, they are now represented in the correct chronology per that version. See this discussion. Also, this makes for good reading, thrashing the same situation out again. --wooden superman 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Size is only one consideration. Relevance is another. If only some groups are particularly relevant for navigation, the others can be collapsed. We routinely auto collapse navboxes when more than one appear on a page, even when both are very small. --Bsherr (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all relevant though. Collapsing any of it would hinder navigation and is completely unnecessary. --wooden superman 13:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how collapsing would hinder anything. Regardless, the thread you've linked doesn't definitively indicate "correct chronology" in the way you've suggested, and you shouldn't downplay the issue of putting too much content in one navbox. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's all relevant, generally. If it weren't, it wouldn't be together in the same navigational template. But relevance is relative, not absolute. As to the contention that it hinders navigation, it wouldn't do so significantly more than the autocollapse feature (see Template:Navbox/doc#Setup_parameters) already does, would it? --Bsherr (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to collapse any part of this navbox (other than the normal autocollapse). It's not a big navbox, and navigation benefits from having all links showing at once, hence the call to merge. I'm not even sure why we're having this conversation. --wooden superman 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By proposing a merge, you started the conversation by taking this to TFD, so that's why it's being held. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge, no need for two navboxes when one will do. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Frietjes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The short length of both navboxes and the significant overlap in topical coverage does not warrant two separate navboxes as of currently. —Madrenergic^talk 07:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is an obvious merge. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).